ETHI Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
CANADA
Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
Order, please.
Good afternoon, colleagues. This is the 15th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study of the Mulroney Airbus settlement.
Colleagues, as you know, we have three witnesses today, and as was agreed upon at our last in camera meeting at the end of January, we will be flexible with our time to make sure we have equitable distribution of questions to all parties, and we will possibly go a little over our 5:30 p.m. time if necessary in order to achieve that equity. So I ask for your indulgence as we move through the witnesses.
I have a very quick update on a couple of important matters—or maybe just one matter.
First of all, on January 16, as you will know, I wrote both to Mr. Schreiber and to Mr. Mulroney with regard to outstanding requests for information that they undertook in their testimony to provide the committee. On the 16th specifically, I wrote to Mr. Pratte with regard to Mr. Mulroney's undertakings. On January 28 we still had not received the information. I reminded him in a letter with the details of what we need on the international trips to China, Russia, France, and the United States—who he met, at what times, who accompanied him, etc., the full details.
On February 8 we still had not received a response from Mr. Pratte. The clerk sent a message to Mr. Pratte to again remind him of the undertaking to provide that information, and yesterday Mr. Pratte responded to that message indicating that Mr. Mulroney was travelling and could not be reached, and that Mr. Pratte himself would be in court for most of the week but he would do his best to accede to our request.
I simply wanted the committee to know that this is vital information in terms of the work done by Mr. Mulroney with regard to the payments made to him, and we will take all necessary steps to get the information for the members.
Our first witness today is the Honourable Marc Lalonde, who is a privy councillor and was a member of Parliament from 1973 to 1984. During this time he served as Minister of Finance, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, Minister of Amateur Sport, and Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Good afternoon, Mr. Lalonde.
We thank you kindly for accepting our invitation to appear before us today.
Mr. Lalonde, as a privy councillor, I expect that you will recall the rules, procedures, and traditions of the House of Commons, and in particular you will recall the general expectation that witnesses appearing before the committee testify in a truthful and complete manner. Do you wish to proceed under this understanding, or would you feel more comfortable by being formally sworn in by the clerk of the committee?
[Translation]
As the Chair mentioned, I left politics in 1984 to return to private life. In October of that year, I became a partner at Stikeman Elliott, a major Canadian law firm, specialized in commercial law and international commercial arbitration. In 2003, I became senior counsel at the firm, and in July 2006, I retired. Since then, I have been working on my own, exclusively on international arbitration.
A few weeks ago, I received your invitation to appear before the committee, and I gladly accepted. There are, however, two things I must address. The first—to avoid any unnecessary questions—is that I know nothing more about the relationship between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber than what has already been said before this committee and what has appeared in the media from time to time. Therefore, I have no information that would be relevant to the issues before this committee. The second—the lawyers here will understand this one—is that I am bound by my profession's code of ethics, in particular as concerns my clients' confidential information. My clients may speak freely about the work I do for them, but I do not have the same freedom, unless I receive their express authorization.
Nevertheless, I do not believe this should be an issue today, at least as concerns the Thyssen armoured vehicles. I believe that Mr. Schreiber has already told you that I worked on this matter for him around 1992. That said, I am pleased to answer your questions. I know you are short on time, so I will try to give you concise and accurate answers.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Lalonde.
I understand your statement. Should a question be posed to you that you believe you cannot or should not answer for reasons...I certainly will hear your argument and make a ruling at that time.
I want to move to questioning now.
Mr. Thibault, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Lalonde, welcome to the committee and thank you for accepting our invitation.
My first question is about your professional relationship with Mr. Schreiber and the payment arrangements. Did he pay you in cash, by cheque, by bank transfer directly to you or through your law firm?
Mr. Schreiber hired me as a lawyer and to represent him as a lobbyist. For each case or file, my fees were calculated at my regular hourly rate. The invoices were sent by my firm, Stikeman Elliott, and were paid by cheque or bank transfer, as is normally done. In 22 years at Stikeman Elliott, I do not think I ever saw a cheque from a client. They were sent directly to the accounting department. We heard about it only if the account was not paid.
Mr. Mulroney told the committee that he received cash payments from Mr. Schreiber—he said that was how Mr. Schreiber did things—but you were able to find another method of payment that was somewhat more usual in your relations with the same client?
He contacted me around 1987 about a private business matter. He then hired me for other matters, which were all private or business related, except the matter concerning Thyssen, which involved relations with the government. In all the other cases, none of the work involved any level of government—federal or provincial.
Neither Mr. Schreiber nor any of his businesses hired me to represent them regarding the Airbus affair or GCI.
And your professional relationship as a lawyer or lobbyist for Mr. Schreiber on the Thyssen matter ended in what year?
Around 1985, after the government decided not to use a public tendering process, but to use the sole source method to award the contract to GM. It was the end of 1985. I worked between 1982 and 1985; perhaps in 1981, but definitely from 1982 to 1985.
I apologize. The correct dates were from 1992 to 1995. Thank you for pointing out that mistake. From 1982 to 1985 I was working on other things.
The newspapers have mentioned several times that you posted $100,000 bail for Mr. Schreiber in his extradition case.
A number of times, the media have said that you posted bail for Mr. Schreiber in his extradition case. I believe the amount was $100,000.
Yes, exactly. First of all, I would like to thank you for saying that I posted bail, and not that I paid bail. A Montreal newspaper said that I paid him $100,000 in bail. I even heard an NDP member claim on television that I had paid $100,000. I did not pay a cent. When an individual posts bail, he simply guarantees that the person in question will respect the bail conditions. The individual is required to pay only if this person does not respect the bail conditions.
In Mr. Schreiber's case, I never had a moment's hesitation. I have not paid a cent and I am sure that I will not have to pay a cent, because the purpose of the bail is to keep him from leaving the country. But Mr. Schreiber has been fighting for eight years to stay in the country, not to leave. I am not concerned about the bond I posted, and other people have done the same.
You may wonder why I did it. Mr. Schreiber and I worked together on several matters, for which he retained my services. When Canada received the extradition request, Mr. Schreiber decided to appeal it before the courts. The courts allowed him to remain free during his extradition case and set a very high bail, over $1.3 million, if I remember correctly. Mr. and Mrs. Schreiber handed over all their Canadian assets, approximately $850,000. They were about $500,000 short. They then turned to acquaintances and friends to ask if they would agree to make up the difference. I did not hesitate to do so.
My primary reason was sympathy, something we do not often see in politics, unless things have changed drastically since my time. Mr. Schreiber was never accused of or charged with anything in Canada. I did not see why this man should stay in prison for purely financial reasons or because he did not have the money he needed to post bail. I have regularly renewed the bail since then, with no problems.
Good afternoon, Mr. Lalonde. Thank you for being here and for being clear and concise.
What was your role in the contract with Bear Head?
I had two roles. The first was to advise the company, around 1992, on legal proceedings that Thyssen Bear Head Industries had brought against the Government of Canada after the letter of intent, signed by three ministers of the Conservative government at the time, was not respected or acted upon.
I examined this matter and recommended that Bear Head hire Ian Scott, who is known as one of the best litigators in Canada, to take on the case because I am not a litigator myself.
When the government changed in 1993, I was asked to represent Thyssen to make representations to the Government of Canada. I told those in charge that there was no chance for success if they were hoping to obtain a sole source contract, and that their only chance for success would be through a public tendering process. They agreed to this condition, and all my efforts were directed towards government authorities, such as the relevant public officials, departments, or even the PMO. The goal was to get a public tendering process that would enable Thyssen and also GM or any other interested company to submit a bid.
So that was I was mandated to do. Unfortunately, I was not successful.
We all understand that the project was to build light-armoured vehicles.
Were you required to know the sales projections of where the light-armoured vehicles could be sold?
I will admit that no, I was not. My only task was to try to convince the government to call for public tenders. As far as I know, it was to meet the needs of the Department of National Defence. I never heard talk of foreign markets during that time.
We can assume that, if this had worked, it would perhaps have been possible to sell internationally, but I never heard anything about that.
Were you aware that Mr. Mulroney's services had been retained to find potential buyers for that vehicle?
Not until Mr. Schreiber tried to sue Mr. Mulroney over it. I believe that was last year. Before that, no. I heard about it in the papers, like you.
Did you know if Mr. Schreiber was in the habit of paying for some things in cash, except for basic necessities, of course?
I was going to say that the only time I remember that happening was when my wife and I had dinner with him at Montebello. We brought our two grandsons, and Mr. Schreiber gave them $10 to go play the ball machines in the hotel basement. Other than that, I never witnessed it.
I would like to know if your company's contract, which must be a typical contract, allows some lawyers with high-profile pasts to accept contracts on the side without putting the profits into the company's coffers.
No, that is not allowed. I do not know if that is still the case, but in my time, the only exception was that we could sit on boards of directors and receive remuneration as a director.
This is a difficult question, but I would like you to answer if you can. Given what you know about these people, do you think that Mr. Mulroney was retained to do work in China, Russia, France and the United States?
I do not have any valid information upon which to base a positive or negative answer. You are asking for my personal opinion, and that is all I can offer. I have to admit that I do not think my opinion is of any value. I can tell you that I never heard them talk about that.
Nevertheless, you did play an important role at the time. Relations with China at the time were not what they are now.
