Mr. Szabo, members of the committee, it's been about 15 years since I returned to private life. During that time I've had no contact with Parliament, no appointments or contacts whatsoever. Of course, I did refresh myself on the privileges that a witness has when appearing before a committee like this one. As you well know, the main one is that we have the same privilege to freedom of speech as the members do. I intend to exercise that, of course. I also want to make a few preliminary comments.
Now, with the greatest of deference, I have come to the conclusion that there's a growing consensus that this committee has become irrelevant. People are turned off. Some committee members even seem to share this view. These proceedings are now not even carried, I understand, by some of the Quebec media.
In the beginning, there was a lot of reference made to millions of dollars in mysterious commissions perhaps paid to Canadian people, with all sorts of innuendoes about Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber as far back as the early 1980s. So far, the only hard evidence of any ongoing dispute between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber involves, whether you believe it's $300,000 or $225,000, funds paid by Mr. Schreiber from his own funds to Mr. Mulroney in a business arrangement that, while unorthodox or unconventional, has not been shown as illegal--in other words, no speculation of public funds, nothing else of any substance, $300,000 or less, not more than a down payment on the short-term travel expenses of the Senate or the operating budget for the fifth estate.
In this committee process, my name keeps coming up in incongruous ways. Sometime I'd like to use it myself.
For example, Don Newman, in his recent TV show, said, “Elmer MacKay, friend of Schreiber, friend of Mulroney, used to parade around Ottawa with a big piece of steel with bullet holes in it.” Sure, Don--just like I might say you used to parade around Ottawa with a giant microphone with daisies attached. What kind of nonsense is that?
Actually, Mr. Newman may have been thinking about how, many years ago, Mr. Schreiber--when I was present--brought a small piece of metal from the plating of an armoured vehicle to show Prime Minister Mulroney how inadequate it was to protect our troops. Mr. Schreiber was right.
Incidentally, I agree with Marc Lalonde, my colleague, in his assessment of Mr. Schreiber, whom I personally have never seen do anything wrong. I hasten to add that the same is true of Prime Minister Mulroney, who has done so many good things for so many Canadians in every region of Canada.
Then another incident, our so-called wedding reception, was mentioned in the proceedings of this committee. In the fall of 1994, Karlheinz Schreiber and his wife, Barbel, kindly invited Sharon and me to meet them in New York. We hadn't seen them since our wedding. While we were having lunch in the restaurant in the Pierre Hotel, Mr. Mulroney and Fred Doucet arrived. We had no idea they were even in New York. They stayed briefly, and departed, I believe, for the airport. That was the last we saw of them. So that is another huge exaggeration--wedding reception indeed.
In approximately 1999, I went to Switzerland to see Karlheinz Schreiber concerning his pasta business. Parenthetically, we had both invested a considerable sum of money in a U.S. company based in Seattle, called Pallino, which utilized Mr. Schreiber's pasta machines manufactured in his factory. I might also add that I lost a couple of hundred thousand dollars on that deal, but you don't win them all. And Mr. Schreiber also lost money.
This company, just for the interest of the committee, was not a nickel-and-dime company. It had on its board one of Bill Clinton's former cabinet ministers. It had Brian Billick, the coach of the NFL Ravens. It had Danny Ainge, who used to play for the Toronto Blue Jays. I just mention that as a matter of interest.
Mr. Schreiber decided to come back with me to Canada. It was a quick trip, and as far as I knew, he intended to go back to Switzerland. So much for another myth, that I somehow was complicit in rescuing him from German authorities.
Finally, there is the e-mail I sent to Mr. Schreiber a couple of years ago, in 2006. Although Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney had good lawyers, they continued to call me very frequently—that is, Schreiber and Mulroney, not their lawyers—each with a litany of complaints against the other's conduct or lack of understanding. At some point, I suggested a truce or an apology so they could resume their former cordial relationship and settle their legal problems.
Mr. Schreiber asked for a draft, which he subsequently, apparently, used to write a more comprehensive letter. I had no ulterior motives nor in any way promoted any interventions in Mr. Schreiber's extradition proceedings, which were, and still are, before the courts.
