Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

Good afternoon, colleagues. This is the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study of the Mulroney Airbus settlement.

Colleagues, as you know, we have three witnesses today, and as was agreed upon at our last in camera meeting at the end of January, we will be flexible with our time to make sure we have equitable distribution of questions to all parties, and we will possibly go a little over our 5:30 p.m. time if necessary in order to achieve that equity. So I ask for your indulgence as we move through the witnesses.

I have a very quick update on a couple of important matters—or maybe just one matter.

First of all, on January 16, as you will know, I wrote both to Mr. Schreiber and to Mr. Mulroney with regard to outstanding requests for information that they undertook in their testimony to provide the committee. On the 16th specifically, I wrote to Mr. Pratte with regard to Mr. Mulroney's undertakings. On January 28 we still had not received the information. I reminded him in a letter with the details of what we need on the international trips to China, Russia, France, and the United States—who he met, at what times, who accompanied him, etc., the full details.

On February 8 we still had not received a response from Mr. Pratte. The clerk sent a message to Mr. Pratte to again remind him of the undertaking to provide that information, and yesterday Mr. Pratte responded to that message indicating that Mr. Mulroney was travelling and could not be reached, and that Mr. Pratte himself would be in court for most of the week but he would do his best to accede to our request.

I simply wanted the committee to know that this is vital information in terms of the work done by Mr. Mulroney with regard to the payments made to him, and we will take all necessary steps to get the information for the members.

Our first witness today is the Honourable Marc Lalonde, who is a privy councillor and was a member of Parliament from 1973 to 1984. During this time he served as Minister of Finance, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, Minister of Amateur Sport, and Minister of National Health and Welfare.

Good afternoon, Mr. Lalonde.

[Marc Lalonde, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We thank you kindly for accepting our invitation to appear before us today.

Mr. Lalonde, as a privy councillor, I expect that you will recall the rules, procedures, and traditions of the House of Commons, and in particular you will recall the general expectation that witnesses appearing before the committee testify in a truthful and complete manner. Do you wish to proceed under this understanding, or would you feel more comfortable by being formally sworn in by the clerk of the committee?

[Marc Lalonde]

My commitment as a former member of Parliament and as member of the Privy Council—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you. We'll proceed under the understanding.

Do you have any questions before we proceed, sir?

[Marc Lalonde]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand you have a brief opening statement to make to the committee.

[Marc Lalonde]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's wonderful. I invite you now to address the committee.

[Marc Lalonde]

As the Chair mentioned, I left politics in 1984 to return to private life. In October of that year, I became a partner at Stikeman Elliott, a major Canadian law firm, specialized in commercial law and international commercial arbitration. In 2003, I became senior counsel at the firm, and in July 2006, I retired. Since then, I have been working on my own, exclusively on international arbitration.

A few weeks ago, I received your invitation to appear before the committee, and I gladly accepted. There are, however, two things I must address. The first—to avoid any unnecessary questions—is that I know nothing more about the relationship between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber than what has already been said before this committee and what has appeared in the media from time to time. Therefore, I have no information that would be relevant to the issues before this committee. The second—the lawyers here will understand this one—is that I am bound by my profession's code of ethics, in particular as concerns my clients' confidential information. My clients may speak freely about the work I do for them, but I do not have the same freedom, unless I receive their express authorization.

Nevertheless, I do not believe this should be an issue today, at least as concerns the Thyssen armoured vehicles. I believe that Mr. Schreiber has already told you that I worked on this matter for him around 1992. That said, I am pleased to answer your questions. I know you are short on time, so I will try to give you concise and accurate answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Lalonde.

I understand your statement. Should a question be posed to you that you believe you cannot or should not answer for reasons...I certainly will hear your argument and make a ruling at that time.

I want to move to questioning now.

Mr. Thibault, please.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Lalonde, welcome to the committee and thank you for accepting our invitation.

My first question is about your professional relationship with Mr. Schreiber and the payment arrangements. Did he pay you in cash, by cheque, by bank transfer directly to you or through your law firm?

[Marc Lalonde]

Mr. Schreiber hired me as a lawyer and to represent him as a lobbyist. For each case or file, my fees were calculated at my regular hourly rate. The invoices were sent by my firm, Stikeman Elliott, and were paid by cheque or bank transfer, as is normally done. In 22 years at Stikeman Elliott, I do not think I ever saw a cheque from a client. They were sent directly to the accounting department. We heard about it only if the account was not paid.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Mulroney told the committee that he received cash payments from Mr. Schreiber—he said that was how Mr. Schreiber did things—but you were able to find another method of payment that was somewhat more usual in your relations with the same client?

[Marc Lalonde]

I have no comment on that. I just know how it was done in my case.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

When did you first meet Mr. Schreiber?

[Marc Lalonde]

He contacted me around 1987 about a private business matter. He then hired me for other matters, which were all private or business related, except the matter concerning Thyssen, which involved relations with the government. In all the other cases, none of the work involved any level of government—federal or provincial.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Did you work on the Airbus or MMB files as part of your professional relationship?

[Marc Lalonde]

Neither Mr. Schreiber nor any of his businesses hired me to represent them regarding the Airbus affair or GCI.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

And your professional relationship as a lawyer or lobbyist for Mr. Schreiber on the Thyssen matter ended in what year?

[Marc Lalonde]

Around 1985, after the government decided not to use a public tendering process, but to use the sole source method to award the contract to GM. It was the end of 1985. I worked between 1982 and 1985; perhaps in 1981, but definitely from 1982 to 1985.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

You said “1985”, but did you mean “1995”?

[Marc Lalonde]

I apologize. The correct dates were from 1992 to 1995. Thank you for pointing out that mistake. From 1982 to 1985 I was working on other things.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

The newspapers have mentioned several times that you posted $100,000 bail for Mr. Schreiber in his extradition case.

[Marc Lalonde]

Could you repeat the question? I didn't understand.