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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Well, no, not “yes”, either we're going to hear Mr. Rock or we're not going to hear Mr. Rock.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, thank you.
As we discussed, our preference would have been.... We don't expect as many questions for Mr. Rock and we expect that--
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Well, how do you know, sir? You've taken over the meeting. Mr. Rock was scheduled to start at 4:30. It's now quarter to five.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I just wish you good luck in your endeavours. I think it's a very important task that you are performing and a very important service.
And just to finish off, my sense of what was going on was that nobody was going to buy them in Canada. DND was not going to buy these things. They were dead set against it at all levels. And the only possible way to make it go would have been to find some offshore countries to buy them.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Spector, thank you kindly for appearing before us.
I'm going to suspend for five minutes so that we can bring our next witness forward.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Our next witness is the Honourable Allan Rock, a Privy Councillor and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada during the time of the Mulroney Airbus settlement. He also served as Minister of Health and Minister of Industry during his 10 years as a member of Parliament, and he subsequently served as Canada's ambassador to the United Nations.
Good afternoon, Mr. Rock. We thank you kindly for accepting our invitation to appear before us today.
Mr. Rock, I expect you will recall the rules, procedures, and traditions of the House of Commons. In particular, you will recall the general expectation that witnesses appearing before committee testify in a truthful and complete manner. Do you wish to proceed under this understanding or would you feel more comfortable being formally sworn in by the clerk of the committee?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
The evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand you have an opening statement, and I would invite you now to make your opening statement.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have only 45 minutes before the vote, so I will read my opening statement.
But I'll try to shorten it because I understand there'll be questions, and time is running.
I believe the opening statement has been distributed to members of the committee, so you have it. But I prepared it to provide a framework within which you might ask questions about the Airbus litigation.
I recall in the opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that I served as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada between November 1993 and June 1997. I recall as well that in the Department of Justice at the time, and I believe it's still the case today, there is something called the International Assistance Group, a group of lawyers who concern themselves with providing advice to the Government of Canada in relation to matters involving other governments, including extradition, and also where police forces in Canada cooperate with police forces elsewhere in terms of investigations.
Among other things, the IAG, or International Assistance Group, transmits requests to foreign authorities by Canadian police services for assistance in investigations. The practice, at least when I was there in the 1990s, was for the Canadian police service in question to prepare a letter of request for the cooperation of the foreign police, bring it to the IAG, the lawyers there would ensure it was in appropriate form for the foreign government, and then it would be sent by the Government of Canada to that foreign government as a formal request for assistance.
I understand from the Department of Justice that as of 1995 there were between 100 and 150 requests for assistance, or letters of request, that went overseas from Justice on behalf of police departments in Canada every year.
Mr. Chair, these letters of request were always treated by the Department of Justice and the requesting police force with the utmost confidentiality, because they dealt with ongoing investigations into the activities of named persons. I am told that there has never been an instance before this one in which the contents of a letter of request became public, notwithstanding that some of them reportedly named other well-known figures.
I should add that the policy and practice of the Department of Justice in each one of these cases was not to inform or to involve the Minister of Justice or the minister’s office in any way before sending a letter of request. Because the letters requested assistance in ongoing police investigations, the minister had no role to play and could not properly either approve or disapprove of the letter going forward. Whether to send the letter was a matter for the police, and it would be improper to have the Minister of Justice and Attorney General deciding whether or how police investigations are carried on.
We all know, Mr. Chairman, that on September 29, 1995, a letter of request was forwarded to the Swiss authorities on behalf of the RCMP in relation to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, among others. The letter sought the assistance of the Swiss authorities in an RCMP investigation. In keeping with the justice department’s practice, I was not informed or consulted before that letter was sent.
In fact, I first learned of it on Saturday, November 4, 1995, when I was telephoned at home by Roger Tassé, who was one of the lawyers for Mr. Mulroney. After he briefly told me the nature of his call and what he wanted to talk about, I asked that he speak with my deputy minister, which he did.
On the following Monday, which was November 6, I read the letter of request for the first time. The officials at the justice department recommended that the matter be referred to the RCMP, on whose behalf the request was sent. Mr. Mulroney's lawyers wanted the letter withdrawn, but I was informed by Justice and RCMP officials that it could not be withdrawn because it had already been acted upon. It had been sent overseas. It had been taken by the Canadian consular officials to the Swiss bank, and indeed, copies had been given to the account holders, Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Moores.
There was also a concern that if an effort was made to withdraw it, we might draw more attention to it than we would have otherwise. Remember that during this period, it still had not been in the Financial Post.
But the Department of Justice did send a follow-up letter, making two points to the same Swiss authorities: first of all, emphasizing that everything in the letter of request was in the nature of an allegation only—there had been no findings, only an investigation—and that the letter must be read as comprising allegations; and secondly, underlining the crucial importance of scrupulously respecting the confidentiality of these communications. That letter was sent over to the Swiss authorities on November 14.
Mr. Chairman, on November 18, 1995, the Financial Post published a story about the letter of request, quoting at length from its contents. To this day—subject to what I'll say in a few moments about expert evidence that the government obtained on the question—there's really been no explanation as to how the Financial Post obtained that letter of request.
