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.
P.C., As an Individual
--that it's not hard to remember them. We all have people who dislike us for whatever reason, and denigrate us, but very few make a life's work of pursuing us, of engineering a vendetta, so consumed are they with hatred for an individual, be it Mr. Dryden, or you, sir, or me. Very few people make this their life's work.
This person did. How we found out was there was a trial in Toronto and the RCMP had to produce a very lengthy affidavit, and in the affidavit they identified Ms. Stevie Cameron as a secret police informant, so deeply embedded in secrecy for the force that they gave her a code number, which I believe was A-2648. She was a journalist. She was passing herself off as an investigative journalist while she was a police informant.
If you read the testimony of Gallant and Fiegenwald, here's what you find: They go to Toronto on the instructions of Commissioner Murray, who had told them, “Well, we've got nothing on Airbus, but I heard on the CBC that Stevie Cameron has a lot of stuff, so you go down and see her.”
So they go to Toronto. This is testimony from Gallant and Fiegenwald. They go to her home, and after a to-ing and fro-ing, she hands over her files. And it's on the basis of this, together with a comment or so from Mr. Pelossi, that the entire matter was initiated. So failed and flawed was the letter to Switzerland that the Government of Canada--the Department of Justice here--had to redo the letter seven times, upping the ante every time so that the Swiss would take cognizance of it and do something about it. Where did they get the information? They got it from her.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, sir.
I'm going to suggest that we take another health break at this time, until 11:35 or 11:40, somewhere in there. We have lots more questions, but I think it's a good time. And please, no cameras in the room.
We'll suspend.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We're going to resume our proceedings.
I want to advise the members that there are no further votes planned, other than the vote at one o'clock, and there will be 15-minute bells for that. We will be terminating this meeting promptly, so that members will be able to attend the vote.
I have also been advised that Mr. Mulroney would like to make a very brief final statement to the committee at the end, prior to the adjournment of the meeting. The chair will have a couple of sentences to say to the witness at that time.
Now we're going to move to Mr. Ménard.
Please proceed, you have the floor.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mulroney, we are going to get back to the point, if you don't mind.
I came here with an open mind. But as you know, many people, like me, are asking themselves a fundamental question: was Mr. Mulroney paid for services rendered and for services to be rendered? Bear in mind that the majority of Canadians earn between $30,000 and $50,000 per year. For them, $150,000 in a safe, and $75,000 in another safety deposit box abroad is a lot of money. You were somewhat aware of that, because you had hesitated to accept cash in the beginning.
If you had received a cheque, Mr. Mulroney, what account would you have put it in? A personal account? A business account? The bar's in trust account? The trust account? Into what account would you have deposited it?
P.C., As an Individual
In a personal or a business account.
Excuse me, Mr. Ménard.
P.C., As an Individual
You say that some people may be wondering whether it was for services rendered or services to be rendered. Mr. Schreiber answered your question when he said...
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Mulroney, I know your answer. Everyone knows it. It was for services to be rendered, and that is my starting point.
The fundamental question is whether or not one is to believe you. You will convince us by explaining to us that you dealt with Mr. Schreiber in the same way you dealt with other clients who gave you money for services to be rendered.
In the case of other clients, I understand that all expenses on their behalf and fees that you could charge went through bank accounts. You withdrew money that they had provided to you in advance or you sent them an invoice? Did you not?
The way you shake your head is not recorded, you must answer yes or no.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Yes? All right.
In this particular case, it didn't work this way. If I understand correctly, Mr. Mulroney, this is the only client with whom you operated in this fashion.
P.C., As an Individual
Yes. This was the only client, Mr. Ménard, who offered and almost insisted in proceeding in this fashion, telling me that this is the way he worked internationally.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
So he insisted on how he would pay you, not on the way to be invoiced.
P.C., As an Individual
According to our conversations, I understood that, at that time, he was giving me what we refer to in law as a type of watching brief for Mr. Schreiber's interests throughout the world, especially at the international level, to promote and possibly sell vehicles used for defence or peacekeeping.
So, this was not for—
P.C., As an Individual
Excuse me, Mr. Ménard. It was not only for a specific purpose, it was international, a type of watching brief. So this is what I did globally.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
You did tell us that you nevertheless incurred expenses. So you used the money that was in your deposit boxes. When you decided that this had gone on long enough and that the mandate was over, may I ask you how much money remained in your safety deposit boxes?
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Very well.
So you had incurred expenses of approximately $45,000.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
If you felt that you had incurred legitimate expenses for this client and that the money that you took was indeed money owed to you and that it was perfectly legal, then decide to declare the total amount of what he gave you, namely $225,000, I believe, to the Department of Revenue?
P.C., As an Individual
Because $225,000, after taxes, is about $120,000, and this amount divided by three, meaning over three years, amounts to approximately $40,000 per year. That is more or less the expenses I could bill for my time, that is for meeting with executives from France, Russia, etc. So did I serve my client well? Absolutely. I don't think that you would find one lawyer in Montreal, in Quebec or in Canada, who would say that charging $40,000 per year, after taxes, for this work was the least bit exaggerated.
But careful now, you are asking me why I declared the total amount. It's because when Mr. Schreiber was arrested and charged, I didn't know. I thought that this was the Mr. Schreiber that I did business with in 1993, the able businessman. He was arrested and charged with fraud, corruption, etc. I said to myself immediately that this was not the Schreiber that I had known, and that I was obliged, in my interest and in the interest of everyone, to clear the whole matter up by paying, by agreeing to accept responsibility for—