Well, they were while we were in government, because after we recognized China, our relations with the Chinese improved considerably.
But that was five years after Tiananmen Square. Do you think Canada would have allowed the production of light armoured vehicles for export to China?
Absolutely not. If I remember correctly, our NATO commitments and our agreement with the Americans on defence materiel would not have allowed us to sell anything to China.
[Translation]
Good day, Mr. Lalonde.
In the December 5, 2007, edition of the Halifax Chronicle Herald, it was reported that you lobbied your former cabinet colleague, Jean Chrétien, directly. Is that correct?
Of course, I would be pleased to submit my correspondence with Mr. Chrétien about that, if you like.
I would be glad to see it.
I would now like to ask you if you registered to engage in lobbying, as required by the law. Lobbying is a legal activity, but one must register. Were you registered to engage in legal lobbying in that case in 1995?
Thank you for asking the question. I am pleased to answer that although my name does not appear to be on the registry, I did everything that could reasonably have been expected of me—
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I'm enjoying this too, but the translators can't keep up with you. You're going a little too fast.
Please--question, answer.
[Translation]
As soon as the Lobbyists Registration Act was passed, I took great care to register every time. In fact, I even registered when I did not have to, just because of my political past.
There was nothing secret about my work for Thyssen and Bear Head. I explained what that was about earlier. It was actually made public in 1986. There was an article in the Globe and Mail about it. Also, in 1987, an access to information request was submitted. I was asked if I would authorize disclosure of my communications, and I authorized it with no hesitation whatsoever.
The first time I heard that my name was not on the list was in December 2007. A reporter from the Halifax Chronicle Herald called me and told me that my name did not appear to be on the list. At the time, I was in Vancouver overseeing an important international arbitration case, and I did not have access to my files. I told him that I was unable to answer immediately, but that I was sure I was registered. I did not get back to my office until about 10 days later. I looked into the matter thoroughly, but could find no trace of having registered, which came as a complete surprise to me.
So I called up my old files and found that for November 23, 1993, there were two items on my agenda, one for Bear Head that said “lobbyist registration, one half-hour”, and another for Abbott Laboratories, a pharmaceutical company, that said “lobbyist registration, one quarter-hour”. I also tracked down our office’s time log—we always kept track of our time—and there was a notation for November 23 that said, “lobbyist registration, one half-hour.”
Thank you, Mr. Lalonde.
We do not have much time. I gave you plenty of time, but my question was quite specific. You were not on the list of lobbyists when you lobbied Mr. Chrétien, your former cabinet colleague, on Mr. Schreiber's behalf. Is that correct?
Oh, so it was your secretary’s fault.
I do have more questions, Mr. Lalonde, and we do not have much time. I appreciate your experience and the length of your answers.
The public knows your answer to the first question, and we will now move on to the second, Mr. Lalonde.
How much money did you earn from Mr. Schreiber's companies or from Mr. Schreiber himself during the time you represented him?
How much money did Mr. Schreiber pay you in total?
Between 1987 and 1998, I may have been paid about $75,000, but that is just an approximate figure. I never added it up.
We can always get the documents from Stikeman Elliott. That is not a problem.
You said that you lobbied Mr. Chrétien without being registered as a lobbyist. You also lobbied John Manley, Doug Young and Roy McLaren.
Were you registered each time, for each of these individuals, or could there have been more oversights with respect to your registration?
You just said that I was not registered, so what can I say?
However, I can tell you that I went through the process for all departments involved. If I remember correctly, those were Foreign Affairs, Industry, National Defence and International Trade.
At the time, we only had to register once. We wrote down the names of the departments we intended to lobby.
At the time, the law said that if a person intended to make representations to a public office holder, such as your former colleague, Jean Chrétien, in an attempt to influence the awarding of a contract, that person had to be registered. We have just established that you were not registered when you lobbied Mr. Chrétien. Were you not registered when you lobbied others either? Is that what you are saying? I do not want to put words in your mouth.
Of course not. I only had to register once. Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to submit a letter I wrote to the office of the registrar of lobbyists about this so you can see the documents and the explanation given in the letter.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Lalonde, for being here.
My, you have a long and distinguished career, sir. What was read into the record isn't really complete. I read that in 1959 you were a special adviser to the justice minister in the Diefenbaker government; in 1967 in the PMO, adviser to Prime Minister Pearson; then you worked as principal secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau as well as those things. And then it continues on. After you retired, sir, you've.... As I said, it's pretty safe to say that you certainly know your way around here and you'd certainly know how things work in government.
I want to read these questions into the record, if I could. We are doing a study obviously on the Bear Head project, on the Airbus purchase, and how that affects Mr. Mulroney.
Do you have any evidence to offer this committee of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the Bear Head project?
And I know these are repetitious, but we do want to read these into the record.
Do you have any evidence to offer this committee of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the consulting agreement between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber?
Do you have any evidence to offer this committee of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the Airbus purchase by Air Canada?
Do you have any evidence to offer this committee of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the circulation of correspondence from the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office, with particular emphasis on the correspondence sent by Karlheinz Schreiber to the current Prime Minister?
Thank you, sir.
You have stated that you originally met Mr. Schreiber in a professional capacity and he hired you to perform legal services for him. You said this in, I think, The Globe and Mail, March 24. When did you start?
Mr. Schreiber claims he told Mr. Mulroney when they met at Harrington Lake in 1993 that he had already hired you to lobby for Bear Head, and that comes out of the Toronto Star, April 19, 1996. When did Mr. Schreiber first hire you to lobby for this project?
As I have mentioned, this would have been after the change of government, obviously, in 1993. I think you'll have to check the record, Mr. Chairman, to make sure I get the right decade.
Mr. Schreiber told the committee that the Swiss bank account code-named MARC was set up at the end of 1993, and $500,000 was transferred into it to make sure that you would work for him and for Thyssen, but that he, Mr. Schreiber, was later told that things had changed and he was not to use the account anymore. This is a quote taken from Mr. Schreiber's testimony on December 4.
Mr. Lalonde, can you tell the committee what work you did for Karlheinz Schreiber?
On that particular file? I have already said in French. I advised Mr. Schreiber in 1992, when he was considering suing the Conservative government for not having proceeded with the project, and then I was retained on representations to various officials and ministers in the Liberal government to convince them that they should call a public tender for the supply of those light armoured vehicles made by Thyssen.
I don't have a clue. Frankly, we don't ask our clients from which bank account they take the money with which they pay us. My firm was paid by cheque or bank transfer, and I don't know.
Can I ask you how much you were paid? Mr. Schreiber said on December 4 that half a million dollars was transferred into the MARC account. However, on November 29 he told the committee he had no idea how much you actually had been paid, but it wasn't half a million dollars. Can you tell--
No, definitely not. It was probably not more than one-tenth of that. Mind you, in terms of the figure itself, if the public tender had been accepted and if the project had proceeded, $500,000 in legal fees for a project of this kind, when you consider everything that had to be done, is not an outrageous figure. It would involve the purchasing of land, setting up of the corporate structure, financing, negotiations with government, negotiations with unions, and addressing environmental and tax issues. Any businessman will tell you a figure like this would not have been excessive.
I have one other question, and this is just to satisfy my own curiosity.
Mr. Schreiber, in testimony, made reference to the fact that we really have no idea of what goes on. When I started my questioning, I made reference to your long and distinguished career. Do you want to comment on that? I guess his statement led us to believe that government has absolutely no understanding of what goes on. Would you comment on that?
Frankly, I think politicians know things that businessmen don't, and businessmen know things that politicians don't. There are two solitudes that need to meet sometime.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When Mr. Schreiber appeared before our committee, Mr. Lalonde, and when Canadians saw him and heard the evidence he gave, many people didn't get a very good picture of what he represents. Was he credible? Was he honest? Was he reliable? Did he work professionally in terms of what he did? When your name is associated with him, could you give the committee, briefly...?
We had a lawyer here last week with Mr. Mulroney's group. He divorced himself. He separated from the other important witness we had. But you're an important witness in terms of offering our committee your impression of Mr. Schreiber and his work and whether he was honest and straightforward. Or was he the slippery fellow some Canadians perceive him to be?
What was your impression of Mr. Schreiber?
I'm sure there are various opinions about everybody, including me. But I can tell you that in 1987...so I have known him for about 20 years. He's never asked me at any time to do anything that would be improper, and I have never heard it reported that he had done something improper, except for what I've read in the press.
I can tell you my own experience. This man has been quite straight with me.
I would assume that when you offered to support his bail, you felt an injustice was being done, that he should have his so-called “day in court” to be able to retain his Canadian citizenship or to at least not be shipped out of the country very quickly by our present government.
As I said, every Canadian is entitled to his freedom, if the courts recognize it, which was the case. I've never believed that anybody should stay in jail purely for financial reasons and I've acted accordingly with some other people.
[Translation]
Mr. Lalonde, you have answered our questions frankly and straightforwardly. However, the answer to one of the questions is still a little vague. You knew Mr. Schreiber. You have since learned that Mr. Schreiber himself admitted to paying $300,000. The person who says he received the money claimed that the amount was just $225,000. The money was paid, but there is no receipt, no written mandate, nothing.
