Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Ladies and gentlemen, I first want to ask for your indulgence to have silence in the room. It is very important so that those who are posing questions or answering questions are not interrupted or distracted from their business.

This is the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Our order of the day, as passed by the committee, is that in order to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code-of-conduct standards by any office-holder, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics review the matters relating to the Mulroney Airbus settlement, including any and all new evidence, testimony, and information not available at the time of the settlement, including allegations relating to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney made by Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber, and in particular the handling of allegations by the present government or past governments, including the circulation of relevant correspondence in the Privy Council Office or Prime Minister's Office; also, that Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber be called to be a witness before the committee without delay, and that the committee report to the House its findings, conclusions, and recommendations thereon.

Our witness this morning is Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber.

Good morning, Mr. Schreiber.

[Karlheinz Schreiber, As an Individual]

Good morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand you have with you your counsel, Mr. Richard Auger, who is available to consult with you but not to address the committee.

I welcome an opening statement, if you have one, but first I would like to have you sworn in as a witness.

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

The evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Schreiber. I now invite you to make any opening statement you may have.

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

First of all, as I already said, good morning.

I am somewhat delighted that finally my request for an inquiry to clean up all these things is in your hands. Whatever I can do I'm prepared to do, under the right circumstances.

I have an opening statement to make. I would like to read it to you, if you don't mind.

Before I start reading I would like to ask you to keep in mind that my mother language is not English. I try to do my best, as much as I've learned over the years, but once in a while it's a little bit tricky between the rules. But I will do my best. Therefore, I am reading. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask for clarification.

My name is Karlheinz Schreiber. Yesterday morning I was taken from the Toronto West Detention Centre in a van by two officers from the Ottawa Detention Centre. I was handcuffed. I was in leg irons. I wore an orange jump suit. I do not understand why that was necessary, given that I have been on bail for eight years and three months pending an extradition request by Germany.

I'm a Canadian citizen and I am proud of that fact, the day when I chose to become a Canadian. I was very upset when the Prime Minister of Canada said that I should be sent home for trial. Canada is my home. It has been determined by the court that I'm not a flight risk. I've absolutely no interest in leaving Canada. My sureties have been impeccable, and I would do nothing to hurt them. You know who they are.

I first got bail right after I was arrested, with an extradition warrant to send me to Germany. I got bail right after the extradition case was filed with the Court of Appeal of Ontario. Every time until now, I have received bail on every judicial review that I have brought from the minister's decision. Because of the desire of the Minister of Justice to have me removed from Canada, my counsel, Edward Greenspan, in order to avoid my removal agreed that I would not seek my further release until after November 15, 2007. At the conclusion of my appeal on November 15, 2007, the Court of Appeal of Ontario dismissed my appeal and accepted the Minister of Justice's assurance that he would do nothing to remove me from Canada until December 1, 2007, which means 12:01 a.m. this Saturday.

Mr. Greenspan wrote to Nancy Denison at the Department of Justice on November 22, 2007, after filing a notice of application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Following the filing of said notice, Mr. Greenspan wrote Nancy Denison at the Department of Justice seeking immediate confirmation that there is a stay of the surrender order in place pursuant to section 62 of the Extradition Act. Having regard to the fact that the notice of the application for leave had been served and filed and having regard to the position taken by the Department of Justice on other extradition cases, there was no response from the Department of Justice.

On November 26, 2007, counsel for the applicant wrote another letter to Nancy Dennison at the Department of Justice seeking a response to the letter of November 22, 2007, by 1 p.m. Counsel for the Department of Justice called our office at 12:36 p.m. and stated that she anticipated having a response before the end of the day, but not before 1 p.m.

On November 26, 2007, at 6:55 p.m., the Department of Justice faxed a letter to counsel for the applicant indicating that she was unable to respond to the letter dated November 22, 2007, and was still seeking instructions.

The Department of Justice has in the past obviously taken the position that section 62 of the Extradition Act does apply to the Supreme Court of Canada leave application—several times before in my own case, and in many other cases.

My counsels informed me that pursuant to paragraph 62(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, there is an automatic stay of the surrender order pending the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Any other reading of the section of the act would render the section pointless, because there would never be any appeal from an appeal or judicial review. No one would ever be able to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, because leave is always required.

Nancy Dennison then wrote to my counsel, Edward Greenspan, on November 27, 2007, and said:

It is the position of the Attorney General of Canada that section 62 of the Extradition Act does not provide for an automatic stay of an outstanding surrender order pending the outcome of the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada. On behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, I am prepared to consent on strict terms to a judicial stay of the surrender order pending the outcome of your application for leave pursuant to section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act.

As affirmed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario per Doherty, J.A. on November 15, 2007, the Minister is “entitled to give significant weight to finality concerns”. Given the history of this matter, including two previous unsuccessful applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, my consent is contingent on your agreement to file all the materials in support of your leave application on an expedited basis and by no later than December 10, 2007.

