Evidence of meeting #6 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 schreiber.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
All the miserable things, to describe today what happened to me, I would do voluntarily again for the opportunity to come home to the person I love the most on earth, my wife.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand fully.
Colleagues, I think I want to proceed to questions by members. Mr. Schreiber has indicated he has answers to the questions we've posed. The members obviously are not required to go in precisely the same order, or even to pose all of the questions. They may have been answered by Mr. Schreiber's statement or by other information. So we really are just going back to the first round, for seven minutes.
I would also like to indicate, Mr. Schreiber, as we've discussed with you and your lawyer, not answering a question or refusing to answer is not an option, which you well understand. I understand there may be some questions that are difficult for you, because you feel they may damage some other person unjustly, etc. I will entertain any arguments or justification you have and determine how we might be able to get that information out, if it is necessary.
I also remind you again that you are covered by parliamentary privilege, which means that no testimony you give before this committee can be used against you in any other proceeding.
Do you understand what I have said?
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Let's move on to questions. The first round is seven minutes.
Mr. Goodale.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schreiber, my name is Ralph Goodale. I'm a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan. I'm substituting today for my Liberal colleague Robert Thibault, who is, unfortunately, storm-stayed by the bad weather in Atlantic Canada.
Today, with the benefit of all your papers, we hope we will be able to pursue the issues that are before this committee. I have just one question to begin with, Mr. Schreiber, to do with the issue you just raised about Airbus, and that is the following.
Airbus and the German government obviously had a deep interest in getting the Canadian contract. I'd like to ask you this. Did Airbus authorize any payments to be made to facilitate the contract? If so, to whom were those payments to be made? When were they made? How much were they? And were these amounts deductible as expenses on the Airbus side?
11:55 a.m.
As an Individual
In any case that is involved in this...I mentioned the three, and so let's deal with Airbus.
It is quite different, though. It is not money you spend or do; it is money based on success. It was a commission. Do you understand? No business, no commission. In other words, the official agreement was made with Airbus through a company, IAL, which is the trust company in Liechtenstein. By the way, it doesn't belong to me. This is another one, and it is not even necessary, because you could have been there and could have been the trustee for Airbus, or GCI.
Now, when the success is there and you get your commission on the business, if GCI wants to be paid in Switzerland--and this was stated, by the way, by the RCMP at the beginning as well--it's not illegal. As long as they declare the tax in Canada whenever they take money out or whatever the tax rules are, that's the end of the story. They can decide whatever they want. And that was my job.
When you speak about these helpful donations, which was for us a very big word in all these years, there was always a discussion by industry and the government--look, there are so many countries that do this all over the place. And that's true. It's absolutely true. I have witnessed this everywhere. We have to get the possibility to deduct this, no?
As I said, with the helicopters, once in a while they even looked for a situation to say, what is it? To give you a very precise understanding—because I take it that this is a question you want to know--I will show you what nonsense this is.
The only business that took place from MBB is that they sold parts from the mother company in Germany to the Canadian company in Fort Erie, where they had other shareholders. So when you look at this and say you need help for donations, you see already what nonsense this is, because it's the same. You take your money from your own left pocket to your own right pocket and you say, I need help for donations to sell material to my own company. So this is why they invented something and put it on, for example, the coast guard, to show a project that is finally on hand to satisfy revenue Germany to get the deduction for helpful donations.
Noon
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Schreiber, I may well want to return to that later on, particularly after I've had the opportunity to read some of the paper you've filed today. Let me move on to a different topic, but it relates to the questions you were asked at the last meeting.
You made an arrangement with Prime Minister Mulroney on June 23, 1993, at Harrington Lake to provide him with $500,000. Is that correct?
Noon
As an Individual
Correct is that we discussed the situation and what we could do, and we agreed that when he was back in Montreal, in his law firm.... It was more or less all based on what he told me he believed, that Kim Campbell was going to win the election and have another majority government and he would be in a comfortable position. It is easy to understand how it is today, right? Very simple.
And then I said, okay, I was prepared to do that. I would go down and let him know what was available. I had funds available for the Bear Head project, which is still there, and I would let him know.
So it was an agreement in principal that we would work together, but on that day--it would be completely unfair for me to say anything else, and it would not be the truth--we did not speak about money.