Does that sound like the person you worked for legitimately, the person with whom your dealings were above suspicion and your transactions completely above board? I am sure that you, like most people, think that $300,000 is a lot of money to give to a politician shortly after he leaves office. Everyone thinks that from the start and waits for some explanation of why they should not think that.
According to your description of Mr. Schreiber and what you knew about him, he seemed to be a businessman of considerable means who did things above board. Can you explain why he paid $300,000 to that kind of man?
As I said, the first time I heard about it was when Mr. Schreiber tried to sue Mr. Mulroney in Ontario. Messrs. Mulroney and Schreiber have already appeared before this committee and will do so again. You should ask them these questions, not me.
You did put up bail for him though. You did take on that commitment for him. And let us be clear about one thing: giving a former politician $300,000 is not above board, but your other transactions with him—
Mr. Mulroney said that there was nothing illegal about it. He himself said so. If you want a legal opinion, please come to my office and I will bill you.
I do not need to. However, it did not seem to surprise you to find out that he— Were you not surprised?
The first time I put up bail for Mr. Schreiber was in 1999, I think, and the rest was just to renew that. Listen, in this country, we have presumption of innocence. I should not have to tell you that, because you are a lawyer, a former criminal lawyer. So far, Mr. Schreiber has not been charged with anything in Canada, and he, like all citizens, has the right to be presumed innocent.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lalonde, I would like to go back to the lobbying you did. What did you lobby John Manley about?
We talked about the fact that Thyssen had a very high-quality product, very high-calibre. Some senior officers in the Department of National Defence had taken a close look at it and had praised it highly. In light of the situation—both GM and Thyssen had a product—it made sense to go ahead the same way we did when we were in government and we issued a request for proposals for F-18s and navy destroyers. In both cases, we issued requests for proposals.
Do you remember if Mr. Manley expressed reservations about meeting an arms dealer like Mr. Schreiber or someone like you, when you were not registered as a lobbyist? Did he ask you about that?
At the time, I was with Jürgen Massmann, who headed up Thyssen BHI, and who was on the board of directors of Thyssen's parent company. He knew what he was talking about when it came to technical things a lot better than I did.
Yes. Mr. Massmann was with me for nearly all of those meetings. If I went to a meeting, he was there. I already said that I had talked to people in the departments I mentioned.
We do not have much time, Mr. Lalonde.
Earlier, you said that all you did was post $100,000 in bail when you signed the agreement. However, in the eyes of the law, that is the same as paying $100,000, should the need arise.
I understand what you are saying, but in the eyes of the law, it is the same.
I have a question for you. Have you ever had to post bail for anyone other than Karlheinz Schreiber?
No, but I can tell you that I would have done the same for any one of my friends or clients in the same situation. I would do it again today. That is the beauty of being a private citizen. Once you leave politics, you can do whatever you want, as long as you obey the law, fulfill your contractual obligations and are at peace with your conscience.
That is exactly why we are here today, Mr. Lalonde. You and I have determined that the provisions of the law were not obeyed. We have to recognize—for we are elected representatives too—that once a person leaves politics and becomes a private citizen again, that person does have a slight advantage over other private citizens when he can call up a former cabinet colleague who has become Prime Minister. Do we agree on that?
[English]
Merci, Mr. Lalonde.
That brings us to the end of the questioning. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you kindly for coming. You have made a couple of undertakings to provide information to the committee. We will remind you of those in writing so there is no misunderstanding. You are excused, sir. Thank you kindly.
Colleagues, I want to move immediately to Mr. Alford. I'm not going to take a break at this time. We have three witnesses today and we just have to keep moving. Our next witness is appearing by video conference, Mr. Greg Alford.
Mr. Alford, can you hear me?
Thank you kindly.
Colleagues, let me explain to everyone why Mr. Alford is by video conference. As you know, we had ten witnesses to schedule in only three meetings. We had numerous changes at the last minute, and it required me to ask certain people to meet at a time when they had conflicts. Mr. Alford was one of them, and he agreed to accommodate us. So the reason he's by video conference is due to my scheduling needs rather than his desire to be by video conference. I want you to understand that clearly it was for our own purposes.
I thank you, Mr. Alford, for accepting our invitation and for accommodating us to meet our scheduling plans.
Mr. Alford was an aide to former premier Frank Moores in Newfoundland. He later worked in Ottawa at GCI, Government Consultants International, with Mr. Moores, who was the president. We understand Mr. Alford was a senior vice-president responsible for handling donations and fundraising dinner contributions, etc., at GCI and was also responsible for the Bear Head file.
Good afternoon, Mr. Alford.
Your name was submitted to me on December 15 as a priority witness. We thank you for accepting our invitation to appear today voluntarily.
I will now ask that you be sworn in. We've made arrangements. I understand there is a representative at your location with a Bible, and a clerk here will administer the oath.
Repeat after me, please: The evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
The evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Thank you, sir.
The matter before us obviously is very serious, and we hope you can clarify and/or help us to better understand certain matters that have been brought before the committee.
As you know, it's our practice to advise all witnesses that refusal to answer a question is not an option. However, if you believe there is valid reason that a question not be answered, I will hear your argument and make a ruling. As a courtesy to the translators—and I don't think it's going to be a problem on video conference—I hope you won't speak too quickly, but I will give you time to fully answer questions that are posed to you.
Do you have any questions for me before we begin?
The committee has invited me to appear as a witness and respond to questions relating to my time of employment at GCI.
I worked in a government relations firm that was owned by Frank Moores. We researched and monitored policy developments and regulatory activity of the federal government, with a particular focus on industrial policy and crown procurement projects.
In 1985, Mr. Moores merged his firm with a business similar, owned by Gerald Doucet. The new firm was called Government Consultants International, or GCI. In addition to the founding partners, the firm initially employed about six consultants and researchers. As the firm grew, the consultant and research group increased to about 12.
GCI provided services to Canadian and international clients who were interested in monitoring Canadian government policy, tracking and contributing to the policy process through procedures and presentations to forums such as the House of Commons committee process, tracking regulatory developments, and bidding on major crown projects. I worked in GCI, and my responsibilities included assisting clients in preparations for these areas.
That's a summary of my work at GCI. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Mr. Alford.
First of all, were you aware Mr. Schreiber had retained the services of Mr. Mulroney to lobby on behalf of the Thyssen Bear Head project?
On November 21, 1994, Mr. Schreiber withdrew funds from the Britan account. The same day, he wrote in his daytimer, “Pierre NY” and “50 Britan”.
On the same date, according to Mr. Schreiber's daytimer, he met with you at a New York hotel. What was discussed at this meeting? Could you tell the committee, please?
It's coming from Mr. Schreiber's diary. On November 21, it says that he met with you at a New York hotel.
To the best of my recollection, that might have been an event that I attended on behalf of Thyssen for a group called Atlantic Bridge. It was an event that included government and industry—Canadian, U.S., and European. I think I was a representative simply attending the conference and speeches. I know Mr. Schreiber was an active participant in that. I was an audience member in the luncheon or dinner, whatever it might have been.
Two weeks later, on December 8, 1994, Mr. Schreiber met with Mr. Mulroney in New York at the Pierre Hotel. This is where the final Schreiber payment was made to Mr. Mulroney.
Then next day, December 9, 1994, Mr. Schreiber's daytimer notes a meeting with Marc, Fred, Greg, and Frank. Did the people at this meeting include you, the Honourable Marc Lalonde, Mr. Fred Doucet, and Mr. Frank Moores?
I'm sorry, the event that I referred to earlier could have been in November or December of 1994. I remember attending an event in New York on behalf of the company. I can't remember the specific meeting that you're describing now.
I've had meetings with the four people you've mentioned. I can't recall with certainty the specific meeting you're describing at this point.
Did you ever make any cash payments on behalf of GCI, Frank Moores, Gary Ouellet, Karlheinz Schreiber, or Bear Head Industries to any political parties, or to Fred Doucet or Mr. Brian Mulroney?
So it means indirectly, because if GCI had a client relationship with Thyssen.... So now you're saying that Bear Head was directly or indirectly involved with GCI?
Bear Head was a project with the company that Thyssen gave as the name of their Canadian project as they decided to proceed and endeavour to build a manufacturing facility in Canada and bid towards the Canadian armoured vehicle requirements.
He didn't have involvement in Bear Head Industries. Bear Head Industries was a Thyssen-owned company that was hoping to bid for the Canadian military vehicle requirements.
Could you help me understand what your question is? I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the meaning of your question.
In about--I can't get the year right--1999, he visited a test installation of this project, and a presentation was made to him to demonstrate the technology. He had quite an interest in the raw product, which of course is pasta and a wheat-based product.
[Translation]
Thank you very much. It is not easy to testify via videoconference, and it is even harder with translation. We will try to make this as easy as possible.
Mr. Alford, you were Frank D. Moores’ assistant when he was the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. You were a GCI shareholder from 1984 to 1988, and you were the vice-president of Bear Head Industries in Ottawa from 1988 to 1996. It would be fair to say that you were in the thick of the action we are talking about today, even though you did not play a leading role in it. At least, that is the impression that people around this table have.
I believe that you were aware of everything that happened, and you must have read the four books about these issues very eagerly. Did you read them?
