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.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Was any information brought back to you in terms of a discussion between Mr. Harper and Mr. Mulroney?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Could you briefly tell us what the outcome of that meeting between Mr. Harper and Mr. Mulroney was?
1:05 p.m.
As an Individual
The outcome was that the message was very well received. This is why I could explain this much better with a letter; otherwise you miss the kicking point in it. It was that I should just be calm, that there would be, of course, no guarantee, but since there was a leave application pending in front of the Supreme Court this decision would have to be made first by the court, and then the minister would look into it and do the right thing. This was at the time from Vic Toews. The truth was that pretty soon after all these discussions, Minister Toews made the decision before the Supreme Court made the decision. So it was very clear that the whole thing was a set-up.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Regarding this letter, was Mr. Elmer MacKay involved in any way with the preparation or drafting of this letter?
1:10 p.m.
As an Individual
I hate to say this, because he is one of the nicest people I know and a hell of a good friend. He had nothing more in mind than to help me, and he believed what Brian Mulroney told him when he asked him to do that letter. He needed it so badly to prove to Mr. Harper that we were in good standing after this horrible broadcast of The Fifth Estate called “Money, truth and spin”, and he would never be able to help me if that were not resolved. So I was very reluctant to give this letter, to be quite frank with you. But in my situation, and since I still wasn't sure how far Mr. Mulroney goes in all these lies, I agreed. And it was a shock for me when Prime Minister Harper said publicly on television that Mr. Mulroney never spoke with him about me or my letter.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
And Elmer MacKay was involved with the preparation, drafting, or delivery of that letter?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
His son, I believe, now is the Minister of National Defence. He is a former employee of your company?
1:10 p.m.
As an Individual
No, not of my company. The Thyssen company had him for a while. There was an exchange between German young people coming to Canada to work here and we sent some over.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Schreiber, the final question is when did the Honourable Brian Mulroney cease to become a friend of yours?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Stopped becoming a friend of yours, and at what date, approximately? The spring, the summer, the fall...?
1:10 p.m.
As an Individual
When the letter of request came to Switzerland, I saw a paragraph there referring to information from Mr. Norman Spector, who once used to be a chief of staff in the PMO, that Mr. Mulroney had cancelled the project for Thyssen. When I saw this first in the letter of request I thought that he sent this to protect himself, but I didn't understand properly what the reason was. But when I learned later on that all of this was true, through statements from Norman Spector, and I looked at the timetable of when that happened, I got so mad I cannot even tell you how mad I became. Each and every one of us felt like crooks towards Thyssen, because Mr. Mulroney made all the statements and commitments to the Thyssen representatives. Even today, when I think about it I have a problem not to bring up in front of you.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
Thank you very much, colleagues.
I have some instructions, please. The gavel has not gone yet. Order, please.
Mr. Schreiber, at the beginning of your statement this morning, you gave us a number of dates of court appearances, either for you to be present or for your counsel to be present. I'm not sure that those were all the details you wanted to give us. I would like to have the details of the commitments and the full reasons why you or your counsel cannot be available on certain dates.
However, our next scheduled meeting is on next Tuesday coming up, which is Tuesday, December 4. Again, it's from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and the committee requires you to be here prepared to answer the questions, which will be re-put to you, for those you did not have an opportunity or were not prepared to answer.
We are going to be sending out to all those who are required to be given notice, pursuant to the Speaker's warrant....
Order, please. There is far too much.... Just give me a moment.
Formal notice will go to all who are covered by the Speaker's warrant that we require your presence here on Tuesday, December 4, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and in the interim, that you, as pursuant to the Speaker's warrant, will have full access, appropriate access, to your documents to prepare yourself, and that you should, I would imagine, bring those documents with you when you appear before us on Tuesday, December 4, so you can make further reference, if necessary.
Those are the instructions of the committee at this time. Are they understood?
1:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, it depends very much on where you ask me to be in the meantime.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand that the custody protocol is well known to your legal counsel. However, if there is any obstruction to your having access to your papers or to your having them present with you wherever you are required to be detained, this committee will support and enforce the Speaker's warrant that you will have full access to your documents and that you are authorized to have them fully to be prepared.
I believe that this is the spirit and the intent of the warrant. I don't want to have you come back here again to say “I was here, but they wouldn't let me have my papers”. That will not be acceptable.
If that is the case and you have been prohibited in some way or have been precluded from having your records and doing what you have been asked to be able to do, you will have justification. But others will have to be accountable to this committee for interfering with the instructions given to you by this committee.
I give you that assurance, and I ask for your commitment that you will come back to this committee with your documents and will be prepared to give responses to the questions the members pose.
Is that acceptable to you, sir, and understood?
1:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, as long as I have the proper questions you want and as long as I have access to my home. Otherwise, it simply cannot happen. I am telling you.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, we need to understand this fully.
You all have a copy of the warrant, and it says that for all the people to whom it has been circulated--it's a very large list of policing authorities,
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
That is very clear to us. We are going to enforce that fully. And if that is not the case, the clerk of the committee is to advise immediately if there is any obstruction to your having access to your papers that are necessary and having continued custody of them so long as you need them to prepare to appear before this committee.
Is that acceptable to you, sir?
1:15 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, but allow me to tell you how this is in practice. This is out of an unbelievable amount of files. You take documents out and you file them and you bring them, otherwise I would have to come with a truck here and it would be a never-ending story, looking at documents.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal