Evidence of meeting #18 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 schreiber.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, we'll have a quick question from Mr. Dhaliwal and a quick question from Monsieur Ménard.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Honourable Mr. MacKay, first of all I would like to express my sympathy to you for your feelings about the treatment you received from our chair, Mr. Szabo, because I can feel your feelings. My dad has been in the hospital for the last two months. Only the close family members can feel the seriousness of the illness or the injury.
My question to you is about the Bear Head project. We have been told that the former Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, killed the Bear Head project on December 16, 1990. Were you aware of this at that time?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Dhaliwal, I would like to help you on this, but I don't think I was aware of it. I think Mr. Spector made the point that this project was the project that wouldn't die. It kept coming up and coming up again, because Mr. Schreiber, a very forceful and articulate person, believed in that process so much that he kept it alive. I do not remember ever being told at a specific date that that project was killed. I assumed it was at some point. I wish I could give you a date, but I can't.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
You had meetings with Mr. Schreiber and Prime Minister Mulroney after this, in 1992 and 1993, where the Bear Head project was discussed. At any point or any time, did the Prime Minister or anyone else mention to you that the project would not proceed in Nova Scotia?
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
At some point in time, Mr. Dhaliwal, that may have been mentioned to me. But you know, we're playing a game of political archeology here. That was a long, long time ago, and I can't give you an honest answer. I wouldn't be surprised that at some point the Prime Minister said to me, “Look, it's all over”, but I don't remember when that was.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay, I want to move on, unless you have something really crucial. No?
Monsieur Ménard.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you for being here, Mr. MacKay. I don't think you are that big a fan of the committee. Like Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber, I think the best way of shedding light on this whole matter is through a commission of inquiry.
You say that essentially, this is just a business dispute between two individuals, and despite the fact that the payments were made in an unusual way, this was not illegal. It is true that it is not illegal to pay in cash and to keep this secret, but generally speaking, when people proceed in this way, they are trying to hide something illegal. I cannot believe that someone like you is not as disturbed as I am about a story of this type. A very rich businessman had some indirect dealings—some of which are considerable—with the Government of Canada. When the individual with whom he was dealing leaves political life, the businessman gives him cash in brown envelopes, as might happen with some dictator or other somewhere in the world. No records and no receipts. All of this was done in the context of a mandate that seems quite bizarre: it was about selling light armoured vehicles to totalitarian countries like China, and about selling German light armoured vehicles to France. Some records were kept, but they were destroyed. The income tax is paid five years later but this is done in such haste that income tax is even paid on the expenses that were incurred.
Do you not think that there are a lot of disturbing things in this story? Of course, there is no evidence or trial underway, but do you not think that the committee has raised many disturbing issues that deserve a more thorough investigation than has happened so far?
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Ménard, that was a very comprehensive and good question, and I don't want you to take from my testimony that I am recommending or sponsoring this type of conduct that has concerned the committee.
I wish I could speak la belle langue française, but isn't there a French proverb that might be used here to ameliorate the situation? Doesn't it go something like this: honni soit qui mal y pense?
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
That's English. In fact it is the motto of the Order of the Garter.
If, at the time, you had known about the things that we heard here from Mr. Mulroney, would you have advised him to act in a more transparent manner? Otherwise, people would obviously think about much worse things than wanting to avoid paying income tax on some income.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Ménard, you're absolutely correct. If Mr. Mulroney had consulted me, I certainly would have--as I know you would have--advised him not to take this course of conduct.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative David Tilson
I think that concludes our questions, Mr. MacKay. I thank you for participating. You are dismissed as a witness. I hope you have a speedy recovery from...I think it was your leg.
Thank you, sir.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Our next witness is Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber. He is accompanied by his lawyer, Mr. Auger, who may advise his client but may not address the committee.
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Schreiber, I'll remind you that you are still under oath. As I indicated to you previously, if you have any brief opening statements regarding your testimony so far, in the event that there is something you wish to clarify or you have any subsequent developments or new evidence you wish to give, I will hear from you now.
Do you have a statement, sir?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That sounds fine. Thank you.
I now invite you to address the committee.
4:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you, sir.
FIrst of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me back to respond to some of the testimony you have heard and to assist you further.
Let me first deal with Mr. Mulroney's allegations that I have contradicted myself under oath, which you will agree with me is a very important matter.
Mr. Mulroney lied to you when he told you that I contradicted myself in my previous affidavits and testimony. He lied to you because he is motivated to try to show there's no need for a public inquiry. That is his only goal.
Mr. Mulroney tried one of the oldest tricks in the book. He's a lawyer and he tried to mislead you by misquoting my testimony. He took my testimony out of context and did not read to you my complete answers. He tried this trick on you and he tried this trick on the Canadian public.
