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.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay, while you're looking, can I ask you another question?
12:35 p.m.
P.C., As an Individual
It's right here. I have it right here.
I mentioned this earlier, and I'm sorry to be repetitious on it, but I think it is so significant and important, as it would be to every one of you, if you and your families were falsely accused.
Consider this. After he has triggered all of this activity with his false statements about Mr. Harper and me, and his false affidavits, he is asked directly--and I repeat it, and I ask you to reflect carefully on this.... While Mr. Schreiber will save his new revelations for the inquiry, when asked outright if he knows of any wrongdoing by Mr. Mulroney, he answered, “I don't know. The inquiry has to find out.”
This is why I asked for the full inquiry. I think it's now clear that we have an entirely different situation on our hands.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you for that.
Mr. Schreiber sent us two binders, plus a third binder with a bunch of Googled stuff. Really it has about seven letters to you from him personally, starting in 2006. It goes to 2007, and there's a wide variety.... In one, he admits he hasn't talked to you or corresponded with you, or you have not responded, since you saw him at an event with Mr. Munk. I think there was a dinner in honour of Mr. Munk in 2000. Is that accurate? You have not spoken to him or sent him anything directly yourself in response to any of his letters since 2000?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
And before 2000, before seeing him at this event, had you been in contact with Mr. Schreiber on a regular basis?
12:35 p.m.
P.C., As an Individual
I would say intermittently, if at all. But I know that since 2000, I haven't had a word with him. I've never responded to anything that he says.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
So when he gave you that $300,000 or $225,000, whatever the number is--
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Sorry, sir, it was $225,000. He didn't provide us with any correspondence regarding that. Do you have any correspondence in which he is asking for any record of the work that you have done on behalf of that $225,000?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
So you provided him no receipt for it, and he asked for no receipt?
12:35 p.m.
P.C., As an Individual
He asked for absolutely none, and he was very satisfied with the full report of over an hour that I gave him in New York City at the Pierre Hotel. He said, “This is tremendous initiative. It's hard work visiting these chiefs of state to see if --”
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
And this was a verbal report? There was actually no paper exchanged at that time?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
But there is a witness to that discussion, is that correct?
12:35 p.m.
P.C., As an Individual
You said you weren't sure if it was $300,000 or $225,000. You shouldn't be surprised. Mr. Schreiber came here and said that he gave $30,000 cash to Jean Charest's brother for his leadership campaign. Then he told Stevie Cameron and Harvey Cashore for their book,“Schreiber had expressed his approval of Charest in the time-honoured fashion with a donation to his campaign...of $13,000.” And then Mr. Charest said that he got $10,000. Surely--
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
That segues nicely into my last question. You've quoted Mr. Schreiber from court cases. You've quoted him from affidavits, which I believe you have to swear to—I've never had to do it. You're basically saying he's lying in at least one of them. How do we know he's not telling the truth in the last affidavit and that he didn't lie in court? How are we supposed to know the difference?
12:40 p.m.
P.C., As an Individual
If you figure that one out, you're going to heaven.
