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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Luc Lavoie  As an Individual
François Martin  As an Individual
Erica Pereira  Committee Clerk, , House of Commons

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

We found out through the litigation process, before there was a settlement--and this is all part of the public record--that the way it works is that the Department of Justice would send a letter to the correspondent at the Swiss Department of Justice and Police. I'm not sure if it was the ministry of interior or the justice department. They would say, “If I send you this, are you going to freeze the bank account and send over the bank records?” Then they would say, “No, that's not strong enough for our criteria, so give it some more torque, and go, go, go.” It's part of the public record.

The seventh draft was way worse than the first one--and they knew they had done no investigation. They could only rely on a journalist turned police informant, and an affidavit by a former chief of staff, in which he said that Mr. Mulroney had cancelled the Bear Head project. That's what Sergeant Fiegenwald, who was one of the lead investigators, said under oath in the Eurocopter trial. He said he had nothing else.

So you send this letter. It's a statement of fact. It's extraordinarily damaging. It leaks out. And then you say, “If we had known that after he left office”—a completely different story—“$300,000 was paid for other types of services, then we could have kept going with the torture of Mr. Mulroney and his family for a few more years.”

It doesn't change the fact that he never had a bank account in Switzerland, as confirmed by Carla Del Ponte; he never had anything to do with this transaction, as confirmed by your star witness; he never had anything to do with the MBB helicopter thing, as confirmed by the Eurocopter trial.

The letter was horrendous liable. And I maintain it. And if anybody goes on to say, “But if we had known, God, we might have had some more fun, and we could have kept torturing the guy a little more”.... I find this offensive--

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo

Okay, order.

Mr. Ménard.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Mr. Lavoie, you gave an explanation of Mr. Mulroney's conduct according to which his financial position was poor. Mr. Mulroney categorically contradicted it. Based on your experience, Mr. Lavoie, I believe you knew well that it is difficult to get the general public to pity the rich in their misery and that, by saying that, you necessarily exposed him to the caricatures to which he was subjected.

Why did you make that kind of communications error, being part of an outfit as professional as yours?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

First of all, I wasn't in a public relations outfit.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

You are at least as professional as, even more professional than, the average person in the outfit where you were.

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

I take that as a compliment. Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

How can you explain that?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

I wanted to provide context. Given the atmosphere at the time, it was undoubtedly a mistake to try to provide context like that.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

And yet if it was indeed a legitimate transaction, a contract, why did you have to give that kind of explanation, which appeared to tell people that he should be pardoned for having done that? He doesn't have to apologize for receiving fee advances for a genuine representation contract, does he?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

I'll let you be the judge of that.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

I'm going to ask you a tough question. I imagine you followed his appearance here.

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

Of course.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Was that the first time you heard about the contract he claims to have had with Mr. Schreiber and about the reasons why he had it?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Pardon me?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Had he explained it to you before that?

4:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

He explained it to me on a number of occasions.

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Did you know all the details? For example, you knew that he had received cash. Did you know that he had kept it, in cash, in safe deposit boxes?

4:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

No, I didn't know that.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Did you know the nature of his mandate? Did you know that the purpose was to attempt to sell a peace weapon, a light armoured vehicle to the four major firms? Did you know that?

4:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

I knew that the contract had something to do with the marketing of so-called peace vehicles.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

To China?

4:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Luc Lavoie

Peace armoured vehicles.

4:20 p.m.

Bloc

Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

To China?