Evidence of meeting #16 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 money.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
To your knowledge, did Mr. Mulroney have a lawyer in Switzerland?
February 14th, 2008 / 10:50 a.m.
As an Individual
I don't know, but I don't believe that was the case.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pelossi, I'm going to continue in English, since you answered in English earlier.
Mr. Pelossi, you mentioned that all of the documents were in Canada. Does that mean the Swiss police never gave you back the documents they seized for and on behalf of the Canadian authorities?
As an Individual
Yes, because I made copies. I kept copies of all the documents I gave to the Swiss police to be transmitted to Canada.
As an Individual
Excuse me, these were already copies, because the originals were in Augsburg.
NDP
As an Individual
They are all documents about the bank accounts of IAL, Kensington--
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Good. Our chairman will be in touch with you to follow up on that, which gives me occasion, on behalf of the NDP and my colleague Pat Martin, Mr. Chairman, to go through a couple of things that have been a great preoccupation to you in your intention of getting from the RCMP the six hours of tapes.
You might recall, Mr. Chairman, that at our first meeting with Mr. Schreiber, he explained to us that he had never been interviewed by the RCMP prior to the $2.1 million settlement between Brian Mulroney and the Canadian government.
Interestingly enough, as you might also recall, the RCMP sent out the next day a spokeswoman to deny Mr. Schreiber's version, saying that the RCMP had indeed met with him. But what was interesting was that when we re-questioned Mr. Schreiber specifically, it was quite clear that he had, of course, met with them, but only after the settlement. I don't think there had been any ambiguity the first time, because I was the one who asked the question; but in case there had been ambiguity, I re-asked the question, as did Madame Lavallée, and he confirmed this for us very clearly.
What was preoccupying for us in the NDP was that this equivocation, this prevarication, came up again in David Johnston's report, in addition to the other things we saw in there--for example, his echoing of the Prime Minister's musings about perhaps no longer needing an investigation, or the fact that he said that Stevie Cameron's books were proof that this was well-tilled ground and that we don't have to go over Airbus—as if Stevie Cameron had somehow done anything but raise more doubts about Airbus. What was very preoccupying for us was that the Johnston report referred specifically again to the RCMP and, contrary to what had been alleged, he gave a series of dates, all of them post-settlement. Then here we have Mr. Pelossi coming in and he gives us his very clear dates.
So it's going to be very interesting for us to find out what's on those tapes. We members of the NDP want to make it clear to you that we trust your ability to get that information from the RCMP, because this committee can't continue its work without it. That's our opinion. This committee cannot continue its work unless we get access to what was given to them back then. So those tapes are crucial.
I will end by repeating a request made to you by my colleague Mr. Ménard and me. The first request is to get the full partnership agreement between Brian Mulroney and Ogilvy Renault. The second is to get all billings from Marc Lalonde and Stikeman Elliott to Karlheinz Schreiber, or any of the corporate entities directly or indirectly related to Karlheinz Schreiber. We need indications not only of how they were paid, but also of what Mr. Pelossi is calling des virements, because he has provided information today that things were normally done by these means, which I'll allow myself to translate as bank transfers. We need information on those as well.
All of that has to be produced before this committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
That concludes the testimony. I would like to indicate to colleagues that there is going to be an in camera meeting after we hear from Stevie Cameron, to discuss the issues of our authority to access persons, papers, or records by subpoena, as well as the full range of matters that we have discussed at this meeting and at other meetings. Please come prepared for that.
I'd also alert you that there is another issue that has come up related to the appointment of Dr. Johnston, on the terms of reference and his appointment under paragraph 127.1(1)(c) of the Public Service Employment Act. It would appear there is a concern with the delegation of inquisitorial powers specifically to examine whether or not there was any indication of any criminal activity, and to recommend what steps should be taken. The concern that has been raised, which I want to bring to the committee's attention at our in camera meeting, has to do with whether or not the Prime Minister has potentially improperly appointed an independent adviser in Dr. Johnston, in that the only person in the government who has the authority for inquisitorial powers is the Attorney General. That responsibility to find an independent person and to conduct inquisitorial matters is in fact the responsibility of the Attorney General, who is the adviser to the crown on legal matters. He is the sole adviser to the crown on legal matters.
It's a little bit technical. I have some documents that I will get produced for you for background material. We may have to make a determination of whether or not we have to go back to the Clerk of the Privy Council, whom we have asked to deal with this problem--we have already raised it with him--about the public inquiry building on our work. We are asking whether or not that's utilizing the work of this committee, which is not permitted since it's protected by parliamentary privilege.
So we have some fairly meaty matters to deal with, and I hope you will come ready to deal with them.
Mr. Pelossi, I want to thank you kindly for all of your attention and assistance.
Sir, it appears the committee is after as much paperwork as we can get. We have had some difficulty. I'm going to ask for your indulgence, so that if you could, you would, in addition to anything that we might specifically ask of you, also provide us with any other documents that you think are remotely relevant to the matter before us. We would be happy to pick up and defray any and all costs of producing it and transmitting it to us. The clerk will be in touch with you in that regard.
Would that be okay, sir?