Evidence of meeting #10 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mulroney.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
P.C., As an Individual
In the affidavit of November 7 that was given to you, which triggered all of this, at section 15, Mr. Schreiber swears under oath that
It was at this meeting that Mr. Mulroney and I entered into the Agreement. On June 23, 1993 Mr. Mulroney was still in office as Prime Minister of Canada and consequently resided at 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, Ontario.
So the thrust of it: June 23, I am still Prime Minister. According to him, we make a deal at Harrington Lake.
Mr. Schreiber also filed another affidavit, in another trial, dealing with his extradition, before another court, which he did not share with you, and it was the same year. Eight months before he filed the false affidavit we're talking about, he filed another affidavit. In this affidavit, filed before the Federal Court of Canada, he discusses his testimony in the Eurocopter case. He takes great pride in the fact that Mr. Justice Paul Bélanger, in that case, examined his testimony very carefully and declared that he was not a hostile witness.
That's because Mr. Bernstein, the chief crown prosecutor, sought to have him declared a hostile witness, saying he wasn't telling the truth. But Mr. Justice Bélanger disagreed, and rendered a decision saying Mr. Schreiber was telling the truth, that he was not a hostile witness, that in the Eurocopter case he was telling the truth.
Mr. Schreiber was so proud of that that he filed it in his affidavit that he filed on March 3 this year, eight months before he gave you the phony affidavit, the “get out of jail” affidavit of November 7.
So here we are with the affidavit in which Mr. Schreiber says that Judge Bélanger agreed that every word he said in the Eurocopter case was true. And what did he say in the Eurocopter case? What he said in the Eurocopter case was:
Question: “These thoughts of this idea that you had, this plan to hire Mr. Mulroney, what time are we talking about?”
Answer by Mr. Schreiber: “After Mr. Mulroney had left government.”
Question by Mr. Bernstein: “After he had ceased? After he had stepped down as Prime Minister?”
Answer by Mr. Schreiber: “Yes. Ja.”
In Eurocopter, he says this under oath, so proud of it that he repeats it and files it in an affidavit. In March of this year, eight months later, he files an affidavit, his “get out of jail” affidavit, and says exactly the opposite: that he made a deal with me on June 23 at Harrington Lake. Which one is perjury?
Which one is perjury, Mr. Chairman and colleagues? Is it the one under oath, which he filed in another affidavit on March 3? Or is it the affidavit he filed under oath in a courtroom in Toronto on November 7? They can't both be true.
And I'll tell you, as I said in my opening statement, at no time, directly or indirectly, was the matter of anything that dealt with employment raised by Mr. Schreiber with me. How do we know? He said so, under oath, which is the only time he has ever testified under oath in Canada until he got here. And this was down the street here, a stone's throw from this building in the Ottawa courthouse, and you have.... I invite you to read carefully. He didn't file this one. You don't have this one, but you should have it. Take a look at it. It's interesting.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
We're going to continue for a little while with some questions. I'm contemplating a break very soon, but I think we should move on to one more section.
I'm going to now give the floor to the Honourable Ken Dryden.
December 13th, 2007 / 10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Dryden Liberal York Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, I'll be splitting my time with Monsieur Rodriguez.
Mr. Mulroney, I have only a short period of time. I will ask my questions all together. I will not interrupt you.
Mr. Mulroney, you held the most privileged position in the country. Once Prime Minister of Canada, you are always Prime Minister of Canada, with all the expectations, assumptions, and hopes that come with this honoured position.
I have followed this matter far more closely as a citizen than I have as a member of Parliament. What I want to know is what I think most Canadians want to know.
Mr. Schreiber is at least a shadowy character, and he has been for a long time. I understand how first contacts happen and how mistakes can be made, but why did your association with Mr. Schreiber go on year after year? Why was the money exchanged in cash? Why in different cities? Why in hotel rooms? Why, Mr. Mulroney?
10:55 a.m.
P.C., As an Individual
Yes, sir.
You say that Mr. Schreiber is, at best, or at least, a shadowy character. Few people would disagree with that assessment today. But I ask you, Mr. Dryden, to reflect on the fact that it wasn't always so. Fifteen years ago, as I said, perhaps you missed it in my opening statement, he was the chairman of Thyssen Canada, with 3,000 employees in this country. He had an important association with Thyssen worldwide, with 180,000 employees. He was known in Canada--Alberta, Ottawa, Montreal--as a successful businessman, hard-driving, but successful.
That's the Karlheinz Schreiber who I knew and met. His associates involved people like Marc Lalonde and Allan MacEachen, with whom he was very friendly. This was reassuring, because these are people of the highest quality. These are the kinds of people on both sides of the aisle he tended to associate with. Elmer MacKay--you won't find a finer gentleman in Canada and of more honour than Elmer MacKay. This was the kind of person the association was with, and this is all I knew about him at the time.
Today, Mr. Dryden, it's a legitimate question. You and I might view life a little differently from what we did 15 years ago, and view people differently.
You ask, why in cash? I tried to answer that question in my opening statement and in a number of questions. Mr. Dryden, it's because, as he has said to me and then said publicly, he was an international businessman, and as he said, “I only dealt in cash.” I hesitated. He told one of the papers: “Do you think Brian Mulroney would have accepted a cheque from me?” Of course I would have, because in those days, 15 years ago, as I've told you, he was known to me only as a respectable businessman. But he said he only dealt in cash.
I've acknowledged, sir, that this was a mistake in judgment, and I've apologized for it.
