Evidence of meeting #14 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.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Thank you. There's one thing that surprises me a little. There are a lot of things that you say you were not aware of regarding what Brian Mulroney knew, things that he didn't tell you, whereas you were his spokesman, his press secretary, his communications advisor, the person in whom he should have confided a maximum of information. I have no doubt about your immense talent, your competence and your experience. Having worked a little with clients in an agency, I know that you normally sit down with the client and he tells you his entire story. Then, based on objectives and his strategy, you decide what you're going to tell the press. I think that a spokesman at a level as high as the one where you were should normally have been informed and asked questions—
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We need to let him answer the question, please, because your time is up.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
I'll finish my question. Was it because you felt it was unlawful ground or because Mr. Mulroney didn't talk to you about it—perhaps he too felt that it wasn't lawful, moral or ethical—that you didn't ask any questions?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I know we have to brief.
I would say, in answer to your question, that there were two periods. The period from 1995 until the settlement was reached in 1997 was a period when it was my work to speak on Mr. Mulroney's behalf. I earned my living as a public relations consultant, and Mr. Mulroney was a client. I could devote all the necessary time and resources to serving my client. Starting in 2000, when I joined Quebecor, I helped Mr. Mulroney and his family when communication issues arose. For example, when he was sick, I was the family's spokesman, as well as when he had various activities that resulted in calls from the media and when this affair resurfaced. But quite honestly, I'm not trying to avoid the issue; that wasn't my job. I didn't see Mr. Mulroney every day or even every week or month. We spoke on the telephone for three, five or 10 minutes, briefly. That's it.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to the spring of 2000, when Mr. Lavoie learned from Mr. Mulroney's lawyer, Mr. Gérald Tremblay—not to be confused with the mayor of Montreal; this is the one who will soon be the president of the Barreau du Québec—that the money received was a retainer. You subsequently used that word in all your public statements. What I find interesting is that that word has meaning not only for a lawyer, but a retainer may be important in relation to income when one has to file an income tax return. From the moment that money is paid into a trust account by a lawyer, for example, if he does not withdraw it, it is not taxable because it has not yet been paid as income.
What I want to ask you is when you learned from Gérald Tremblay in the spring of 2000 that Mr. Mulroney had received hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash from Mr. Schreiber, contrary to the information you had been given to that point—
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
No, but publicly, the contrary was said. It was said that Mr. Mulroney had never had any dealings with that gentleman, except coffee at the hotel. We're not going to go around telling stories.
Here's what I'm trying to find out from you. At that point, did you ask the question whether he had reported that money to the tax authorities?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
I didn't have to ask him that because he gave me the answer before I asked the question.
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
He had paid his taxes on what I had just been told. He had a retainer of tens of thousands of dollars in three cash payments, and the taxes had been paid. That's what was communicated to me.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
All right. Did you subsequently speak with Mr. Mulroney about that amount?
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
You never mentioned those payments to Mr. Mulroney at any time between the spring of 2000 and February 2008?
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I mentioned them one evening by telephone last fall, shortly before his testimony.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
You are his main spokesperson, you made statements that other committee members reported today, you mentioned three payments of $100,000, you have an explanation for that—we were all convinced that you would have one when you came here: a communications expert such as you wouldn't come here to discuss so flagrant a contradiction in public without having a good explanation—we all expected that, but I did not really expect that you would come here today to tell us under oath that, between the spring of 2000 and the fall of 2007, you never spoke about that amount with your client, who is no more or less than a former prime minister of Canada.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
First, he is no longer a client, if you mean that in the strict sense of the term.