Mr. Chair, on the same day, November 18, 1995, Mr. Mulroney's lawyers called a press conference to announce that they were launching a libel action against the Government of Canada and the RCMP seeking $50 million in damages.
The government and the RCMP defended that action, and from time to time, the parties made efforts to resolve the litigation short of going to trial. As part of the litigation proceedings, Mr. Mulroney was examined under oath and was asked questions about various relevant matters. The answers Mr. Mulroney gave under oath led the government to conclude that he had not had any dealings with Mr. Schreiber.
As the government and the RCMP prepared for trial, we relied upon two defences in responding to the lawsuit.
First was that any communication by or on behalf of the Government of Canada, so long as it was in good faith and for a proper public purpose, was protected by either absolute or qualified privilege, so that no civil action could be brought in respect of it. And we had expert evidence to support that position.
The second defence was that none of the defendants actually published the libel. This defence arose from the fact that the letter, as served on Mr. Schreiber, was in the German language. In the days after it was served on him, someone arranged for lawyers in Switzerland to translate the letter into English. We called it the Blum translation.
We retained an expert who prepared a report that we intended to rely upon at trial to prove that the version of the letter published in the Financial Post was the Blum translation. Our expert identified what she called “a linguistic fingerprint” that demonstrated the link. If we could establish in the courtroom that the reporter was working from the Blum translation, that would suggest that persons other than the defendants had published the libel.
Shortly before trial, the Department of Justice learned that a member of the RCMP had disclosed to a third party, sometime in late 1995, the fact that the letter of request included the name of Mr. Mulroney. Counsel advised me that this unauthorized disclosure, if entered into evidence at the trial, would destroy our first defence—namely the defence of privilege—and weaken our second defence, which had to do with the publication. In those circumstances, I instructed counsel to reopen negotiations to see whether the litigation could be settled, and those negotiations resulted in the settlement agreement that Solicitor General Herb Gray and I announced on January 7, 1997.
There have been suggestions from time to time, from the outset in this matter, that the RCMP investigation was initiated either by me or other political figures for partisan or vindictive reasons. The settlement agreement, which was personally signed by Mr. Mulroney, sets out his position on that question. In paragraph 8 of the agreement, the parties acknowledged that the procedure used in sending the letter of request in this case was the same as that followed on numerous occasions under both the Mulroney and the Chrétien governments. In paragraph 9 of the settlement agreement, the parties acknowledged that the RCMP on its own initiated the Airbus investigation, that I was not involved in the decision to initiate it, and that before November 4, 1995, I was not aware of the letter of request.
Let me close simply by saying that although the justice department had a long history of sending letters like this in language such as that used in this case, I think we all learned from this instance, and certainly it was my belief that using language that is conclusory, when you're talking about, really, allegations, is wrong. So I directed, after I read the letter of request in this case, that the practice in the Department of Justice change, and it changed. I also appointed the Honourable Allan Goodman, who is a retired justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, to look into the whole of the procedure involving letters of request. He made a report with recommendations in early 1997, and I accepted and put into place all of his recommendations.
Mr. Chair, I hope committee members will find this brief summary useful. I would be happy to respond to any questions you might have.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you kindly.
Colleagues, we have about half an hour. That's enough time for the first round. So we're going to have Mr. Murphy, Madame Lavalleé, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Van Kesteren.
Mr. Murphy, please.
February 5th, 2008 / 5 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Rock, for being here.
Mr. Rock, you've mentioned that you and Solicitor General Herb Gray announced the intention of the government to settle this matter on January 6, 1997. I'm going to throw some dates at you. It wasn't until October 6, 1997, through the offices of Justice Gold, that a final settlement agreement paying over $2 million to Mr. Mulroney--$1.4 million for legal fees and $587,000 for public relations fees--was actually entered into.
The question I have for you is this. Either at the time of the January press conference or the October actual settlement or in fact the payments over 1997, did you become aware of the cash payments to Mr. Mulroney of somewhere between $225,000 and $300,000?
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Rock, you are no stranger to a courtroom and court proceedings--Law Society of Upper Canada treasurer, bencher. You're very highly respected in the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario. You know what I mean by a pleading.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
In Mr. Mulroney's pleading, his lawyer said on his behalf—you know how that works—that he had never had, directly or indirectly, any bank account either in Switzerland or any other foreign country. He has since admitted to having safety deposit boxes in various locations. But more importantly, he says he has never received any of the alleged payments in any form from any person named in the request for assistance. And I don't need to remind you that in the request for assistance Mr. Schreiber's name is there throughout.
At the discovery where the Government of Canada's lawyers concluded that Mr. Mulroney had not had any dealings with Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Mulroney in fact said, “I had never had any dealings with him”. That's a quote under oath at a discovery in aid of pleadings given by Mr. Mulroney. This discovery was in April 1996.
The discoveries go on to paint the picture of the relationship with Mr. Schreiber as something just in passing. He had an interest in German unification. He was a German businessman and he had coffee with Mr. Mulroney a few times in various places. That's the theme or the tenor of the discovery transcript.
Did you review any of the discovery transcripts, or were you fully briefed on what happened at the examinations for discovery in April 1996?