Evidence of meeting #5 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.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, Mr. Schreiber, you can't win all the battles. In this regard, it appears that you have read a document fully into the public record, on television, etc. It's before you, and I think it's a little late to consult with Mr. Greenspan whether or not you have his permission to let people see it. So I'm not going to ask, I'm going to order you to surrender that document for copy.
We will move on. Our next round is a five-minute round.
Mr. Dhaliwal, please.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Schreiber.
Mr. Schreiber, so far we were aware of the $300,000, but today we had a bombshell when you said that it was $500,000. You said that the original agreement with Mr. Mulroney was for $500,000. Why did he not get the two final payments? When did you decide to shut him out?
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
We have a problem here. It's not exactly what I meant. I said $500,000 was available for this project, and since he didn't perform, he didn't get the $500,000, simple like that.
Let me make this simple. There was $500,000 left in the account for the Bear Head project, and his job would have been to deal with the Bear Head project, and since nothing happened....
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I'm going to ask you this, because Mr. Hiebert asked you a question about the donation. Did you ever donate funds personally—personally means you, as Karlheinz Schreiber—to the Conservative Party since 1980?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Schreiber, did you personally donate any money to any other party? Personally means you, Karlheinz Schreiber, not your company.
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I cannot answer this question. I'm not prepared for that.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Schreiber.
Mr. Schreiber, Canadians want to know what Mr. Harper knew and when he knew it and why he distanced himself so quickly from Mr. Mulroney. So Mr. Schreiber, I'm going to ask you questions about your correspondence with Mr. Harper. To assist the committee, I'm happy to table the copies of the letters that you sent to Mr. Dion earlier this month.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to table these copies here for your convenience.
I should let you know, Mr. Schreiber, that upon viewing this package, Mr. Dion asked that a copy of this be sent to the RCMP. Can you confirm that in your March 29, 2007 letter to Prime Minister Harper, you included the information that Mr. Mulroney was looking for financial help in the summer of 1993, and you met him at Harrington Lake on June 23, 1993?
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Sir, I would appreciate it if I could see this letter, because I understand that my lawyer has sent it out and I might not even have seen it.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
A voice
It's for the witness.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You still have one and a half minutes.
Before Mr. Schreiber leaves we will take care of that, unless it's determined that there's a reason it shouldn't be. My first inclination was whether it is available in both official languages, etc., but I don't want to take any more of the committee's time on those details.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Yes.
He wants to give a document to Mr. Schreiber but not to everybody else.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I'm sorry, I have a point of order.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the rules of this place are that documents are not produced at any committee hearing unless they are in both official languages. I understand that this one is not, so I think you'll have to wait for when it becomes translated into both official languages.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, you are absolutely correct. However, nothing precludes a member from transmiting any document to another party outside of the meeting. So that would be another way in which--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
What he jolly well does outside the committee is his business, but in this committee hearing, Mr. Chairman, this document being produced is out of order.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Yes, I agree with you, if it's not in both official languages.
On the same point of order, I'll now go to Mr. Thibault.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
I seek clarification, Mr. Chair.
I understand the rule. It's a reasonable rule, that any document circulated to a House committee be circulated in both official languages.
In this instance, it's not the exact same thing. The member is putting a question to a witness. In the question to the witness, he refers to a letter that was originally the witness's letter. This is a letter that the witness wrote. The witness says that letter may refresh his memory. The member offers to give him a copy of the witness's own letter, put it in his possession, not the committee's, so that he may be prepared to answer the question put before him. I think this would be quite different from evidence that's put to all members of the committee.