Evidence of meeting #13 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.
5:20 p.m.
As an Individual
May I quarrel with your premise, sir, just for a moment? I didn't start an investigation; the RCMP did. And we didn't pull the plug on the investigation; we settled the lawsuit.
With those two clarifications, my answer to your questions--
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Your point is well taken.
Do you have any evidence to offer this committee of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the consulting agreement between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Do you have any evidence to offer this committee of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the circulation of correspondence from the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office, with particular emphasis on the correspondence sent by Karlheinz Schreiber to the current Prime Minister?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Do you have any evidence to offer this committee of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the Airbus purchase by Air Canada?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Given that the settlement that our government reached with Mr. Mulroney in 1997 was specifically tied to defamatory statements made about him in regard to the Airbus scandal--and I guess this question has been asked before, but I want to ask it again--would the now-public knowledge that Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber had a separate consulting agreement, unconnected to Airbus, have given you reason to re-evaluate the file at that time? If so, why?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, I don't believe there would have been a recommendation to settle on these terms had we known about that cash. It might have settled for other reasons, because as you've said, the settlement was all about the language used, and that hasn't changed. But I think it's a question of what terms it would have settled on. Had we known about the cash and the circumstances in which it was paid, it would have had a very significant effect on the litigation.
I'll point out that this case was all about reputation. Mr. Mulroney complained that the language used affected his reputation. But the disclosure of the cash payments also had that effect, and had that disclosure been in 1996 or 1997, before this case was settled, we would have been dealing with a very different set of facts. Either we would have pursued questions, as this committee is doing, about documents, about records, about witnesses--to find out where the trail led--or we might have settled the case because the language was inappropriate. But as I said, perhaps that settlement would have been on very different terms. Maybe there wouldn't have been a payment of costs. Maybe there wouldn't have been other terms that were agreed to.
We're speculating now, but I'm doing my best to answer your question.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you.
I want to go back to that letter of request that was sent by the justice department in September 25, 1995. When did you personally become aware of the letter to the Swiss authorities, the letter that ultimately came about, the $2.1 million?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
On Saturday, November 4, 1995, I was telephoned at home by Roger Tassé. That was when I first learned of the letter.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Why didn't you act right away and squash that thing so we wouldn't have had the exposure? Why was there a delay?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
We looked into that. When I say “we”, I mean that I met with the deputy minister or senior officials on Monday, November 6. I read the letter for myself. The request by Mr. Mulroney's lawyers was to withdraw it. When I asked about that potential course of action I was told that, in effect, it's already spent, it's been acted upon, it's been served on the bank, it's been served on the account holders. Don't forget that on the sixth of November--that's before the Financial Post had published the article--the effort then was to keep this as confidential as possible. The concern was, if an effort was made to withdraw it, that--by going back through the channels and doing such a thing--we might draw more attention to it than if we just remained silent and instead sent a second letter to the Swiss, which we did, making two points: number one, those are only allegations, and number two, please respect the confidentiality of this communication scrupulously.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I have to ask you this question. Was there pressure within the caucus that possibly...“Hey, this is something. We've got him”, and for that reason that letter wasn't pulled or acted on quickly?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
No. I don't recall any discussion in caucus about this. Certainly what motivated me was doing the best I could in the interests of all parties. The government...Mr. Mulroney's lawyers had a complaint about the language used. The RCMP wanted to maintain its investigation and not have that undermined. So we were working on that, and sending follow-up letters to the Swiss, looking into various steps we could take when, on November 18, the top blew off because the Financial Post published a lot of the letter and Mr. Mulroney's lawyers announced the litigation.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I have two questions, then. Who leaked the letter to the Swiss authorities? And, as justice minister, who was ultimately responsible for the $2.1 million charges that were laid to the Canadian taxpayers?
5:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Who leaked the letter to the Swiss authorities? It wasn't leaked; it was sent over. The protocol is that a Canadian consular official then provides a copy to the Swiss authorities and to the bank and to the account holders. So that wasn't a leak; that was a delivery.
The question is, who leaked the letter to the Financial Post? As I mentioned, we had an expert witness who was going to swear that the version that was referred to in the Financial Post was the version that was translated in Switzerland for someone after we sent it over in the German language, so we were going to establish that it wasn't the government that leaked it to the Financial Post.
In answer to your second question, regarding who is responsible for the $2.1 million, the government acknowledged that the letter should not have been sent in that language. It didn't apologize for the investigation. There is nothing wrong with investigating. Police can decide who to investigate. It was the language used that was the essential harm here, and it was for that reason we apologized and agreed to pay costs.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Colleagues, the bells have now started, so we'll wrap it up now.
I have just one question for you, Mr. Rock. On page 116 of Mr. Mulroney's day one testimony in his examination for discovery, he said, “I had never had any dealings with him”, referring to Mr. Schreiber. Of course some other details have now come out in these hearings. But on November 10, I believe, of last year, he had an interview with The Globe and Mail in which he admitted to receiving the three payments totalling $225,000 or $300,000. That is a direct contradiction to his sworn testimony in discovery that he made in a public pronouncement.
Is there any recourse to reopen the settlement, based on the fact that he voluntarily disclosed that he in fact did have business dealings when in fact at discovery he said he did not?
5:30 p.m.
As an Individual
As I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there is a procedure by which lawyers can move before the court to set aside an agreement based upon failure to make full disclosure. Whether it should take place in this case is a matter for the justice department in terms of their legal analysis and of course a question for the government of the day as to whether they wish to do so.
I can comment about the legal procedure, but I leave to others the question of whether the justice department has its own advice and whether this government is prepared to do that.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I thank you kindly, Mr. Rock.
Colleagues, Mr. Rock has agreed to respond in writing to any other questions we have. If you have any further questions for Mr. Rock, please submit them to the clerk. We'll forward them on to Mr. Rock and--
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