[English]
[Translation]
No, I will not ask you to do that today.
You were the vice-president of Bear Head Industries. As such, you answered directly to Thyssen in Germany. Is that right? The chair was in Germany.
[English]
I'd like to correct some of your introduction. I indeed did work with GCI, but I was not a partner in GCI.
In answer to your question now--where did I report on the Thyssen company Bear Head Industries--my line of report was directly to Germany.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I knew that Mr. Lalonde was the lawyer for Bear Head Industries, which was a Thyssen company; yes, of course.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
Yet you worked for Bear Head Industries from 1988 to 1996, when Mr. Mulroney said he was working for Thyssen.
[English]
The distinction that I think is important for you to understand is that my line of report in Bear Head Industries was from my area of responsibilities, which were domestic projects, Canadian projects. The chairman of Bear Head Industries, as appointed by our German parent company, was Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber had a greater involvement in international projects.
I might have been called upon in these areas from time to time--there certainly was a desire in the Bear Head project, as it was envisaged, to manufacture and export into accessible markets--but my primary focus was to the domestic market.
[Translation]
Yes, but if Mr. Mulroney had needed promotional materials, would he not have had to ask you for them because you were the vice-president of Bear Head Industries in Ottawa?
[English]
Mr. Schreiber was actually involved. If Mr. Schreiber needed materials, of course, they were readily available in the firm's offices and would be available to him. We're happy to distribute our promotional material to anyone.
I'm sure, within our campaign to introduce and make known the name of Thyssen and Bear Head Industries and the capability of our vehicles, that on many occasions we readily sent our equipment descriptions and catalogues and corporate qualifications to each and every member of Parliament, including all of the prime ministers at the time of our office's existence.
[Translation]
Mr. Schreiber said that sometime in the 1980s, Frank D. Moores told him that GCI would take care of Mr. Mulroney, who, when he was no longer Prime Minister, would work for GCI. That is what Mr. Schreiber told us on December 11, 2007. Is that true?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Alford. My name is Pat Martin. I'm a member of Parliament from Winnipeg, representing the NDP.
Welcome.
My questions, I suppose, will focus in and around Bear Head, as the others have.
What we do know is that at a certain stage, when a memorandum of understanding was signed with the Government of Nova Scotia and the federal government, a $4 million bonus was paid out. Did that money go to GCI?
We've been given copies of the memorandum of understanding on that basis. I suppose it was Mr. Schreiber who would have been the lead lobbyist for Bear Head at that time. Is that your understanding?
Let me clarify my earlier response. I'm certainly familiar with the understanding, the agreement that you describe. I had no awareness of any payments that you've described.
I see.
Mr. Schreiber testified that Mr. Greg Alford was the senior vice-president and he handled all the donations, fundraising dinners and whatever what was.... He goes on to say, “he had cut the cheque for the Liberals in 1993 in the amount of $10,000 from Thyssen Bear Head Industries”.
Do you have any comment on what Mr. Schreiber testified under oath?
Any donations that were made from Bear Head Industries were always done formally, with complete registration. That sounds like one of the annual fundraising campaigns that might have approached us. There was one from the Liberal Party called Laurier Club and there was another one from the Conservative Party, and they campaigned throughout every category of industry to contribute in support of their campaigns. So it was entirely a formal donation with receipts and a formal record.
Did you not answer Mr. Dhaliwal that GCI didn't make any donations to any political party? I thought that was one of his questions.
No, I didn't answer a question....
Don't confuse the two timeframes. With all respect, there are two timeframes. I was at GCI until 1988, and any involvement I might have had with coordinating donations was to ensure that in a firm like GCI you get invited to attend each and every fundraiser held by a riding association or a national party, a provincial party. So we simply tried to coordinate our participation in these events so that we could distribute what we could in support of the worthy cause of members of Parliament getting elected.
And in 1993, then, you donated $10,000 to the Liberal Party. Now, was that signed by Thyssen or Bear Head?
That was from Bear Head Industries. That was to participate in one of the national events. I think there was a series of conferences held, and there were similar events along the way. Typically I would be in those events and see all my competitors there. It was certainly an appeal to industry at large.
Which Liberal ministers would you have been lobbying post-1993 on behalf of Bear Head? André Ouellet?
Mr. Ouellet was the minister who had interest in Thyssen, interest in possibly attracting of some of our activity into the industrial development initiatives for Montreal, yes.
The main ministers of interest would have always been the ministers responsible for industry and then those for the regional area of ACOA and then Quebec, I guess—the economic development initiatives of Quebec as led by Mr. Ouellet.
On the defence side, of course, we would attend, as would everyone in the industry, the presentations where the defence minister would speak, and that was probably the main focus.
The parent company never advised you that there was another Canadian engaged to lobby on behalf of the Bear Head project as well?
Mr. Schreiber also mentioned that you and Mr. Moores had some property dealings in Chaffeys Locks. Does that have any meaning to you?
I see. You and Mr. Moores seemed to enjoy extraordinary access to the Mulroney Conservative government. Were you aware of the close personal connection of Frank Moores in getting Brian Mulroney elected at the convention in 1983 in Winnipeg?
Mr. Moores' role in the national campaign, in the leadership campaign, was absolutely public. So I was aware of it, as everyone who followed that might have been.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Alford, for joining us today.
I have a number of questions, so I'll go relatively quickly. So I apologize for the expediency with which I'm trying to do this.
As I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Schreiber has alleged that at some point in late 1992 or 1993, Mr. Fred Doucet asked him to arrange for cash to be sent through GCI to a supposed lawyer of Mr. Mulroney's in Geneva, Switzerland.
Did you ever receive such a request from Mr. Doucet personally, for a cash--
No. Okay, thank you.
I'd like to clarify the timing and your involvement, because you moved from one project to the other. On the Bear Head issue, when you were at GCI, how much of your time was devoted to lobbying for Bear Head, or did that start after you left GCI?
My commitment to Bear Head Industries started, I guess, at GCI. Yes, Bear Head was created while I was still working at GCI, and I suppose it was 25% of my time, 20% to 25% of my time.
Thank you.
As clarification of what you said earlier, you said your direct report...I think your answer to the question was to Europe or Germany, when you worked for Thyssen or the Bear Head project, but Mr. Schreiber was the president of the Canadian arm of Thyssen, I think you said.
So you did not report directly to Mr. Schreiber. You bypassed him and went to Germany. Is that correct?
My boss was in Germany, but Mr. Schreiber was the chairman appointed by Thyssen for the Bear Head project. So product development and all of the corporate structures were administered and reported to Germany on a formal basis, and Mr. Schreiber played a role as a chairman and an official representative of the project.
GCI started lobbying for the Cape Breton Bear Head proposal, as you previously mentioned. Can you tell me when that actually started and when it stopped? Do you have any sense of that?
The Bear Head project came from about 1985. Thyssen was one of the German companies to which the Canadian government campaigned for foreign investment, promoting the merits of investing in Canada. Thyssen had an interest at that time, as I understood it, in expanding their manufacturing in North America. The presentations by the Canadian government sounded very interesting to them.
The defence division was tracking the Canadian military's long-term project to acquire new vehicles, so Thyssen came to explore whether there was any possibility that they could bid on a Canadian project and have a chance of winning, because they recognized the domestic manufacturer already in place.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but can you recall when you were with Bear Head, Thyssen, whether you ended the relationship of that organization with GCI on lobbying for the Bear Head project at a certain point? Do you know when that happened?
The relationship didn't end, but Thyssen took over its own representation in Ottawa by establishing a permanent office. We had professional salespeople with military backgrounds, as well as environmental engineers who came over for the various projects that were merging. My assignment was to come on staff and expand that office.
Mr. Mulroney, supported by Mr. Spector, who saw us last week, actually axed the Bear Head project at the end of 1990, I think. As VP of the Bear Head project, were you aware of that at the time? When did you roll that up? Did you understand what it meant that the Progressive Conservative government at the time had ended the project?
It went from Cape Breton. Then there was an issue of going to Montreal. When did that start to take a lobbying effort?
On the event you refer to in 1990, the government asked Thyssen to find a way to proceed with its project in the absence of any formal participation in Canadian procurement. So essentially they were asking Thyssen to build a factory to manufacture in Canada for export.
Yes. Thyssen had always said that if they could win and secure a portion of the Canadian requirement, they would proceed to invest independently in the manufacturing facility. A proposal was invited to describe how they might do it in the absence of that, where they would transfer technology, build the plant, and bring in manufacturing for one of their U.S. or European contracts to Canada without any Canadian business. We put that forward and it was declined.
The reason this committee is talking about this is to see if there is any evidence...to review the matters relating to the Mulroney Airbus settlement, which was settled by the previous Liberal government with the former Prime Minister Mulroney.
One of my basic questions is, do you have any evidence for this committee regarding any wrongdoing by any public official regarding the Bear Head project?
I have some questions that were brought forward by my friend.... We've heard about this pasta business--I can't even say the name of the company you created--Spaghettismo. What involvement did Prime Minister Mulroney actually have in this, and what involvement did Mr. Schreiber have in this?