Your question is, why in different cities? In Montreal, he was going through Mirabel. He had hired a suite. He was in the hotel, going to Europe.
In Montreal, he had a room at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel. He had come from elsewhere in Canada and that night he was going back to Germany--excuse me, to Switzerland. Through an intermediary he asked if I could come by and have a cup of coffee with him.
In New York, he was, as I understand it, at the Pierre Hotel to attend, the night before, a dinner with the Honourable Allan MacEachen, celebrating a North American-Germany experience of some kind, of some association. And that's where he was the night before. He planned to attend, as did I. I had been invited to a lunch and dinner to celebrate Elmer MacKay's wedding. He had just gotten married and there was a small luncheon or dinner party for him in New York. The coincidence worked. I met him at his hotel, the Pierre Hotel. That's the transaction and that's where it took place.
I know that if you look at it in retrospect, without knowledge of the details, you can say that this looks bad. It does. But it was, as strange as this might sound, as innocent as I've just told you. He was there with Allan MacEachen. We were going to participate in a wedding tribute to Elmer MacKay that noon, so we met there in his hotel.
I think your question is also significant, sir, because questions were asked about reporting.
I sat in his hotel room, in his suite, at his invitation, and gave him a report in excess of an hour on the various initiatives I had undertaken around the world to try to bring to fruition some success internationally to this product. My ultimate objective, Mr. Dryden, was where could I be helpful--how could I be helpful in this process?
I thought that if I could see the members of the P-5, the permanent five of the United Nations--the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia--that I could then see the Secretary General, if any interest had been evinced, and put to him the proposal that this Thyssen product—which, by the way, everybody agreed was superb—would better protect our peacekeepers and anybody else's. The object of the exercise was to see if we could persuade the United Nations to take advantage of this and generalize the opportunity for members who were on peacekeeping missions. That's why I went to Russia, to China, to Europe, and to the United States, in the hope that I could advance those interests.
11 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
I'm going to move to Mr. Rodriguez right now. You have about five minutes.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you.
Thank you for being here today, Mr. Mulroney.
On November 9, 2007, Prime Minister Harper stated that his ministers, the members of his caucus and he himself were to put an end to contact with you. I would like to take a somewhat more in-depth look at the scope of your relationship with the Harper government.
Is it true that you were asked to make telephone calls on behalf of the Prime Minister, his office, his ministers or his members, for example when Mr. Michael Chong wanted to resign from cabinet?
11 a.m.
P.C., As an Individual
No, no one asked me to do anything. Michael Chong is a young man whom I have known for some time. He was one of my supporters when I was in office. I heard a rumour from someone outside, I believe, that Michael was preparing to step down as minister. I thought that was a senseless decision on his part.
I simply called him, as a friend, to tell him that I had been around the block a few times. Of course, there are circumstances when a minister may resign. But resigning because of a motion from the House recognizing Quebec as a nation supported by almost all members made no sense whatsoever. I called him in that context. I suggested that he reconsider. I even suggested that he speak to his spouse before making the decision, but it was in vain.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you. In preparing for today's meeting, did you or a member of your team have contact with a member of the government or a member of Parliament?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that Mr. Harper or his government consulted you regularly, for example regarding election strategies in Quebec.
11:05 a.m.
P.C., As an Individual
No. From time to time, I received a friendly call, nothing more.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
It has been reported that you had a discussion with Minister Maxime Bernier about the wireless spectrum issue, and that during that discussion you reportedly asked the minister to meet with Pierre Karl Péladeau of Quebecor.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, order.
Mr. Tilson, could you give me the nature of your point of order?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
The nature of the point of order is that this is biggest fishing trip I've ever seen. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mandate of these proceedings. We're going off and talking about things that have absolutely nothing to do with the mandate you read to the committee.
Mr. Rodriguez comes in here as a johnny-come-lately with questions that have nothing to do with these proceedings. It's completely out of order.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The point of order is that the matter is not relevant.
At this point, I would like you to address the member's point of order. Can you please explain, without getting into too much detail, why you believe this question is relevant and germane to the matter before us?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
With pleasure, Mr. Chairman.
However, before doing that, I would like to tell Mr. Tilson, with all due respect, that he could raise the same point of order...
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
There are two aspects in answer to his question.
First of all, it is part of the mandate; allow me to refer to it:
[...] in particular, the handling of allegations by the present and past governments including the circulation of relevant correspondence in the Privy Council Office and Prime Minister's Office [...] to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards by any office holder [...]
Secondly, Mr. Schreiber mentioned on several occasions that he asked Mr. Mulroney to intervene on his behalf with the Harper government. Therefore, it is helpful if not necessary for the committee to know if Mr. Mulroney had the necessary contacts and influence in the Harper government, as Mr. Schreiber stated.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. On the same point of order I have Mr. Murphy and Mr. Del Mastro.
Mr. Murphy, please.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
It is precisely the point that Mr. Harper forbade members of his government to contact Mr. Mulroney.
Also, Mr. Chair, it goes to the core of any parliamentary hearing or any testimony, and that is credibility. We have knowledge that Mr. Mulroney did meet and speak. He will say yes or no. It's crucial to his credibility, Mr. Chair.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, we've been saying for a while that we were afraid these hearings could descend into a bit of a partisan witch hunt.
This is clearly not relevant. The issue before this committee pertains to Mr. Schreiber, his extradition, the Airbus settlement. Everybody knows this. It is known to the committee.
And I would extend to Mr. Rodriguez that he has not been here for very much of it--any of it, as a matter of fact--and it is relevant, Mr. Chair, because--