Mr. Greenspan wrote back on November 28, 2007, and said:

I acknowledge receipt of your facsimile received by my office at 5:32 p.m. on November 27, 2007, responding to our letter to you dated November 22, 2007.

It is, of course, our position that section 62 of the Extradition Act provides for an automatic stay of surrender pending the determination of the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, we are concerned that, in light of the Minister of Justice's public statements with respect to his claims of limited discretion, in the absence of a court ordered stay of the surrender he will surrender Mr. Schreiber in breach of section 62 of the Extradition Act.

It is apparent from your letter that the Minister is prepared to respect the court ordered stay, as he has publicly stated that he would not surrender Mr. Schreiber until the stay ordered by the Court of Appeal of Ontario has expired on December 1, 2007. Furthermore, it would appear that in your letter, you take the position on behalf of the Minister, that he is prepared to extend a court ordered stay upon an imposed abridgment of the time limitations for the filing of leave applications.

As you are aware, my associate Vanessa Christie has been involved in this matter for a number of years and has been responsible for the preparation of a great deal of the materials and memoranda filed with the Court. Unfortunately, I have just been informed that she had a family emergency in New Brunswick [reason stated in letter to Department of Justice but felt it to be too personal to state in this statement] and Ms. Christie will be leaving today to join her family. In addition, I am scheduled to commence a Superior Court trial in Sudbury which will occupy the week of December 3, 2007 and am to appear in Chicago for the sentencing of Conrad Black on December 10, 2007. Even if I were prepared to accede to an artificial abridgment of the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, I would not be able to file the necessary materials in accordance with your manufactured schedule.

I would request that you seek instructions to consent to a court ordered stay of the surrender in accordance with the rules established by the Supreme Court of Canada. The rules require that all materials with respect to our leave application be filed by January 15, 2008. We are, of course, prepared to honour a strict adherence to the rules and would request that the Minister do likewise.

It is our position that neither Mr. Schreiber nor the Court ought to be dictated by this artificial timetable.

I hope I got it all right for you.

I have just been informed that at 9:30 today, the Department of Justice wrote Eddie Greenspan and said,

In view of this unforeseen change of circumstances (the family emergency of Ms. Christie) the Attorney General consents to file our materials on January 15.

Until the court hearing in Toronto tomorrow determines the length of the stay, I am unwilling at this time to testify until the court of appeal decides how long the stay will be in effect.

I'm sorry, we had to write this down first.

Mr. Greenspan has advised that this matter is not resolved now. We have a right to file on January 15. We do not need the consent of the Attorney General.

As I understand, my case will be dealt with tomorrow in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and a decision will be made. Until that time, I will not speak or answer any questions of this committee. As well, I am here as a result of a Speaker's warrant. It requires me to give material evidence. I do not know the scope of your inquiry, and therefore wish to have it properly explained to me so that I can prepare to answer material questions with material evidence.

Further, the Speaker's warrant says, “That you allow Karlheinz Schreiber access to any place to retrieve any necessary document as may be needed as papers before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.”

I was not given an opportunity to go to my home. I was not given any opportunity to retrieve any necessary documents, and I have not been given any opportunity to review what I have available to me in order to properly prepare myself to testify.

Mr. Greenspan believes that the Speaker's warrant therefore is unlawful and unenforceable and that I should be immediately returned to Toronto. When the issues in Toronto have been resolved and when I have a clear opportunity to prepare myself, then I will voluntarily speak.

I am not entitled to have counsel ask questions or cross-examine anyone. I'm not entitled to have counsel make legal arguments on my behalf. And unless safeguards are taken to protect my rights, like the safeguards that are fully provided for in any public inquiry, I will not speak.

I have nothing more to say now. I have made it clear that I wish to speak, but not in circumstances that are calculated to be degrading and humiliating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you for that. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Schreiber.

Just for clarification and to advise you, this committee does meet Tuesdays and Thursdays while the House is sitting, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. We have meetings after this on December 4, December 6, December 11, and December 13. The committee has also under consideration to have additional meetings in December. As well, there are recommendations to the committee to have additional meetings through January. We do have lots of time to hear you, and I think it would be in the best public interest and your interest and this committee's interest that you be permitted, if it is a legal obligation and all the things are cleared, to be able to do what you have to do with regard to other proceedings, if those are in order. We understand that. But I want you to understand that we do have time to hear you, and we are flexible on that time to take into account your other obligations, which we understand very well.

Secondly, Mr. Schreiber, you indicated that you were not clear on our mandate or what the committee is here for. Did you receive a copy of my letter of Thursday, November 22, 2007, to you with regard to the call to bring you before the committee?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

From the committee, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

And in that, did you happen to note that it outlined...? So you are generally aware of why we're here?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

I also had a meeting last Saturday for two hours with Mr. Greenspan and explained it fully to him in great detail, and our procedures, and of course that you have parliamentary protection--that anything you say here cannot be held against you in another jurisdiction, another court of law.