The company was Mr. Schreiber's. It was based on a piece of technology that he had developed and commercialized, or caused to be commercialized. It was quite a revolutionary cooking device that achieved very successful and rapid cooking of pasta, which is a difficult thing to do in the culinary world, in a restaurant environment. It cooked it very precisely and very quickly. Mr. Schreiber recognized its potential and commercialized it and commenced bringing it to Canada.
His vision was that it had tremendous potential to be a device that made pasta a more successful product. It's already a successful product, but a difficult product to do quickly. His vision was that it was the key to unlocking pasta in the food service industry in the casual and quick-service category, which is the largest.
It would use a lot of pasta, which is a wheat product. That's why it had a lot of interest.
Thank you very much.
Very quickly, Mr. Alford, as a senior vice-president and former president of GCI, you would be very familiar with the financial statements of GCI, is that correct?
No. Because it was a partnership, the partners handled all of the financial statements. I was an employee of GCI.
Well, we spoke of Thyssen being a client. There were a few clients in the list, I suppose, that were European.
I suppose the partners would. Mr. Moores is deceased, as I hope you're aware. It was a matter for the partners. Mr. Ouellet is also deceased.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Alford.
Maybe I missed what you said, but you seemed to indicate--or at least it's what I heard--that GCI was not involved with the Airbus deal. Did I hear correctly? Is that true?
That's right. In our assessment, there was no activity of the federal government in the procurement. The procurement by Air Canada had no policy; it had no industrial policy initiatives that caused a bidder to offer manufacturing in regions of Canada the way a crown project or a defence project did. There was really no file. We would have been pleased to have them as a client, but they were not a GCI file.
When you listened to other witnesses before this committee, or read the press on what they said, were you concerned that we were getting wrong information?
I'm sorry, I don't know how to respond to that. Anybody from GCI always would have told you if Airbus was a client of GCI or not. I guess maybe it took you a while to ask someone from GCI whether they were a client.
Mr. Schreiber talks about as much as $20 million that disappeared along the way somewhere, and it did appear that GCI.... In fact, when we asked Mr. Schreiber this, he said something to the effect that “I don't know who all the partners were”.
You mentioned several of the partners. Who were the other partners that you worked with when you were employed by GCI?
There were three partners in GCI. Mr. Moores and Mr. Doucet were the founders. The third partner, who joined about a year later, was Gary Ouellet.
You also spoke in terms of your work with Bear Head. You seemed to be getting your orders from Europe. Mr. Mulroney seemed to indicate that he was getting money from Mr. Schreiber to do something similar to what you were doing.
Would your European contacts have notified you that there were more people than your consulting group working on this, that the former Prime Minister of Canada had been paid $300,000 by Mr. Schreiber to do a similar activity to what you were doing? Were you at cross purposes? Did you know that Mr. Mulroney was also a lobbyist for the project?
To my knowledge, I don't know if Mr. Mulroney had the involvement in the Canadian project. I was deeply involved in the Canadian project. I did not have responsibility for international projects. Mr. Schreiber of course, as our chairman, had the freedom to proceed as he wished in international areas.
With the project you were putting forward for Bear Head...the M113s were a competitor to that project. You had hoped to overcome--
No. In fact, I would suggest that the M113s were approaching 40 years--they'd now be 50 years old in design--and so it was that aging fleet within the Canadian army, and all armies, which were many--numerous U.S., European armies--that was the opportunity within the market to replace those armoured personnel vehicles.
And you were being told by your Canadian armed forces here that they were satisfied with the refitting that was being done in Montreal and other locations, that rather than buying new ones they were refitting the M113s, which they've done. Is that not correct, Mr. Alford?
The Canadian Department of National Defence has done a variety of things in the vehicle area. I think they did try some life extension, and they probably still have in service M113s. As a vehicle gets old, it becomes very difficult to keep it running. It has a limited weight capacity. The difficulty with M113s was their ability to carry the necessary armour that was desired to protect the soldiers.
[Translation]
You worked closely with Mr. Schreiber, who headed up your company. According to your resumé, you worked with him several times and for several companies. You said that you knew about all of the people who worked as lobbyists on the Bear Head project. Is that correct?
[English]
I was aware of everyone involved in the Canadian project. If there were people involved in international projects, I would not necessarily be aware of that--
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
In that case, Mr. Alford, can you explain why, in a letter dated February 3 and made public last week, Mr. Schreiber denied the fact that Mr. Mulroney worked internationally and claimed that he worked as a lobbyist in Canada?
Did that take your breath away, or just your voice?
[English]
[Translation]
You told us that you knew about all of the people working as lobbyists on the Bear Head project in Canada, so can you explain why, last week, Mr. Schreiber publicly stated that the mandate he gave Mr. Mulroney had nothing to do with international representations, just representations in Canada?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
So you are telling me that Mr. Mulroney did not make any representations for Bear Head in Canada? Can you say this beyond a shadow of a doubt?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
Thank you.
Mr. Alford, what relationship did Fred Doucet have with GCI? I know his brother was a principal director of GCI, but what relationship did Fred Doucet have with the company?
It seems GCI had a great deal of dealings with the Mulroney administration. It must have done very well during those years. You say you did not see the balance sheets of the company in your capacity as vice-president or president.
So the large commissions per airplane paid out by Airbus--the illegal commissions--you don't believe went to Frank Moores or GCI?
What was your main source of revenue in those days? Who were your productive clients? Who was on your A-list of clients at the time?
Well, I'm sure you don't expect me to detail a list of clients, but suffice it to say that for any project in Canada that would have an interest in it, people who would wish to position themselves in bidding and communicating their own proposals within the environment of Ottawa would be interested, and so we had projects that were, on behalf of engineering firms, pursuing opportunity within CIDA; on behalf of energy firms, monitoring energy policy development; on behalf of construction firms, looking for the opportunity to do privatization projects in airports. That was the type of client we represented. We typically represented some, and we had four or five competitors that would be representing their competitors in each case.
I would suggest to you that access to the PMO is not that valuable in promoting your business to Ottawa.
Mr. Alford, that concludes our questioning for you. We thank you very much for appearing before us, and you are now excused, sir.
Colleagues, we're going to move immediately to Mr. Doucet. I anticipate we are going to be going over the normal meeting time by 15 to 20 minutes.
Our final witness is Mr. Doucet, who was the senior adviser to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and was chief of staff when Mr. Mulroney was leader of the official opposition. In his role as senior adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr. Doucet was responsible for international initiatives and summits for the Office of the Prime Minister.
Since leaving government in 1988, he's carried on business under the name Fred Doucet Consultants International.
Good afternoon, Mr. Doucet.
On December 15, it was suggested to us that you be a priority witness. We thank you for agreeing to appear before us today voluntarily.
I would now ask the assistant clerk to swear you in, sir.
Raise your right hand and repeat after me: 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 evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Now, you heard the instructions I gave to the previous witness, so I will not repeat them. Of course we look forward to your testimony.
I understand that you have an opening statement of about 10 minutes or so. Time is prime, but I think it's extremely important that we take the time to hear what you have to say to the committee and to Canadians.
I invite you to proceed now.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to appear today.
I will begin my presentation with a brief personal background, followed by an overview of the business interactions between me, Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber, and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. I will conclude by addressing specific false statements made by Mr. Schreiber in regard to or involving me.
I was the chief of staff to Mr. Mulroney when he was the Leader of the Opposition during the period 1983 to 1984. I served as a senior adviser to Prime Minister Mulroney from September 1984 until May 1987. I was chairman of the organizing committee for international summits from May 1987 until August 1988.
I incorporated FDCI Incorporated in the fall of 1988. I was at that time the sole officer, director, and shareholder of that company. I carry on business under that corporate name today.
Contrary to allegations made by this committee, made at this committee and in the press, I have never been an officer, a director, a shareholder, and/or an employee of a company known as GCI, Government Consultants International Inc., —at any time.
To the best of my recollection, I met Karlheinz Schreiber for the first time late in 1988. I was registered as a lobbyist for Bitucan Holdings Limited, as well as Bear Head Industries Limited, in October 1989—and after this discussion, I will provide copies of these lobby registration documents to the clerk of the committee. In that capacity, my company assisted Mr. Schreiber in his efforts to establish in Canada a manufacturing facility for military vehicles.
It is alleged by Mr. Schreiber that I set up certain meetings between myself and Mr. Mulroney in 1993 and 1994. I have no recollection that I had any role to play in setting up meetings between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber that took place on June 23, 1993, and December 18, 1993.
I do specifically recall that I did arrange for the two of them to meet at Mirabel airport in late August 1993, and in New York on December 8, 1994. Furthermore, it is also my recollection that it was Mr. Schreiber who requested both of those meetings. Mr. Schreiber requested the August 1993 meeting to discuss a possible retainer-consultancy relationship with Mr. Mulroney in the promotion of Thyssen military vehicles in the international area. I was not present at this August 1993 meeting.
In regard to the meeting in New York, I was one of a number of guests invited to attend a reception for Elmer MacKay and his wife on the occasion of their recent wedding. The reception was held at the Pierre Hotel in New York City. Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber were also in attendance.
At the request of Mr. Schreiber, I arranged for him to meet with Mr. Mulroney on that occasion. I was in attendance for the meeting between the two of them, which lasted approximately one to one and one-half hours, at the hotel in Mr. Schreiber's room. At this meeting, Mr. Schreiber provided written materials to Mr. Mulroney. The two of them discussed various matters involving Mr. Mulroney's ongoing consultancy work that he had undertaken in the international arena in regard to the promotion of Thyssen military vehicles.