Noon
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
We will want to return to that particular conversation, Mr. Schreiber, to determine exactly what the nature of your agreement with Mr. Mulroney was.
Can you tell me, was there anyone else present at that conversation—
Noon
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
In the material you've filed, do you have any of your personal agendas or diaries that could verify the exact time and location of that meeting?
Noon
As an Individual
Yes, this was shown in the media. I had a page from that and I gave it. It was the telephone number and the day. I think, in the meantime, the media found out the service that drove me there, because he had sent a limousine. But there is nothing else.
Noon
Liberal
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
I have one final point on this round, pursuant to that discussion you had at Harrington Lake on June 23. Is it true the first cash payment was made to Mr. Mulroney, in August 1993, at Mirabel Airport? Is that correct?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. The point is that after the meeting I checked what was left for the Bear Head project, from everything that was available, and $500,000 was left. I'm pretty sure--I cannot say 100%, but I am pretty sure--that I had no discussion with him before I met with him at the airport. But then, for sure, I told him clearly that there was $500,000 in the account that was available for his service when it came to a success.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you. Mr. Goodale, I'm sorry, but your time is up.
Madame Lavallée, vous avez la parole.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Schreiber, for being here this morning and for being so cooperative.
First of all, I must thank you for the Christmas gifts that you have given us. Actually, I had made up my list beforehand and had given it to you last Thursday. You are never really disappointed when you make a wish list. I will do the same in my personal life.
The nature of the agreement with Mr. Mulroney is indeed one of the things that concern us the most, but you have said several things. You said that you gave him $300,000 because he was having financial problems. You said—and you just repeated—that it was for the Bear Head project. You also mentioned in your affidavit the creation of a pasta plant. You even said that it was for the reunification of Germany.
Why did you tell several stories? I would like to know what part of it is the fronts that you had made up and what part is the truth. What part of it is true and what have you decided together to tell publicly? Most of all, I would like to know where this amount of $300,000 was coming from. There was $500,000 in the Britan account. Where did this money come from? Was it from Airbus?
12:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Let me start with a Christmas gift. It's not $300,000, but it's a Christmas gift.
Your question is a question I have received several times, and it is nothing else than a mix-up with the media. When I spoke about this...when you do something you must not have one reason. I had more than one reason to think about why I should help him. And that's because the problem was that they had sold the furniture and Fred Doucet was out of his mind, no money, and Elmer MacKay was nearly crazy that they took the furniture away. So now my thinking is, why would I help him? The project is not there, he is leaving, why would I help him?
So one thing was, then...and now I have come step by step, because all the reasons you said are the reasons I entered into an agreement with him. One was that I was grateful, yes, that he helped the unification, because Mitterrand and Maggie Thatcher were very much against it. So it was Mulroney, James Baker, Bush, Kohl, and Gorbachev who did it. If you had a wall through your city, 16 million in jail, you would be grateful too, I am convinced, when somebody helps to break it down. That was one reason.
The other reason was to save the project. Where Thyssen already spent so much money and felt betrayed, when we finally heard the project doesn't taking place...because at that time we did not know Mr. Mulroney killed it. This is what we learned later in the letter of request. That was 1995, so two years later, we still believed it would go. So now was there a chance? I tell you quite frankly that I had my doubts that Kim Campbell would ever have got a majority government, but Mr. Mulroney was a very powerful man in Quebec so perhaps it would have worked.
The next thing was, and here is another break, the pasta had nothing to do with this at that time; it didn't even exist. This is what Mr. Mulroney said. The pasta came, the first time, when we spoke about something. This project was not there because Kim Campbell did not get a majority government, and he could do nothing. I mean, you will agree with me that he could not have gone to Mr. Chrétien and said, now give Thyssen the project, right?
So the first time we spoke about pasta, there was nothing he could do at that moment. The earliest we started to think about what could it be was 1994, in December, in New York. I even have my doubts that I spoke with him then. I think it was much later when Spaghettissimo was incorporated and a Canadian businessman, a friend of mine, came to Switzerland, and we discussed the matter with Greg Alford.
So forget the pasta thing. That came much later in the discussion and had absolutely nothing to do with this payment.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
You said that you were thankful to Brian Mulroney for what he had done in the issue of the reunification of Germany, but you were also thankful to him for what he had done for Airbus.