Evidence of meeting #13 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.
As an Individual
I believe there was press coverage, by the day, as it took place, and I was briefed by our lawyers with respect to the main points on discovery. So I was generally aware of what was asked and answered.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
We just heard from Mr. Spector--and it was an interesting quote--that he formed the impression that Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney had more than a relationship in passing. He also said that certain people have used the Airbus file to give vague answers.
Would you consider it vague, knowing what you know now, that Mr. Mulroney accepted between $225,000 and $300,000 from Mr. Schreiber, to say, “I had never had any dealings with him”?
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I think the transcript speaks for itself. I'm not going to interpret what Mr. Mulroney said on that occasion.
What I would say.... I guess I can say two things. First of all, as I mentioned in my opening statement, certainly the government concluded from the testimony given by Mr. Mulroney that he'd not had dealings with Mr. Schreiber, period. Second, like a lot of Canadians, I was very surprised to learn subsequently, I think in 2003, that there had been payments from Mr. Schreiber to Mr. Mulroney.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Given that you know that now, if you were in the position now--and I bet you're happy you aren't--would you still recommend that the government enter into the over-$2-million settlement with Mr. Mulroney?
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, it's difficult to be categorical when you're looking back 10 years and assuming the facts of the case are different and speculating on the outcome.
I can say that had there been disclosure at the time of the cash payments by Mr. Schreiber to Mr. Mulroney and the circumstances in which they were made, it would have had a dramatic effect on that litigation. It would have had a profound effect. Questions would have been asked to follow up; documents would have been requested, including bank accounts, safety deposit box records, perhaps tax returns.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
So in short, you would not have authorized that settlement on January 6 if you had known of the $225,000 payments?
As an Individual
Let me say that if you assume the cash payments had been disclosed, I do not believe the recommendation would have been to settle on those terms. That does not mean it might not have settled on some other terms, but I don't believe the recommendation would have been to settle on those terms in the face of the facts we now know.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Do you believe that the RCMP did not know of these cash payments at the time settlement negotiations were entered into? Mr. Spector certainly feels the RCMP did not know about the cash when they shut down the investigation.
As an Individual
I have no idea what they knew. Certainly Mr. Gray never raised it with me.
February 5th, 2008 / 5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
As far as the RCMP investigation is concerned, to your knowledge did the RCMP continue the investigation after the settlement was entered into?
As an Individual
Yes, I believe they did. In fact, one of the terms of the settlement agreement provided that it would have no effect on the RCMP's sole decision and discretion to continue the investigation until they felt it had been concluded.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Finally, Mr. Rock, memoranda suggest—these are very contemporary memoranda coming from the justice department—that they considered trying to get the settlement money back when they learned of these payments.
As a former justice minister--and a mighty good one, I might add--do you find it surprising that briefings were not held by the ministers of justice under this current regime, Ministers Nicholson or Toews? Do you find it surprising that they weren't briefed on this attempt to get back the settlement funds?
As an Individual
I'm afraid I don't know what happened, what they were and weren't briefed about, but I know there is a procedure that one can invoke to ask the court to set aside an agreement, particularly a settlement agreement, if you take the position that it was obtained under something less than full disclosure. But I'm not here to give legal advice to the justice department, which they don't need, or political advice to the government of the day, which I'm sure they would not accept.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I will be sharing my time with Mr. Ménard.
Thank you for coming and answering our questions, Mr. Rock. Some of my questions may seem repetitive, but I'm asking them in French and I would like to hear your answers in French. I want to be very sure about what I am hearing.
You say in paragraph 12 of your presentation that:
As part of the litigation proceedings, Mr. Mulroney was examined under oath and was asked questions about various relevant matters. The answer that Mr. Mulroney gave under oath led the government to conclude that he had not had any dealings with Mr. Schreiber.
I find the verb "inciter" a little weak in French. I saw the words used in English, and I would have expected the verb "convaincre", or convince. Mr. Mulroney's answers convinced the RCMP. I am wondering why the RCMP ended the investigation at that time.
How can you explain such an incorrect conclusion, given the information we have now to the effect that there had been three payments by Mr. Schreiber at the time the RCMP ended its investigation?
As an Individual
Mrs. Lavallée, what I said in my statement is that at the time, in light of the answers provided by Mr. Mulroney, and as parties involved in civil litigation, we reached a settlement. He said he had not had any agreements with Mr. Schreiber. We accepted Mr. Mulroney's testimony. He is a former prime minister of Canada, he spent nine years as prime minister and he was sworn in as a witness. We therefore assumed that he had answered these questions properly. That is why I said in my statement today:
“it led us to conclude”
"[...] incité le gouvernement à conclure qu’il n’avait pas eu affaire à M. Schreiber."
That is what we concluded based on Mr. Mulroney's answers in April 1996.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Do you think the RCMP should have gone beyond Mr. Mulroney's testimony and investigated what actually happened?
As an Individual
It is not up to me to tell the RCMP what to do. Mr. Gray, the Solicitor General of Canada, was accountable to the House of Commons for the RCMP.
I know that the RCMP continued its investigation after the civil matter was settled. It continued until 2003, I believe, and then it announced it would be closing the file. It did continue its investigation, despite the settlement.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Do you now regret paying the $2.1 million settlement?
As an Individual
All I would say is that it is difficult now, in 2008, to imagine what we would have done had we had the information we have today. As I said to Mr. Murphy, I am sure that if the information about the payments made by Mr. Schreiber to Mr. Mulroney had been known at the time, that would have had a tremendous impact on the civil litigation. In my opinion, we would have received a recommendation to offer a settlement that took that information into account.
Bloc
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Rock, I understand that this type of request must stay far away from the minister and that he is not to be informed—I would even say that he should not be informed—about this police information.
Is that correct?
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Since that time, you have certainly read the letter that was sent to the Swiss government. Were you struck by the fact that as things unfolded, the individuals about whom the police had some suspicions were among the first to be informed, and that the letter was given to them?