Mr. Mulroney reported on the meetings he had had with the presidents of Russia and France and the Chinese leadership, and his view that these countries, being members of the P5 group—that is, China, Russia, U.K., France, and the U.S.—could play an important role in the United Nations peacekeeping initiatives, where the use of Thyssen military vehicles might be very appropriate.
It is my recollection that Mr. Schreiber appeared to be quite satisfied with the report and the comments made to him by Mr. Mulroney. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Schreiber handed Mr. Mulroney an envelope, indicating that it contained a payment for services and expenses.
Over the course of the next five years, 1995 to late 1999, I have no specific recall of any direct contact with Karlheinz Schreiber except for a phone call from him, in November 1995, alerting me that he had learned of a letter being sent from the justice department of the Government of Canada to the Swiss authorities relating to Airbus matters.
Mr. Schreiber alleges that I arranged a meeting for him and Mr. Mulroney in February 1998 in Zurich. I have no recollection that I had any role to play in arranging that meeting.
In the fall of 1999, I watched the fifth estate program dealing with Karlheinz Schreiber, among others. I found that program troubling because of a number of inaccuracies and innuendoes that were reported.
At the suggestion of a mutual friend, I invited Mr. Schreiber and his wife to visit with me and my family at my home in Ottawa on December 26, 1999. During that time, he and I discussed a number of recent events, including the concerns we both had regarding the inaccuracies reported in the fifth estate program. He also indicated to me that he was planning a lawsuit against the fifth estate program. We agreed to meet in the near future to discuss these matters further.
We met again in January 2000 in Toronto, while I was attending meetings in that city. We continued our discussions that began on December 26, 1999, including the agreement that he had with Mr. Mulroney.
I reported to Mr. Mulroney on my discussions with Mr. Schreiber, with Mr. Schreiber's knowledge and approval. I suggested to Mr. Mulroney that I meet again with Mr. Schreiber to present in writing what had been the mandate as it had been described to me by Mr. Schreiber himself.
I met again with Mr. Schreiber in my office in Ottawa in early February 2000, where I presented him with a written statement on the mandate, consistent with what he had represented it to be, and on which Mr. Mulroney concurred.
In this draft mandate statement, I left open, by way of a blank, the identification of the companies responsible for the mandate and the fees to cover services and expenses. In his own handwriting, Mr. Schreiber wrote the following: “Bayerische Bitumen-Chemie”; “Kaufering”; and “Bitucan Calgary”.
I circled the two company names identified by Mr. Schreiber as the mandating companies. The balance of the handwriting on the mandate document is mine, recording the rest of the information given to me by Mr. Schreiber.
I asked him what the fee was. He told me that the fee to cover services and expenses had been set at $250,000.
I will provide the committee with copies of this document at the termination of this meeting.
I have no specific recollection of any further contact with Mr. Schreiber subsequent to February 2000.
Mr. Schreiber has made a number of false statements involving me which I would like to address.
Mr. Schreiber alleges that I had a discussion with him in 1992 or 1993 about Mr. Mulroney needing money, and further, that I suggested he assist Mr. Mulroney financially. This statement is false. No such conversation ever took place.
Mr. Schreiber was quoted in the Toronto Star on December 14, 2007. He said that during the December 8, 1994, meeting at the Pierre Hotel in New York, I—meaning me—was peering out of the window and talking on my cell phone. That statement is false. During this meeting I was seated the full time directly across from Mr. Schreiber and next to Mr. Mulroney. Moreover, on December 8, 1994, fully over 13 years ago, I did not own or use a cell phone.
Before this committee on December 6, 2007, Mr. Schreiber alleged that I requested him to make a donation to Mr. Jean Charest for his 1993 leadership campaign. That is false.
In an affidavit sworn by Mr. Schreiber on November 7, 2007, and in testimony before this committee on December 6, 2007, Mr. Schreiber alleges that I had a meeting with him at the offices of GCI sometime in late 1992 or early 1993. He alleges that I asked him to speak to Frank Moores to request that Mr. Moores send an unspecified amount of GCI money to Mr. Mulroney's alleged lawyer in Switzerland. Furthermore, Mr. Schreiber also flippantly alleges before this committee that I may have been trying to obtain money for myself by using the alleged “Mulroney lawyer” in Geneva.
Since this alleged event never occurred, these statements made by Mr. Schreiber are false. I did not know any lawyers in Geneva, Switzerland, or indeed anywhere else in that country. Mr. Mulroney has already testified that he did not have a lawyer in Geneva at that period of time. Furthermore, the principals of GCI at that time were Mr. Frank Moores and Mr. Gary Ouellet. Both of these gentlemen, who are now deceased, were long-time friends of mine. I would never have needed anyone to intercede for me on any matter with either of these two friends.
To reiterate, no such meeting ever took place, no such request was ever made. These allegations made by Mr. Schreiber are completely false.
Mr. Chairman, I trust I have provided the committee with the information pertinent to its mandate for the examination of this matter. I would like to distribute the mandate document, if I could. I have printed some for everyone.
Thank you very much.
There is one quick question from the chair. Have you any idea how much money was passed over to Mr. Mulroney at the Pierre Hotel?
Did Mr. Mulroney ever say anything to you at any time about how much money he was receiving from Mr. Schreiber in these three meetings?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Fred Doucet.
Regrettably your brother wasn't able to come here. I understand that he's not well. I hope this day finds him better, and best wishes to him. I had the occasion to share the graduation stage at Université Sainte-Anne when he received his honorary doctorate.
You worked for Karlheinz Schreiber as a lobbyist after you left the Prime Minister's Office and formed Fred Doucet Consulting. Is that correct?
I registered in the fall of 1989, if my memory serves me right. That registration will be distributed. I believe I got on the payroll in February 1990.
It ended in terms of pay in the fall of 1992. I kept an interest because I really believed in the program beyond that. But my services de facto had ended by the end of 1992.
No, not really. I say “not really” because Mr. Schreiber would call me periodically or ask me questions, and if I had the answers, I would provide them. But I was not on the payroll.
When you were on the payroll, how did you get paid? Did you get paid by cash, bank transfers to your company, cheques?
Totally by cheques. I would invoice and the cheques would come into the company. As the previous person giving testimony said, I wouldn't see these cheques, but they would come to the company. They were billed by the company and they would come to the company.
When you were at the Pierre Hotel in New York, is that when you discovered that Mulroney was being paid by cash?
I didn't discover it on that occasion; I didn't know. The statement that he made, as I said in my statement, was, “In this envelope is included your payment”. There was no specification as to the type.
To the best of my knowledge, we said goodbye at the hotel and I went off to the airport. I'm not sure if he was coming back to Canada or going somewhere else in the States.
From Mulroney you heard a report, or you said that he gave a report.
You were intimately involved with the Bear Head project. Being a Cape Bretoner working in the Prime Minister's Office, you would have known about that project quite well.
I did not really know about that project quite well; I did not. I was aware it was ongoing, but my involvement in the PMO was really in the international area. I had no responsibility for domestic affairs.
But your brother and your good friends Mr. Ouellet and Mr. Moores were intimately involved with Karlheinz Schreiber all through that period, but you weren't aware of what the dealings were or what they were discussing?
When we look at the CBC website and places like that and see the distribution of funds from Karlheinz Schreiber and Giorgio Pelossi, who were managing the $20 million in funds—I think it came to $22 million to $24 million in total—that money was going through an account and then to some subaccounts, and some through GCI, or companies would suggest that GCI partners send them money. Are you aware of those facts?
You made the arrangements for that meeting. On what basis would you have organized that meeting? You were no longer employed at that time by Schreiber.
Yes, as I said before, Mr. Schreiber, having been a previous client, made a habit of talking with me. He knew I could get hold of Mr. Mulroney if need be. He asked me if I would and if I would set up that meeting—and I did.
Pardon my misunderstanding here, but I used to be in a very small business, and anybody who owed me $7 had no trouble reaching me. If somebody owed me $7, I was very available to them. But if somebody was going to give me $100,000 in cash in an envelope, I can't imagine they would need an intermediary to find me. Schreiber's a client, Mulroney is his employee in this situation, he's working for him, and if he is to receive money, I find it difficult to believe he needed somebody--
I don't want to get into the particulars, because I don't know the particulars, but my understanding is that the meeting in Mirabel was the meeting that set out the particulars, or at least that's what was represented to me by Mr. Schreiber when he asked me to organize the meeting. He said he wanted to meet with Mr. Mulroney to suggest a retainership in the international arena, and could I arrange that meeting.
Did you ever contact Schreiber's offices and ask him to contact Brian Mulroney? Did you ever contact Schreiber? Did the contacts ever go the other way?
Were you the go-between the other way? Did you ever contact Schreiber to organize meetings for Brian Mulroney on these matters?
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Doucet, for coming here to testify.
Karlheinz Schreiber wrote to Brian Mulroney on April 14, 2007. I will read in English what he wrote to him.
[English]
On March 20, 2007 your lawyer Kenneth Prehogan sent a letter to my lawyer Richard Anka Q.C.
