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.
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
I am absolutely convinced that your committee has all the powers it needs to continue examining these matters and that it must do so.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Spector. You bring us a very broad story as a career public servant who was involved.... You must have felt very uncomfortable when you worked in the Prime Minister's Office. You saw money being transferred. You saw people coming and going and cash being handled. Apparently when you left, you kept records, because a lot of the cheques were made out in your name, as if you were working...as a wage in terms of those cheques.
We also find that later on when you went back to...it must have been British Columbia, when the two parties were being put together, the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservative Party, you had a brief conversation with the present Prime Minister. With that, you and Mr. Harper apparently discussed the situation, and it must have been in terms of the two parties getting together, and the conversation according to your writings went around something about the relationship that Mr. Harper might have with Mr. Mulroney. In that conversation apparently, which you reported in the press, you gave Mr. Harper some recommendations in terms of how his relationship with Mr. Mulroney should be.
As you know, that recommendation that you suggested certainly wasn't followed, because even as late as 2006, Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Harper were having a very close relationship. In fact, the present Prime Minister was very happy to show Mr. Mulroney as one of the architects of his election victory in 2006.
So when you bring evidence to our committee today, talking about your work in the former Prime Minister's office--Mr. Mulroney's--the advice you offered, and the situation as it was, may I ask, in terms of the people you saw coming and going in dark suits and black ties, who apparently had no given purpose in going to see Mr. Mulroney, whether you could give our committee the names of any of those people.
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
No, Mr. Hubbard, as I have answered Madame Lavallée, I believe, I did not recognize any of those people.
But I must clarify some of things you've said, because I did meet with Mr. Harper in 2003, a couple of days after the article appeared in The Globe and Mail, the first article on the cash payments. Mr. Harper had a pained look on his face and he said, “What should I say?” This wasn't the reason for our meeting. He said, “What should I say if I'm asked about this?” I didn't give him any advice. At that point I was writing for The Globe and Mail....
I'd like to finish, because I think you put some words in my mouth that I would not like to have stand on the record.
I didn't give him any advice, because I thought that it was inappropriate for someone in my position to be giving political advice.
I would have advised him to be very careful, and I think he made a mistake in not being very careful. However, I think it is a mistake that a lot of people in this country made. You only have to think back to September, to a two-hour presentation by CTV, by their chief anchor, on Mr. Mulroney, which was a full-blown public relations exercise, which, at the very last minute, had a puff ball question thrown at Mr. Mulroney about the cash. Now, if the entire CTV news team in Ottawa, all these well-paid, qualified journalists from CTV, didn't smell something that would have said proceed with caution, if the chief anchor, the most experienced journalist in Canada, Lloyd Robertson, didn't smell something that said whoa, whoa, tabarnac, there's something here that we should be very careful about, why would Stephen Harper, poor Stephen Harper, have said, let's be careful about this?
I think that probably answers your question.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, Mr. Spector, we're going to wind this down now, and I have a couple of questions for you myself.
You started off...and maybe I can characterize some of the testimony. You have provided us what you believe to be some puzzle pieces and challenged us to try to put this puzzle together.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You talked about $10 million, and where did it go. Are you suggesting, or do you have any evidence, that this $10 million that you're talking about is money either from Thyssen AG or from Mr. Schreiber or any of his companies?
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
The $10 million that I'm referring to is what came out from the German justice system related to Karlheinz Schreiber. The best information we have is that Mr. Schreiber had $10 million to distribute in Canada, and either he kept it, or kept part of it, or he distributed it. I think we should find out which it is.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
Are you suggesting, or do you have any evidence whatsoever, that any moneys either from Thyssen AG or from Karlheinz Schreiber or any of his companies got into the PC Canada Fund with the specific directive that they be earmarked for Mr. Mulroney?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
On Bear Head, you are very familiar with the Bear Head project, first of all, in Nova Scotia. You knew it was cancelled by Mr. Mulroney in 1990. There were subsequent discussions about relocating that possible project in the Montreal area. Mr. Benoît Bouchard, I believe, was involved at the time. Mr. Elmer MacKay was involved at the time.
4:35 p.m.
A voice
Monsieur Corbeil--
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
How can you explain to Canadians that after the Prime Minister and the cabinet killed any prospect of a project because it was going to cost anywhere from $100 million to quite a bit more than that, some speculate, this was somehow still alive? Is this something that Mr. Mulroney knew about and wanted to sustain, continuing to have the impression that it was still alive when in fact it was not?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
That is the smoke in this whole thing.
Look, Peter Lougheed, a Conservative, had instructed his cabinet never to meet with Karlheinz Schreiber.
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
John Crosbie would never meet with Karlheinz Schreiber. I've told you what Harry Swain said about Karlheinz. And yet Karlheinz Schreiber had this access to the Prime Minister's Office to the point where I met with him, had this access to the Privy Council Office to the point where Paul Tellier met with him. There weren't a lot of Canadians who paid a courtesy call at Harrington Lake when Mr. Mulroney was leaving government.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. Sir, I understand.
Because you're familiar with Bear Head, you're familiar with the LAVs and you're familiar with what is being offered and exactly what Thyssen and Mr. Schreiber had in mind, can you give us any plausible explanation for why someone would think that this should be marketed internationally to Russia, China, France, and other countries? Is there any expertise there?
February 5th, 2008 / 4:40 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rock left the room.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
But it's now almost quarter to five and you're going on and on.