You also understand that this is not a court; this is a committee of the Parliament of Canada, which is looking into matters and wants to have information related to its order of reference.

We are going to proceed. As you know, the Speaker has provided you with a Speaker's warrant, which lays out specifically that you have access.... And I want to read it into the record: “That you allow Karlheinz Schreiber access to any place to retrieve any necessary document as may be needed as papers before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics”.

We want you to have full access. We want you to have the time to properly review them so that you can come before this committee and give fulsome answers to the questions that are posed to you, if you are able. We will certainly respect this order to the letter.

I would also want to indicate to you that the committee, also under this Speaker's warrant, indicates that your attendance before this committee is required from time to time until that attendance before this committee is no longer required, and that the committee will continue to deal with your testimony and members' questions--not cross-examination with lawyers, but the questions the members have--until such time that it is completed, other witnesses are heard, and it is determined by this committee that your presence would no longer be required. At that time we will give you formal affirmation that you are no longer required for the purposes of the committee. I can assure you that it will be some time, and we will keep you apprised on a regular basis.

I think we understand that you are at a disadvantage right now. We do want you to be fully prepared to address it. In discussion with the members of the committee, it was agreed that in order to facilitate you to be aware of the kinds of questions, the nature, the scope of those questions, we are going to move now to the round we would normally have to pose those questions. Those questions will be on the record. The members have a seven-minute time slot to advise you of the areas of interest.

You may wish to answer any or all of those questions if you are able, but I understand if you are unable you will undertake to answer those at a future meeting. We will provide you within one hour of this meeting with a transcript of these proceedings verbatim so that you have full knowledge of the questions.

When you return.... Will you be able to return here next Tuesday? Maybe you can consult with your lawyer as to whether next Tuesday at 11 a.m. is acceptable.

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

It depends where I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We will certainly consult with you, but your presence is requested at every meeting we have, unless there is proper justification that you are unable, for good reason, not to be here. Is that understood?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm now going to move to Mr. Thibault, seven minutes.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chair, you just can't run this the way you want to. This man had asked to make a motion, and you sat there and ignored him. He has the right to make a motion. You just can't go on your willy-willy way and say we're going to start on a line of questioning. Mr. Schreiber has said he's not even going to answer any questions.

So I'm simply saying on a point of order to you, sir, that Mr. Hiebert had requested politely that he wished to make a motion. You have ignored him. I suggest that you recognize him. He wishes to make a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson.

I apologize for that. I would certainly now recognize Mr. Hiebert if he has a motion. I was not aware that he wanted to suggest we do something else.

Please proceed, Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In light of the circumstances around Mr. Schreiber's testimony this morning and the fact that he believes he's not had enough time to prepare to answer the questions the committee members will have, I move that we reconvene either tonight at 7 p.m. or tomorrow at a time after the Ontario Court of Appeal has heard his application.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's in order, and I will take a speakers list on that.

You are first to speak, and the members could indicate on a speakers list and the clerk will keep it.

Mr. Hiebert, we'll proceed with your argument for the motion.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clearly, Mr. Schreiber, you've had an opportunity for some time to anticipate that you'd be coming before this committee. It's been speculated in the papers and in the media for weeks now. I would tend to believe that, with that in mind, and with its inevitability, you may have perhaps put some thought into preparing for this particular committee.

I have no doubt that you need access to the papers that are contained in your home, and we know that the Speaker's warrant provides you the right to access those papers. But I would simply suggest, sir, that if we give you the opportunity to access those papers, to review your notes, to consult with your counsel, that we reconvene, as we've all been anticipating this opportunity to speak with you for some period of time. We're certainly ready, and we want to give you the chance to be ready. That's why I'm moving this motion that we reconvene tonight, or, as you suggested in your opening statement, if you simply cannot speak before the application is heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal tomorrow, that we reconvene tomorrow after that application has been heard. Certainly that would give you the freedom to speak openly to this committee at that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Have you completed your statement, Mr. Hiebert?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I've completed my statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

I would like to ask Mr. Hiebert, would you please write out your motion in detail, precisely as you moved it, so that the clerk will be able to read it into the record when a vote is called on it.

I'm now going to move to Mr. Thibault.

With points of order, please tell me the specific nature of the point, and then you can go into detail if it is in order.

I'll recognize Madame Lavallée on a point of order.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Hiebert's motion is not an ordinary motion. It is a disguised motion to adjourn and it is unacceptable that he debate it. Given that it is a disguised motion of adjournment, we cannot debate it. It must be put to a vote now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame Lavallée, that is not a point of order, that's a point of debate.

I'm going to now move to Mr. Thibault, please.