He wrote: “Mr. Mulroney denies that he owes any money to Mr. Schreiber.”
I have a different understanding and I recommend that you will ask your friend Fred Doucet helping you to refresh your memory concerning the money and what it was for.
[Translation]
That was on April 14, 2007, in a letter that was not supposed to be made public at the time. On May 8, 2007, in a threatening letter—it could be called a threatening letter from Mr. Schreiber to Mr. Mulroney—he said he was prepared to make public—he uses the word “disclose”—the fact that Mr. Mulroney received payments from GCI, Frank Moores, Fred Doucet, Gary Ouellet:
[English]
“that I was asked by Fred Doucet to transfer funds to your Lawyer in Geneva, (Airbus)”.
[Translation]
Understandably, these letters were not intended for public release. In fact, they were private letters.
How can you explain the fact that Mr. Schreiber wrote letters last year saying that you knew how much money Brian Mulroney had received and that he was going to ask you to refresh Mr. Mulroney's memory?
Subsequently, in December, you issued a press release indicating that, no, that was false, all those insinuations and statements were false.
You made a public statement. I do not know if it was through a press release or... It was a statement by Fred Doucet issued to the media.
Oh, yes, okay. I will try to answer you in French, in Acadian, if I may. If I make any mistakes, I apologize.
[English]
I have no idea why.
[Translation]
That is a good start, Mr. Doucet, a good start. Is that Acadian? Well, I speak Acadian.
A voice: Oh, oh!
The expression we use is “j'ai backé mon car”. Let me back up.
I do not remember at all. I have no recollection of those events and I have nothing to tell you about the matter. I have absolutely nothing to tell you about the matter.
The first time I heard about the money was when I met Mr. Schreiber on February 4, 2000, when he told me that the payments were in the amount of $250,000.
So you are giving us another figure. The figure we had was $300,000. No one knew whether it was $300,000 or $225,000 and now you are telling us that it was $250,000.
I am telling you what Mr. Schreiber told me. I am not the one who said it; he is the one who told me.
When you were at the hotel in New York, you saw an envelope change hands. First of all, you were not on a cell phone, you were not looking out the window, you were sitting across from Mr. Schreiber. You saw and heard everything that happened.
Mr. Fred Doucet: Exactly.
Mrs. Carole Lavallée: When Mr. Schreiber gave Mr. Mulroney an envelope, it seems to me that it should have been apparent that it was cash, and not a cheque.
I will reply in English, to make sure I do not make any mistakes.
[English]
I don't remember anything about the envelope, other than that it was legal size. It was handed to him as they were rising and we were leaving. I didn't pay particular attention to it. It never struck my mind that it was particularly thick, if that's what you're asking. I don't have a precise recollection. This was, after all, a good number of years ago.
[Translation]
Did Mr. Mulroney make a gesture as if to say “No, no, no” or “oh, more cash”? Did he take the envelope with a natural gesture, as if to say “Thank you, I earned this”?
From what I remember, Mr. Mulroney had a bag, and I think he took it and put it in the bag. We were standing at that point and I ...
In Mr. Mulroney's report to Mr. Schreiber, he told him, for instance, that he had met with official representatives in China.
[English]
[Translation]
I told you more or less everything I remember in my statement. I do not remember the discussions exactly. I know there was some back and forth between him and Mr. Schreiber. They shared some documents, but I cannot say exactly what was discussed in the case of Chinese leadership or in meetings with Mr. Yeltsin or Mr. Mitterrand. I cannot tell you any more about it.
And none of this made an impression on you? If it were me, for instance, and I heard someone say they had met with Mitterrand two months ago during their last trip to France, and they told me what was said during their conversation, I think I would record everything.
I understand.
I travelled internationally and organized many summits, such as the economic summit, the summit of la Francophonie, the Commonwealth summit, and I attended all bilateral and multilateral summits during my years with Mr. Mulroney. Seeing him negotiating with important people was nothing new for me.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Doucet, hello and thank you for being here.
I would like to return to the question raised by my Bloc colleague a moment ago. She mentioned Chinese leadership, Yeltsin, Mitterrand. Throughout your testimony, you have been very careful to always make the distinction between, first of all, what you yourself know and what you do not remember precisely or exactly, and so on.
I am going to ask you a question—and now it is my turn to use a qualifier—a precise question. What personal knowledge do you have of any meetings between Brian Mulroney and the so-called Chinese leadership, the former Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, or former French president, François Mitterrand? What personal knowledge do you have about a meeting of that nature?
Thank you.
Many people now have personal knowledge of the lobbying that was done regarding Bear Head, and that contradicts this version. Thus, it is important for us to get the facts straight.
In other testimony heard by this committee, people have talked about envelopes, similar to how you described what happened at the Pierre Hotel in New York, envelopes that would have come from your office, the Prime Minister's Office, during your time there, or that would have circulated between your office, the Prime Minister's Office and one or more people who lived or worked at 24 Sussex.
At any time throughout the entire period you were part of Mr. Mulroney's entourage or at any other time, did you ever see money in an envelope or cash changing hands when you were there?
When the Progressive Conservative Party, at that time, would reimburse Mr. Mulroney for party-related expenses. I believe you have already heard testimony on this aspect. Reimbursements were paid out twice a month, if I am not mistaken—but I am not certain that it was twice a month. When I was there, the cheques were made out to “Fred Doucet in trust”. When that was the case, I would cash the cheques and put the money in envelopes. Someone from 24 Sussex was called and would come to pick up the envelope. That is the only time I saw money transfers like the ones you described at 24 Sussex.
Thank you for the qualifier, once again. That is the only time you saw cash sent over to 24 Sussex.
I have another specific question for you. At any other time, whether at your office, at the Prime Minister's Office, or at any other location where you might have been, did you see any handing over of money, or anything that you suspected might be money in an envelope, such as at the Pierre Hotel, or anything you believed could have been the handing over of money?
[English]
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Doucet, I had about five pages of questions, and you've pretty well answered them all. I'm going to ask you a couple of them, however.
You talked about meetings at Mirabel airport and the Pierre Hotel in New York. There has been mention in these proceedings about a meeting at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel. Do you know anything about that?
You did say that.
With these meetings, Mr. Schreiber, as I understand your testimony, asked that you set up the meetings. Is that what your testimony was?
In those two meetings, were you acting as some sort of representative for Mr. Mulroney or Mr. Schreiber, or both?
Good question. Well, I suppose as a link, because Mr. Schreiber had been a previous client, Mr. Mulroney had been a previous employer in the sense that he was Prime Minister and I was an adviser. So I was a link, yes.
Yes. You've touched on this, and I know you've given some answers, but I'd like to talk about it again. This consulting agreement between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney to do a number of things--Mr. Mulroney has an interpretation and Mr. Schreiber has another interpretation, it seems. Do you know any details about this agreement?
I know this, and there are two parts to my answer.
First, when Mr. Schreiber asked me to set the meeting at Mirabel, he told me what it was he wanted to meet on. He elaborated, albeit sparsely, on what he wanted to achieve, obviously, because then I had to ask Mr. Mulroney if he was prepared to meet him on that basis.
Well, not a lot, because I don't have any recollection beyond what I've said here, and that is that he wanted to propose to Mr. Mulroney to retain him on an international assignment to promote military vehicles.
That was the meeting in Mirabel. The only other time I was present was at the Pierre Hotel, where there was a report on what was being done.
Yes, he demonstrated nothing but appreciation.
Mr. Tilson, you have this in front of you. In this, I attempt to reconstruct what both Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber had told me the mandate was, so I faithfully attempted to reconstruct that, leaving blanks as to the mandating companies and leaving a blank as to the amount that was paid for the retainer.
Okay. If you have the document in front of you, this “Bayerische Bitumen Chemie” is in Mr. Schreiber's handwriting, and then there's “Chemie” written bigger to the right.
To the right. Then there's the word “Kaufering” below. And then below that there's “Bitucan Calgary”.
These three sentences are all in Mr. Schreiber's handwriting. The rest of it is my handwriting.
We have a debate about the amounts. I know you've listened to the testimony of Mr. Schreiber and the affidavits. You've read his legal material.
I'd like you to clarify the $250,000 that's written here. What does that mean?
That's the number that Mr. Schreiber told me had been the fee for services and expenses for the assignment.
Okay. I know you've answered this, but I want to be clear. You said that the money, which was in an envelope--and that's really all you know, and in fact you may not even know what was in the envelope. It could have been a letter, for all you know.
No, that's not quite true, because he made the statement. Schreiber said, “included your expenses and fees”.
Fees and expenses.
I know I'm asking you questions that you've already answered, but I just want to be clear again as to what the services were that Mr. Mulroney was to perform.
Well, these are the ones that are listed in this mandate letter.
I just draw to your attention that when I presented this to Mr. Schreiber on February 4, 2000, I asked him essentially to fill in the blanks, and he did. He didn't say, “No good”; he didn't write across it. He participated in the discussions, as you see by his own handwriting, and I recount here to the far bottom right a summary of what our discussions were about, and these discussions had to do with filling in the blanks. At the end, I said to Mr. Schreiber, “Now, this is what I've taken down. Do you agree with that?” “Of course, of course.”
