Evidence of meeting #14 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.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I certainly understood you to say that in November 1995 you had established there was a business relationship or some relationship with Schreiber.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
I apologize if you understood that. I never said that, and it is not the case.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Certainly the client you represented wasn't being forthright with Canadians. We don't believe that settlement would have been made at all, and we could have kept on, not to torture the man but to ultimately get the truth, because it's been like pulling teeth trying to get the truth out of the people who come before this committee, in terms of the whole story, Mr. Lavoie.
Don't misunderstand us when we say we wish the investigation had gone further, we wish the RCMP hadn't concluded, because if we knew then what we know now, we wouldn't have paid the $2.1 million, and it would be in pursuit of the truth, not to torture your former client.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask Mr. Lavoie one or two brief questions. Earlier, in response to a question from Mr. Murphy, he very clearly said that his contract with the law firm, Ogilvy Renault, enabled him to do outside consulting work.
What basis do you have for stating that under oath before this committee?
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
And yet, when I asked you whether the term retainer related to his work at his law firm or whether that work with that law firm was exclusive, you answered that you had no information on that subject.
Then, in response to Mr. Murphy, you said that that was his contract with Ogilvy Renault. It's going to be very easy for us: we're going to send a subpoena to Ogilvy Renault and demand a copy of Mr. Mulroney's partnership contract with that law firm. So we'll know what it contains.
You relied on what Mr. Mulroney told you, that is to say that his contract with Ogilvy Renault enabled him to bill for consulting work outside his general mandate as a partner and lawyer with that firm.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you.
I'm going to ask one final question, Mr. Chairman.
There was a leak. Mention was made of a name of an extraordinary member of the RCMP named Fraser Fiegenwald, who unfortunately was the Liberals' fall guy in this affair. Mr. Lavoie, you said that the initial leak came from Switzerland. What proof do you have of that? The Liberals' version is quite different. They have always tried to pin it on someone from the RCMP.
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
The first time this affair was mentioned, it was in an Agence France-Presse article published on page 1 of the Montreal newspaper La Presse. It was the only paper in Canada that picked it up at the time. It wasn't about Mr. Mulroney; it was about an investigation conducted by Canadian police authorities and that involved money that had purportedly been paid in kickbacks to Canadian politicians. That was the first leak. It was on November 12, 1995. That came from the Agence France-Presse, from Geneva or Zurich; you'd have to check it.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
The testimony that we've heard before this committee to date referred extensively to the GCI company and Mr. Moores. What do you know about the role Mr. Moores played and the amounts he might have received in the Airbus affair?
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I only know what I read in the papers. I didn't know Frank Moores, although I met him socially once or twice. That's all.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
Merci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lavoie, you'll have to help me out here. I'm not sure whether you said this on behalf of Mr. Mulroney or whether Mr. Mulroney said it himself. I think it was you speaking on behalf of Mr. Mulroney. In 2003, I believe you stated that the money received from Schreiber, the $300,000, was for representation for the Thyssen plant in east Montreal as well as for some work related to a pasta business. I think the amount came up in the course of a lawsuit by Mr. Schreiber against Mr. Mulroney. There was no argument about the figure, and it may have been Mr. Mulroney's lawyer who cited it.
Are you familiar with this?
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
I am not sure I understand. In 2003...can you give me a little more detail?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
I believe it was 2003.
Are you familiar with the lawsuit by Mr. Schreiber against Mr. Mulroney seeking to recover $300,000?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
It might have been 2007. You may be right.
The claim by Schreiber was that no work was done in return for that money. The claim by Mulroney is that the money had to do with a pasta business and with working for the Thyssen plant, which was in the past the Bear Head project.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
All of a sudden it has morphed. It morphed around 1993 or around that time. It morphed to east Montreal, where they planned to build the plant. At that point there's no argument about the $300,000, and it's for those projects. You're familiar with this?