Mr. Mulroney has show business in his family genes and he tried his show business smoke-and-mirrors skills on you. He failed miserably. Canadians got it right when you see the poll results that came up in the Globe after his testimony, and I am very honoured that Canadians gave me 84%--27,800 votes. And this is an obligation for me to satisfy the Canadians and not to disappoint them.
For example, I come back now to Mr. Mulroney. He misled you about my November 7 affidavit and my March 3 affidavit. On page 15 of your official transcript of his appearance, Mr. Mulroney testified as follows:
Which one is perjury, Mr. Chairman and colleagues? Is it the one under oath, which he filed in another affidavit on March 3? Or is it the affidavit he filed under oath in a courtroom in Toronto on November 7? They can't both be true.
Mr. Mulroney tried to pull this trick on you because he knew you didn't have my March 3 affidavit. I have now given you the complete March 3 affidavit. You can double-check this and you will see there is no reference at all in my March 3 affidavit to me saying anything about my dealings with Mr. Mulroney. My March 3 affidavit makes no mention or contradiction of anything I said in my November 7 affidavit. My March 3 affidavit has nothing to do with Mr. Mulroney; it relates to my Alberta lawsuit only.
Another example is that Mr. Mulroney, on page 15 of your official transcript, testifies as follows:
And what did he say in the Eurocopter case? What he said in the Eurocopter case was:
Question: “These thoughts of this idea that you had, this plan to hire Mr. Mulroney, what time are we talking about?”
Answer by Mr. Schreiber: “After Mr. Mulroney had left government.”
Question by Mr. Bernstein [the prosecutor]: “After he had ceased? After he had stepped down as Prime Minister?”
Answer by Mr. Schreiber: “Yes. Ja.”
Mr. Mulroney again tried the old trick of taking answers out of context and not reading to you my complete answer. Again, he knew you didn't have the MBB transcript.
I have now given you the transcript of my evidence in MBB, and you can double-check for yourself. It's pages 59 to 61. My testimony about engaging Mr. Mulroney after he left office as Prime Minister related to our discussions about Archer Daniels Midland. He was a member of the board for Midland. This discussion had nothing to do with the Bear Head project at all.
My testimony about discussing the Bear Head project with Mr. Mulroney occurred before he left office as Prime Minister. I have always been consistent on this point. That was my testimony in the MBB case, that was my testimony here at the committee, and that was my testimony in my November 7 affidavit. And it would be the same if I were to do it today.
Mr. Mulroney tried to trick you about what my prior testimony was because he knew you didn't have the transcripts. Now that you have the transcripts, please check them yourself. Mr. Mulroney even tried this trick on Justice Cullity in Toronto in a court case where I sued Mr. Mulroney for the $300,000.
Here is what Justice Cullity thought about Mr. Mulroney's attempt to trick him. I quote Justice Cullity at paragraph 45.
...I am not satisfied that the statements are sufficiently unequivocal and inconsistent with the allegations in Mr. Schreiber's affidavit to justify a decision to reject the letter out of hand.
...
It would be grossly unfair, and manifestly unjust, to Mr. Schreiber to rely on a strictly literal interpretation of answers to questions taken out of context from the transcript of his examination in a different matter in which the focus of everyone's intention was on other issues.
You can see the pattern and the repeated trick that Mr. Mulroney continued to try. He thinks he can fool you, experienced trial judges and the Canadian public. Rather than answer your questions, he interrupted you throughout the hearing on December 13. He ignored your questions because he couldn't wait to distract and mislead you with a prepared smoke-and-mirror show. That was his way of wasting hearing time and avoiding answering your important questions. It's obvious he came here with one goal: to avoid a public inquiry. The sparrows witnessed this in the meantime from the roofs of the buildings.
In October Mr. Mulroney announced that he wanted a full public inquiry. Then on December 13 he said, “Schreiber credibility destroyed, no need for inquiry”.
Mr. Mulroney has tried to avoid an inquiry at all costs. Even recently he refused to cooperate with the committee. Why is he so afraid to answer your questions directly and truthfully? We'll tell you why. It is the same reason he met in Zurich on February 2, 1998, to express his concerns that the money he received could be tracked back to him. As I said in my affidavit, I responded to Mr. Mulroney that Fred Doucet asked me to transfer funds from GCI to Mr. Mulroney's lawyer in Geneva related to Airbus. Mr. Mulroney is frightened by the truth.
Mr. Mulroney neglected to tell you that my November 7 affidavit was filed in court and that he had the right to cross-examine me on it; he had the right to challenge me on it. He never even asked or tried to challenge me on it. If Mr. Mulroney really thought he could challenge my affidavit, he would have instructed his lawyers to cross-examine me on it in Toronto. They didn't even ask for a cross-examination.