I want to deal at this point, Mr. Chairman, with what I consider a fairly serious matter for me, and it involves you.
Pursuant to my appearance here today, originally scheduled for February 12, I made preparations to come. I received the following message from the committee, which I transcribed from my message machine: “Good afternoon, Mr. MacKay. This is Erica Pereira. I'm calling from the ethics committee. I spoke to you last week regarding an appearance I believe we had scheduled February 12 from 3:30 to 5:30. I was just calling because I'm trying to jiggle a bunch of other witnesses' schedules, and I was wondering if there was any possibility that you would be available, instead of the 12th, for the 14th of February, at the same time, 3:30 to 5:30. I have openings on the 14th of February and the 7th. They're both Thursdays, from 3:30 to 5:30. If there is any way you could change your schedule to another day, I would really super appreciate it. My phone number”--and she gives her phone number--“If you would give me a call back as soon as possible, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much.”
I agreed, but before changing my arrangements again, I contacted the clerk of your committee, Mr. Rumas, and asked, since others were doing it, could I appear by teleconference. He was very nice. He indicated that he thought it was a reasonable request. I waited in vain for any contact from the committee--not a very good way to run a committee or to help witnesses.
Anyway, I'm coming to the point. I rearranged my affairs, and while doing some chores to prepare for my absence from home, which, because of travel arrangements and logistics, would be at least two days, I had a bad fall. My wife immediately called the committee.
While I was getting some medical attention, I received another message on my answering machine, this time from a well-known journalist, Stephen Maher, and I'm going to read what he said: “Mr. MacKay, it's Steve Maher calling from The Chronicle Herald. I was talking to Mr. Szabo today, chairman of the ethics committee, and he said, how can I put it...he said that you've had a fall—and I'm sorry to hear that—and you're not going to be able to make it here for testimony.” He also said: “He made a joke about rehearsal time, as if he suspects you're rehearsing your testimony or something. If you care to talk to me about that or tell me what you think about that, give me a call.”
The next morning Mr. Szabo was prominently displayed in The Chronicle Herald, Atlantic Canada's largest newspaper. Mr. Maher wrote the following story, prominently displayed:
Elmer MacKay can't take stand; Tumble halts planned testimony.
I'm not going to read this story--it's fairly lengthy--but I'm going to read some of it:
Mr. MacKay's wife called the committee Tuesday night to tell them that her husband, a longtime friend of Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber, recently took a tumble and had to go to the emergency room, Liberal MP Paul Szabo said Wednesday.
“He's not in good enough shape to fly to Ottawa tomorrow, nor to go to Halifax for a video conference”...
As he was telling reporters about the news, Mr. Szabo rolled his eyes, suggesting he was suspicious of Mr. MacKay's story. Asked about that, he joked, “I just said it's unfortunate. I mean, rehearsal time. You know.
It goes on to say:
Mr. MacKay was the key minister in the Mulroney cabinet pushing the armoured car...
and so on. Mr. Szabo went on, further in the story:
...he doesn't have reason to believe witnesses are getting together to get their stories straight, in spite of his joke about Mr. MacKay.
“I'm not going to speculate”, he said. “Anything's possible, and the way this thing is shaping up is...he said, she said. The lines are drawn...”
and so on.
Last is this:
West Nova MP Robert Thibault, a Liberal member of the committee, said he wouldn't be surprised if witnesses friendly to Mr. Mulroney are discussing their testimony, since Mr. Mulroney's legal and public relations team has mounted a campaign to influence the process.
Well, I can assure you, Mr. Szabo, that there's been no coaching or rehearsing here. But when this story appeared my phone began to ring off the wall--many outraged calls demanding to know what was going on. What was Mr. Szabo suggesting?
So, sir, my question to you is, just what were you suggesting? And how can you, as chairman of the ethics committee, commit such a breach of ethics and procedure in mocking and undermining a witness who is scheduled to appear and to give testimony?
I happen to have been able to come before a lot of committees in my over twenty years in Parliament, and I've never experienced anything like this. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Szabo, as far as I'm concerned, you should recuse yourself from taking part in any of these proceedings when I'm giving evidence here today. And I make that request to you very respectfully.
