Evidence of meeting #10 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.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Okay, so his attendance isn't relevant.
Let me make this point. In this case, everybody knows that the only inference to the current PMO is whether or not they interfered in extradition proceedings. We have heard extensive testimony that that is not the case, and their actions dictate that they have not. And that is the only way it could be at all relevant.
His question is simply not relevant to the witness's testimony here today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Colleagues, we have had this discussion on a number of occasions, and the members will know that we have in there, in addition to the Airbus settlement issue, allegations made by any party coming before us, testimony, and new evidence. And we have already found contradictions. For instance, Mr. Schreiber has testified that the moneys given to Mr. Mulroney were not to do with Airbus but were rather to do with Bear Head.
That starts to change the dynamic and the understanding of our hearings. Also, the other evidence that has come out has broadened the complexity and the details here.
I believe it was Mr. Wallace who amended the original motion before the committee to include the concept of present or past governments and how those allegations would....
In view of that, I understand it may ultimately turn out to be not critical or relevant in terms of our recommendations, etc., but I believe that Mr. Rodriguez has raised an item that is on the border. I believe--and he believes--in the argument that the matter is relevant in a general way to our motion.
I would rule the question in order.
Could you please repeat the question for the witness? We will then allow the witness to respond. Thank you.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mulroney, again, it has been reported that you had a discussion with Minister Maxime Bernier about the wireless spectrum issue. During that discussion you had reportedly asked the minister to meet with Pierre Karl Péladeau, of Quebecor, and he agreed. The minister has not publicly denied these facts. Can you confirm that these discussions took place?
P.C., As an Individual
I think I can tell you that Mr. Pierre Karl Péladeau, who is one of the most successful and influential people in the province of Quebec, in Montreal, whose company controls the largest media empire in Canada, knows Minister Maxime Bernier a lot better than I do. Pierre Karl Péladeau doesn't need me for an introduction to Maxime Bernier or anybody else.
Liberal
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
If I understand correctly, you did not talk to Mr. Bernier about that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Monsieur Rodriguez, your time has run out, unfortunately.
I'm going to move now to Mr. Tilson.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Prime Minister, we have talked a little bit about section 41 of the Parliament of Canada Act, and you have indicated that you have not violated that legislation. We have talked about the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders of September 1985, and you have indicated—I think you must have written that one, probably—that you have not violated that document.
My question to you is specifically with regard to section 60, and that's the limitation period. Your counsel is providing that for you. Section 60 talks about.... I guess I'm getting into the area, sir, where you have talked about how you travelled to different countries—Russia, China, etc. This section says:
former public office holders, except for ministers for whom the prescribed period is two years, shall not, within a period of one year after leaving office: (1) accept services contracts, appointment to a board of directors of, or employment with, an entity with which they had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately prior to the termination of their service in public office
And then it goes on. Dealing specifically with that section, sir, do you feel that you might have perhaps violated that section?
P.C., As an Individual
No, I don't believe I did, because my association was entirely international, with a view to representing the company outside of Canada totally and with a view to ascertaining the nature of the opportunities that might be available.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
So you believe that this section deals strictly with dealings within Canada, and it has nothing to do with dealings outside of Canada.
P.C., As an Individual
As it was, sir, for section 59. I read them together.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
And you're quite right, you should read them together. You're absolutely right. However, it does talk about those times. Clearly, what you were doing was within that prescribed period.
December 13th, 2007 / 11:15 a.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You mentioned in your opening statement—and I'm curious as to what you meant—that the Government of Canada showed up at the legal proceedings with nine lawyers and didn't deal with certain things. I'd like you to elaborate on that.
P.C., As an Individual
I can tell you two things, sir. Before the Airbus matter exploded, and we wanted to do everything...obviously, you'll understand. We had a couple of days' warning that this thing was going to hit. I knew it was all false, but I could see the end of my life with this thing becoming public.
So I asked one of my lawyers, Roger Tassé, Q.C.--former deputy minister of justice under Mr. Trudeau and under Jean Chrétien--to go to Ottawa to visit with the officials in the RCMP and Department of Justice to say, “Look, this thing is coming out. These are accusations against Mr. Mulroney. They are false. They will be established, clearly, to be false. He is ready now to come up to see you. I'll bring him up here. He'll bring his tax returns, his statement of net worth, anything you want. You can interrogate him on anything, every business association he's ever had.” Roger Tassé made that appeal to the federal government.
They turned him down cold. They went out and hired a ton of lawyers, trying to prove the unprovable--namely, that the allegations in the 1995 document were true.
When it became clear that they were all false, they collapsed on the courthouse steps and initiated the settlement. They didn't initiate the settlement because they didn't know about a subsequent commercial relationship with Mr. Schreiber, which they never asked about; they settled the case because it was false. It was a hoax, a complete fabrication. That's why they settled the case.
So when I show up for the examination on discovery, I walk into the Palais de justice de Montréal, and what do I see? I'm there with my lawyer and there are nine lawyers lined up here on the other side, representing the Government of Canada and its agencies. They interrogate me for a day and a half of the two-day thing, and not one of them asked me the question directly: Did you have a business association with Mr. Schreiber after you left office?
By the way, that question would have been out of order totally, but I would have answered it. It would have been out of order because it violated the provisions of the Quebec civil code and it would not have been allowed by a judge, but I was ready to answer. They never asked it. That's what happened.
The hostility that we saw when Roger Tassé went up to Ottawa, that hostility was overwhelming. Rather than say we should sit down, they kept hiring more lawyers, and we saw what happened.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You believe this incident is one of the things that led to what we're doing today.
P.C., As an Individual
Absolutely. The false statements in the affidavit triggered this feeding frenzy, where Mr. Schreiber--aided by, shall we call them, two different either broadcasting or publishing groups, his enablers--filed a false affidavit to generate this feeding frenzy, and here we are today. Did you get anything new out of him? Did you find out this big secret thing he was supposed to do?
I'll tell you that on November 15 the National Post interviewed Mr. Schreiber. There were big headlines: Boy, when I get down there, have I got things to say. This is the greatest scandal in Canadian history. Boy, oh boy, you just let me out of jail and give me bail, and boy, oh boy, are you going to love me, because it's going to be Christmas every day.
Well, he gets.... The National Post asks him the following question, the final question of the story. This is from the National Post, November 15, 2007. I ask you all to pay particular attention to this. This is eight days after he filed his false affidavit. The National Post wrote:
While Mr. Schreiber will save his new revelations for the inquiry, when asked outright if he knows of any wrongdoing by Mr. Mulroney he answered: “I don't know, the inquiry has to find out.”
The devil made me do it.
He goes on: “This is something I would like to find out. I am very suspicious in the meantime that things happened I might not even have known about.” Question: “Do you know of any wrongdoing by Mr. Mulroney?” Answer: “No, I don't know.”
This is the man who a week before had signed an affidavit loaded down with falsehoods, like a Christmas tree on December 25. That was his “get out of jail” card. He created a frenzy with his two media allies, and here we all are today.
Liberal
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
In your opening statement you mentioned comments about an RCMP police informant who caused you a lot of problems. I'd like you to tell us the name of that person and what that person did.
P.C., As an Individual
Well, as you know, I didn't place any name. But everybody knows, I think, in Canada. Look, in politics, I know we all have people who don't like us or disagree with us, though there are so few in my case--