That's how the meeting ended, and he left with his own copy of this, albeit without my notes or his handwriting. But since he was the author of what's in here, I presume he was comfortable with what he knew.
Of course, it was a long time ago. And everything was reasonably good.
Somewhere along the line your relationship deteriorated. Can you tell us when it deteriorated and why?
Yes, in which he made statements about me that were false.
However, to be fully forthcoming here, I must say that post-2000, when I discovered the shenanigans that he was involved in back home in Germany, albeit allegedly, I was kind of happy to take my distance from him, but I had no particular reasons other than what was in the public domain. He has never caused me any harm or anything of the sort, other than what he has testified to here, which has caused me great harm.
Okay. Mr. Doucet, you were with Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber in the Pierre hotel in December 1994?
You weren't on your cell phone, because you didn't have one. You weren't looking out the window. You were sitting in a chair across from Mr. Schreiber. Is that correct?
The report given by Mr. Mulroney was one to one and a half hours, you told the committee. Is that correct?
I said one to one and a half. I know we went in at around 11 o'clock, because that's when the meeting had been set for.
Mr. Mulroney was reporting on the trips to these various international destinations. You were there. You were part of the conversation, as it were--
Did Mr. Mulroney ever mention the name of any person who accompanied him when he made all of these trips?
There was only France, China, Russia--no reports whatsoever, I gather, on the U.S. Mr. Mulroney had testified he had throughout the U.S.--
Well, there was a lot of to and fro between the two of them. There was an exchange of documents. Mr. Schreiber spent a good bit of time at that meeting talking about the specifics of some of the vehicles. I remember in particular his being very passionate about the armament protection--
Thank you.
Do you have anything further to offer on that? I know that Mr. Schreiber is saying...but this is a report from Mr. Mulroney to Mr. Schreiber. I'm more interested in what Mr. Mulroney said to Mr. Schreiber--his one-hour report to Mr. Schreiber. It's important that we know.
You said it was an ongoing work when you talked about giving the last payment. It was for the ongoing work. I thought it was all over with. According to all accounts--the $300,000 or $225,000--that was it. But you described it as ongoing. Why did you describe it as ongoing work?
No, I'm sorry. If you got that interpretation, I think I provided the wrong interpretation. He was reporting on the ongoing work coming to that meeting.
Do you have any idea of any person's name ever coming from Mr. Mulroney's lips about who was involved with any of this?
The honest answer is that I don't remember. I don't remember how many times. I can remember one time, but I don't remember whether there were any other times.
No, it came as a cheque made to Fred Doucet in trust, which I cashed and put in an envelope. I gave it to my secretary, and I asked her to call whoever at 24 Sussex would be available to come and--
I had the uniform on, wondering if I was going to get in the game. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To follow up briefly, Mr. Doucet, on the report of 1994, I understand you don't remember it totally. Mr. Chairman was cross-examining you on it. But do you remember, in the one or one and a half hours, the name Yeltsin being mentioned?
Okay. That's not a really complete memory of a fairly important meeting.
There have been some discussions about this document you circulated, the February 4, 2000, document. This is trying to encapsulate what happened many years past, from 1993 to 1996, I believe. It's Mr. Schreiber's view of what happened after he was faced with some extradition problems, and it was also a codification, if you like, of what Mr. Mulroney may have done in the year--we have testimony--that he filed his tax return reporting all of this income.
So that's the context of this document in February 2000. Correct?
I'm going to take you back to when you started with Mr. Schreiber. Your evidence is that you began working for him in February 1990 and you stopped working for him around the end of 1992.
These aren't supposed to be trick questions yet. I'll let you know when the trick question comes.
There is an awful lot of activity in the daytimer of Mr. Schreiber, which has entries produced in 1991 of meetings with ministers. I'm going to go through the details of those. But before I do.... You were a successful lobbyist. Did you keep a daytimer or a calendar of events?
Would you produce those for the period of April 1991 to the end of February 1992, on the proviso that your lawyer can go through them and black out any appointments that might identify people other than Mr. Schreiber and, I'll say, the Government of Canada? Would you do that for us?
Mr. Schreiber's entries show that in April 1991 he met with Mr. Tellier and that in May 1991 you met with Mr. Tellier. Do you know who I mean by Paul Tellier?
In May 1991 there's a meeting with Marcel Masse, Michael Wilson, and John Crosbie, which implicated you--
Okay.
On October 1, 1991, Mr. Schreiber says you called in the morning and you met with Mr. Mulroney in the parliamentary building here. You don't recall that?
In October and December there were further meetings involving the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada during a period when you were working for Mr. Schreiber. That's our evidence. Your evidence will come from your daytimers.
There's activity, let's put it this way. You were a registered lobbyist. You were lobbying on behalf of the Bear Head project for Mr. Schreiber. Correct?
Were you aware that Brian Mulroney, your good friend, had told Mr. Spector, his chief of staff, on December 16, 1990, that because of the cost of the Bear Head project it would be killed. Mr. Mulroney's words were, “It should be killed, it will be killed, it is done”. Were you aware of that at the time?
So your good friend Mr. Mulroney did not tell you the Bear Head project was done, dead, in December 1990. You continued to rack up expenses and promises, for your client presumably, that it would live. It seems funny that at the end of it, in 1993 and 1994, Mr. Mulroney received a lot of cash.
Do you find that strange?
[Translation]
That was not the purpose of the mandate. The purpose of the mandate was not to have them signed. As you can see, there was no designated area or blank space intended for a signature.
[English]
It was only to memorialize what had been done in the past. There was no intention to have anybody sign it; at least it was not my intention.
[Translation]
For no other reason than—
[English]
to memorialize what in fact had been set out in the mandate when the blanks would be filled. That's all.
[Translation]
You prepared several mandates for Mr. Schreiber, you sent invoices and you were paid in the usual way, that is, by cheque or by a direct funds transfer.
You cashed cheques drawn on the PC Canada Fund made out to you and then sent cash to Mr. Mulroney. Why were the cheques from the PC Canada Fund, cheques intended to reimburse Mr. Mulroney for his party-related expenses, not sent directly to him?
I cannot answer this, other than to say that those were the arrangements made by the president of the PC Canada Fund and Mr. Mulroney's office. I was merely the intermediary who received the cheque when it was made out to me. I would cash it and send the money to 24 Sussex. I am not the one who made the arrangements.
Instead of sending the cheque to Mr. Mulroney, who would have deposited it in the bank, you ran the risk of sending $5,000 by courier?
That was not exactly how it happened. The payment requests went through the Chief of Staff and were sent to the PC Canada Fund, which sent a cheque to the Chief of Staff, who, in my case, cashed it and sent it to 24 Sussex.
According to an article in Maclean's magazine on January 13, 1997, Brian Mulroney's advisors recommended in a memo to the Prime Minister that he appoint David Johnston to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council.
Were you aware of this before the Maclean's article mentioned it?
According to an article in Maclean's magazine on January 13, 1997, Brian Mulroney's advisors recommended to him in a memo that he appoint David Johnston to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council.
Did you know about that?
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
I don't have any specific recollection of arranging a meeting between any of my clients and the Prime Minister himself, with the exception of the Bear Head project.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Doucet, we've been asking all the witnesses a similar set of questions just because we want to be consistent and provide them every opportunity to clarify for this committee if there has been any wrongdoing.
So my question to you is, do you have evidence of any wrongdoing by any public official with respect to the Bear Head project, or the Airbus purchase, or the consulting agreement between Brian Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber?
Okay. I have just one last question.
Mr. Schreiber has said before this committee—and he has sworn an affidavit before a judge—that you had asked him to transfer money to a lawyer in Geneva. Now, you've perfectly denied those allegations, so my question is not whether or not it happened, but why do you think this gentleman, a former friend of yours, would even make these kinds of allegations?
Mr. Doucet, we appreciate your taking the time to appear before us. We thank you for your efforts. You are now excused.
Colleagues, there being no further business....
Sorry, Madame Lavallée, you had something for the committee?
[Translation]
I do not wish to keep the witness unnecessarily, but I have a logistical question to ask. May I ask it now? It is not for you, Mr. Doucet, but rather for the Chair. I thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, would it be possible, logistically and politically, for us to forward you some questions to ask certain individuals involved in the matter before us and of whom we have only one question to ask? You could forward those questions in writing, rather than calling other witnesses to ask them only one or two questions for the purpose of clarification or verification.
[English]
Colleagues, Madame Lavallée is referring, I think, to the witnesses we did not call, and that there may be a question. I would suggest that since we have a brief in camera meeting on Thursday after our witnesses, we could do a poll, and if the members wish, we could either entertain receiving specific questions or maybe just a generic question, asking if they have anything to offer the committee.
Why don't we deal with that general issue at our meeting on Thursday? Would that be acceptable?
An hon. member: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you kindly.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, would you be so kind as to do the same thing and ask the senior partner at Stikeman Elliott to provide all the invoices? He might rebuff the issue, but I would like him to provide all the invoices exchanged between Mr. Lalonde and Bear Head Industries.
There are two things. On one hand, Stikeman Elliott is being asked to provide all the invoices concerning Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Schreiber and, on the other hand, Mr. Ménard is asking Ogilvy Renault for Brian Mulroney's partner contract.
[English]