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.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
You gave $30,000 to Mr. Charest's brother. Do you know the first name of Mr. Charest's brother?
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
You don't remember.
Where these $30,000 paid in cash? I would like to hear you say so.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Were other payments, as a contribution for future work, made to Mr. Charest after he succeeded Ms. Campbell? Why did you not use Mr. Charest's services when he was a senior minister in Mr. Mulroney's cabinet?
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I told you that after this campaign many things went on in Quebec. This was done by my colleague Jurgen Massmann and the people.... I distanced myself from the whole thing.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Gérard Asselin Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Your $30,000 contribution to Mr. Charest during his leadership campaign against Ms. Campbell was made at the request of Mr. Charest's brother. Did you give these $30,000 in cash because Jean Charest was a long standing acquaintance of yours, or because you were hoping to obtain some return on your investment?
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, I met with Mr. Charest. He was the Minister for the Environment by that time. And as I said, I saw this as something new, something fresh, and why shouldn't I support it? So it was my idea.
And yes, of course, if Mr. Charest had won the leadership convention and had become the Prime Minister after Mr. Mulroney, sure, I thought he would recognize that he got help from us when he ran for the leadership. I mean, this is the normal course of the idea.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
December 4th, 2007 / 12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Schreiber.
I have one major question to ask you about today.
In your testimony with us last Thursday, you indicated that you had given a letter to the then former Prime Minister Mulroney to talk to Mr. Harper about, and that you had a response back from Mr. Mulroney that things went okay or well. I forget how you actually phrased it.
But in your November 7 affidavit you said:
There was no apparent follow up by Mr. Mulroney to my July 20, 2006 letter and therefore I wrote a letter on January 29, 2007 advising Mr. Mulroney that I was still counting on his support to engage the Government of Canada to commence a public inquiry into the Airbus affair.
Then you have an exhibit to that end.
So you my question to you, sir--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Page 9, paragraph 40, deals with exhibit 16.
The contradiction that I'm having difficulty with, Mr.--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
The question is, what is accurate? Last Thursday, you told us that you had a response from former Prime Minister Mulroney that things went well, whatever that means, and then in an actual affidavit, which was sworn to be true, you say that you had no response. Which one is accurate, sir?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
I did not get any response from him, just what a friend told me he said, and that's it. So is it true or is it not true is my problem.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay, it was hearsay. So you have no idea whether Mr. Mulroney spoke to Mr. Harper about the letter or received the letter. And Mr. Mulroney--
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, now we're getting near the end.
We need to help those translators. I think we need to let someone complete their questions. Once they've stopped, then we will start answering. Everybody will be able to hear clearly and understand what is said.
Thank you.
Mr. Wallace, just finish your question.