Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Go ahead, Mr. Martin, on a point of order.... I'm sorry, you're not signed in, Mr. Martin. Oh, you've re-signed in.

Mr. Martin, when you are the signed-in member, you may sit at the table. Mr. Mulcair should not be sitting at the position. You can sit at the table, but I want to know who the person is.

I understand that at this point in time Mr. Martin is the officially signed-in member, and he's asked for a point of order. Could you please indicate the nature of it first, before you get into full flight?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, the nature of the point of order is the most recent ruling that you've made in this committee. It is otherwise a very well-chaired committee to date, I might say, Mr. Chairman, but the most recent ruling that you made--the ruling giving Mr. Schreiber the option to simply say “Defer”--has, I think, actually given the witness too much latitude and not taken into consideration his obligations as per a Speaker's warrant.

It's a point of order in that I believe the ruling should have been that if the nature of the question is such that it cannot be answered without the necessary documents, then the witness may say “I defer”, but if the question is phrased in such a way that it's of a general nature--if I asked, for instance, “What year were you born, Mr. Schreiber?” or “When did you come to Canada, Mr. Schreiber?”--I don't think the witness can clam up and remain silent, given the nature of the authority of the Speaker's warrant.

I was hoping, Mr. Chairman, that you might want to consult the senior law clerk so that we can get some answers to some questions of a general nature and not give Mr. Schreiber a pass on every question we ask.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I think that Mr. Schreiber understands that if it is clearly a question for which there is no justification to say “defer”, he would answer it, like his address or something like that.

If you have any reason to believe there is something in your papers--it might be just the precise date or something like that--we'll accept “defer”, but I'm going to allow members to ask for a confirmation of the reason for the deferral to allow Mr. Schreiber to explain, as he was trying to do for each and every one.

Some are obvious, on their face, that they are detailed enough--I suspect most members will be detailed enough--so I will allow you to say “defer” unless the members ask the chair to instruct you to give more detail of why you are deferring.

Would that be all right?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

Mr. Chairman, I rest on my statement. I will not answer these questions and I have nothing to say at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right, I'm going to carry on with Mr. Thibault.

I think we have to show some latitude here. We understand, but I want some latitude. Your intent is that you're not refusing to answer because you're never going to answer; I am taking your statement to mean that you will not be answering right now because you really must consult your papers so that you can give a correct and fulsome answer. Is that correct, sir?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what you read in the Speaker's warrant--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Correct. You are absolutely correct.

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

--and I was not given this chance. On top of this, eight weeks in court, and I will tell you something. I don't want to insult anybody here, but there is a great ignorance of what the dimension of the document is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you kindly.

Mr. Thibault, you have four minutes remaining of your seven minutes, taking into account the interruption. Please continue.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

What was the purpose of the payments to Mr. Mulroney and why were they made in cash?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

I rest on my statement and I will not answer this question.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Did you provide funds to any other Canadians at any time between 1980 and 2007, either directly or indirectly, in Canada or abroad, to them personally or to a company that they controlled?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

I defer. I rest on my statement, and I will not answer this question at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Martin, on a point of order. Please state the nature of the point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe that Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber is not being cooperative with this committee to the extent that he has taken the fifth on every question we throw at him. He could simply have answered yes or no. Surely he has some personal memory of whether at some point from 1980 to now he bribed somebody, somewhere, some time. Surely he can remember that without checking all of his notes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you for the debate. It's not a point of order.

Mr. Martin, I do understand your point, and the chair shares some of that concern. But it would appear that in the opening statement Mr. Schreiber indicated he has not seen his documents at all. He has been advised. I take him at his word that he would feel more comfortable to answer the questions of this committee if he knew the nature of the questions.

I'm advised that even Mr. Auger is not even familiar with our proceedings here and probably would not be in a position to properly advise his client at this time. We're going to spend some time with you, Mr. Auger, to make sure that this does not repeat.

I think the purpose of the exercise right now is for Mr. Schreiber to be apprised specifically of the questions that members are posing, and we take it that you will be coming back to the next meeting prepared to answer these questions as they are presented to you. We will provide you a transcript so that you will clearly know the area of the answer. It may help the next meeting to go much more quickly. But please take under advisement that if there is any question that is fairly benign, it would be nice to hear an answer of yes or no, if that's applicable, if you can. We will take you at your word, if you need to withhold until you get your books. Okay?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

One hundred percent, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Thibault, we still have two and a half minutes left for you. I would appreciate no more interruptions by members. We're putting questions on the table for Mr. Schreiber to be apprised of the nature of the matters that will come before him.

Please continue.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Merci, Monsieur le President. Two and a half minutes should be good for three other points of order.

This is from your affidavit in point 6: “My first official meeting with Mr. Mulroney was in..1983”--and that was when Mr. Mulroney had just become leader of the Conservative Party and was leader of the opposition--“when I introduced Mr. Max Strauss to Mr. Mulroney.”

Who is Max Strauss?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

I really want to place you in certain.... Max Strauss is the son of Premier Franz Josef Strauss, the chairman of Airbus Industries, and the chairman of the Christian Socialist Union and the Premier of Bavaria.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

What was the purpose of the introduction of Mr. Mulroney to Mr. Strauss?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

I rest on my statement and I will not answer this question. I have nothing to say at this time.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Where did this meeting take place?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

Here, in this building.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

In this building. Who else was in attendance at this meeting?