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.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Pratte says they're complimentary letters about what he's doing. Do you recall that? You don't recall that, or you do recall that?
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Complimentary letters? Sir, you have to explain it to me. I really don't know what you're talking about.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I'm just reading Mr. Pratte's letter. I just want to know what your comments are.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You don't know what it means. All right, we'll go on to something else.
He then says, in the conclusion of his letter:
Mr. Giorgio Pelossi, Mr. Schreiber's former accountant and business partner, testifying at the committee's invitation, stated that Mr. Schreiber is “lying every time he tells you something. The only goal he has is to stay in Canada and not to be deported to Germany”.
What about that?
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
I heard that. I told you, I haven't seen Mr. Pelossi since 1990, when the police were hunting him and when he was arrested and all that stuff. He was mad at me because he stole the money from my clients. So since then, I don't know where he gets his information about what I'm doing or saying, or what is right or wrong. How does he know?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
In the conclusion of the letter—there are other sections, but I'll just refer to these few brief paragraphs—he says that for Mr. Jean Charest's leadership campaign, “he”--this is you, sir--
told your committee the amount involved was $30,000. Then it was revealed he had told the authors of a book that the amount was $13,000. And finally Premier Charest's brother, who had received the contribution, stated the amount involved was $10,000.
Do you know what that's all about?
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. Number one, it was $30,000 in the office from Elmer MacKay, and Robert Charest was with Revenue Canada at the time and came from time to time to me with important material on how I could save money with the project, from Revenue Canada. It was $30,000. And two days later he went with me to see his brother, who was then the Minister of the Environment, in his office. So that is what it was. I never spoke to one of these authors, such as Stevie Cameron, not one word in my whole life. I don't know what you're talking about.
But I want to tell you what you should really know, or what might be of interest to you, from Mr. Doucet. When I was asked to put the money to the lawyer in Geneva and I refused to do so, I went to Frank Moores, and he said, “Look, this is the same source; we don't need him for that. You know that the money goes to Bruce Verchere.” So now when this gentleman is asking me where the money went, I have certain ideas, and I'm pretty convinced that an inquiry will find that out, because this is what I'm asking for.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
5:05 p.m.
As an Individual
This is the obvious step for Mr. Ménard. When you say I brought money to Canada and I didn't declare it and I did it twice, and you look back and ask, was this illegal, I would have to say yes. Otherwise, no.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Otherwise, in your dealings with the Government of Canada, did you ever commit an illegal act?
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Everyone knows now that there is nothing illegal in paying in cash. It is also not illegal to give someone cash in brown envelopes, and it is not illegal to do so in high-end hotels where everything can be kept very quiet. It is not illegal. Nor is it illegal to give contracts or mandates that are not clear. The very least we can say is that the mandate is not clear, but we will come back to this. I do not have clarity about the amount of money: there have been three versions recently.
It is not illegal, but when we look at the accumulation of all these facts, when we add them up, we may suspect that you did commit some illegal acts in a way that is not very... I would not want to use a term that is not politically correct. Everything that happened leads me to say that this looks like illegal transactions.
I would like to show you the document that you were referring to earlier. This is the mandate that Fred Doucet wanted to negotiate with you. He says he negotiated on February 4, 2000. You say that is impossible, because the firms whose names appear on the document ceased to exist after 1995. Do you acknowledge nonetheless that this is your writing and that these were the names of the two companies? It is difficult to read. Do you acknowledge that this is your handwriting?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. But I can tell you it makes no sense. In no way was this...and these companies have nothing to do with armoured cars, even if they were to exist. Why don't you read that here? It's pure nonsense. I don't know what you've fabricated here.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
You are right, but there are so many things that are nonsense, Mr. Schreiber, in everything you have told us and in everything that the other witnesses have told us as well. This is just one more piece of nonsense.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Is Bitucan not the company that paid $90,000 to Fred Doucet, and from which we recently received a copy of the cheque and the invoice?
5:10 p.m.
As an Individual
Madam, in 1988. Do you know how many years this was away from that, what he did here? I don't know what this is. Is it a piece of paper from a mental clinic? Why the heck would I lie to you? What would this be good for? What would it say? It says nothing.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
It might have some meaning to it. After the fact, in February 2000, when Brian Mulroney was doing his income tax return, he might have thought that he should justify the money he had received. He would have asked you to sign a document at that time. That would have made some sense.