My November 7 affidavit remains unchallenged and uncontradicted. My March 3 affidavit remains unchallenged and uncontradicted. I gave you all my many letters that I sent to Mr. Mulroney in recent years. I made very serious points in my letters. All of my letters are also unchallenged. Mr. Mulroney never once wrote back to challenge, deny, or contradict anything I said to him in my letters.
Mr. Mulroney spent a lot of time exploiting my testimony in the MBB case. Justice Bélanger was the judge in the MBB case, and here is what he said about my testimony: “Mr. Schreiber appeared to understand his obligation as a witness and the need to be truthful...”. He did not follow the request of the prosecutor to call me a hostile witness.
I told you, I was a judge for nine years. I know exactly what I have to do, and I didn't want to commit perjury even by chance, even though I may have a problem once in a while with the language, because English is not my mother language. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you. It's as simple as that.
On December 13, at the end of his appearance, Mr. Mulroney thanked you for your courtesy, then later accused each of you publicly of abusing him. During his testimony he promised to deliver documents to confirm his testimony. It has been over two months since his promises. You have followed up repeatedly. To date, he has delivered nothing to help you, and he broke his promises to you.
Let me now deal with Mr. Mulroney's lie about travelling internationally to sell armoured vehicles. It's simply common sense. There were no plans to even build. Without the plans, there were no vehicles to sell. More important is that there were export control laws in force at the time. You cannot just get on a plane and travel the world selling armoured vehicles. To do so would have been a violation of the export control laws. Of course, Mr. Mulroney's story about reporting to me in New York about all these international meetings to sell armoured vehicles was a complete fabrication. It didn't happen. And if he told me this nonsense in New York, I would have been forced to report him to the German and Canadian authorities.
I never asked him to do any work outside Canada. If he did go to these meetings without my knowledge, doesn't that mean he betrayed NATO by revealing military secrets to the communists? I have been in a war. I have been in the courts. I have been in communist countries. I know what I'm talking about.
Mr. Mulroney testified that I insisted on giving him cash. Mr. Mulroney was called to the bar of Quebec over 30 years ago. He has practised corporate law for decades. He knows the importance of properly documented business transactions. Why didn't he properly document this transaction and send me a receipt or an invoice? Now he wants you to believe that I forced him to accept cash. He accepted the cash because he didn't want it traced.
The $300,000 was trust money given to Mr. Mulroney. He stole it, because he didn't do any work for me. Mr. Mulroney was a member of the bar at the time. He knows you can't take money and keep it for yourself if you don't provide any services. There is no evidence of any services provided to this day, and I never even received a bill.
I have told you that I want this committee to succeed. I have delivered more documents to you. I have met with your representatives to help you. I want to help you get all your questions answered. Please let me help you further. I think this committee already has a place in Canadian history, because to my recollection, I've never heard that a committee like yours was forced to get a Speaker's warrant issued to stop the justice minister of its own government.
Thank you for your attention.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Schreiber.
There's one quick matter I would like to raise with you. It is related to a piece of correspondence the committee has received.
In Mr. Mulroney's testimony on December 13 of last year, he stated that you were at the Pierre Hotel to attend a dinner with the Honourable Allan MacEachen celebrating a North American-German experience of some sort. This was the weekend when you had the meeting in the Pierre Hotel with Mr. Doucet and Mr. Mulroney to have the final report and to give the final instalment of the money.
But the night before, according to Mr. Mulroney, you were with the Honourable Allan J. MacEachen, and the two of you were going to celebrate and participate in a wedding tribute to Elmer MacKay at noon at that hotel, the Pierre Hotel. Is that correct, sir?
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Mr. Chairman, I can only guess that Mr. Mulroney is so in love with Mr. MacEachen and Mr. Marc Lalonde that he sees them always coming like ghosts or angels around him. None of them was there. He's coming up with all this nonsense about Marc Lalonde and Mr. MacEachen all the time because they're Liberals.
Mr. MacEachen is my friend. He had his constituency in Port Hawkesbury, where I was supposed to get jobs for him, and he was the chairman of the Atlantic Brick organization and he went from the Atlantic Brick organization. But Mr. MacEachen was not there.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
He was not there.
Mr. Schreiber, you should know that Mr. MacEachen has written to Mr. Mulroney in a letter dated January 30, 2008, in which he closes:
As they pertain to me those facts are incorrect. I was not in New York City to attend the North American-Germany experience of some kind on the occasion of which you spoke. I have never been in New York City at the same time as Karlheinz Schreiber. I did not have dinner with Karlheinz Schreiber in New York City. I have never stayed at or been in the Hotel Pierre in New York City.
