:
Mr. Szabo, members of the committee, it's been about 15 years since I returned to private life. During that time I've had no contact with Parliament, no appointments or contacts whatsoever. Of course, I did refresh myself on the privileges that a witness has when appearing before a committee like this one. As you well know, the main one is that we have the same privilege to freedom of speech as the members do. I intend to exercise that, of course. I also want to make a few preliminary comments.
Now, with the greatest of deference, I have come to the conclusion that there's a growing consensus that this committee has become irrelevant. People are turned off. Some committee members even seem to share this view. These proceedings are now not even carried, I understand, by some of the Quebec media.
In the beginning, there was a lot of reference made to millions of dollars in mysterious commissions perhaps paid to Canadian people, with all sorts of innuendoes about Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber as far back as the early 1980s. So far, the only hard evidence of any ongoing dispute between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber involves, whether you believe it's $300,000 or $225,000, funds paid by Mr. Schreiber from his own funds to Mr. Mulroney in a business arrangement that, while unorthodox or unconventional, has not been shown as illegal--in other words, no speculation of public funds, nothing else of any substance, $300,000 or less, not more than a down payment on the short-term travel expenses of the Senate or the operating budget for the fifth estate.
In this committee process, my name keeps coming up in incongruous ways. Sometime I'd like to use it myself.
For example, Don Newman, in his recent TV show, said, “Elmer MacKay, friend of Schreiber, friend of Mulroney, used to parade around Ottawa with a big piece of steel with bullet holes in it.” Sure, Don--just like I might say you used to parade around Ottawa with a giant microphone with daisies attached. What kind of nonsense is that?
Actually, Mr. Newman may have been thinking about how, many years ago, Mr. Schreiber--when I was present--brought a small piece of metal from the plating of an armoured vehicle to show Prime Minister Mulroney how inadequate it was to protect our troops. Mr. Schreiber was right.
Incidentally, I agree with Marc Lalonde, my colleague, in his assessment of Mr. Schreiber, whom I personally have never seen do anything wrong. I hasten to add that the same is true of Prime Minister Mulroney, who has done so many good things for so many Canadians in every region of Canada.
Then another incident, our so-called wedding reception, was mentioned in the proceedings of this committee. In the fall of 1994, Karlheinz Schreiber and his wife, Barbel, kindly invited Sharon and me to meet them in New York. We hadn't seen them since our wedding. While we were having lunch in the restaurant in the Pierre Hotel, Mr. Mulroney and Fred Doucet arrived. We had no idea they were even in New York. They stayed briefly, and departed, I believe, for the airport. That was the last we saw of them. So that is another huge exaggeration--wedding reception indeed.
In approximately 1999, I went to Switzerland to see Karlheinz Schreiber concerning his pasta business. Parenthetically, we had both invested a considerable sum of money in a U.S. company based in Seattle, called Pallino, which utilized Mr. Schreiber's pasta machines manufactured in his factory. I might also add that I lost a couple of hundred thousand dollars on that deal, but you don't win them all. And Mr. Schreiber also lost money.
This company, just for the interest of the committee, was not a nickel-and-dime company. It had on its board one of Bill Clinton's former cabinet ministers. It had Brian Billick, the coach of the NFL Ravens. It had Danny Ainge, who used to play for the Toronto Blue Jays. I just mention that as a matter of interest.
Mr. Schreiber decided to come back with me to Canada. It was a quick trip, and as far as I knew, he intended to go back to Switzerland. So much for another myth, that I somehow was complicit in rescuing him from German authorities.
Finally, there is the e-mail I sent to Mr. Schreiber a couple of years ago, in 2006. Although Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney had good lawyers, they continued to call me very frequently—that is, Schreiber and Mulroney, not their lawyers—each with a litany of complaints against the other's conduct or lack of understanding. At some point, I suggested a truce or an apology so they could resume their former cordial relationship and settle their legal problems.
Mr. Schreiber asked for a draft, which he subsequently, apparently, used to write a more comprehensive letter. I had no ulterior motives nor in any way promoted any interventions in Mr. Schreiber's extradition proceedings, which were, and still are, before the courts.
I want to deal at this point, Mr. Chairman, with what I consider a fairly serious matter for me, and it involves you.
Pursuant to my appearance here today, originally scheduled for February 12, I made preparations to come. I received the following message from the committee, which I transcribed from my message machine: “Good afternoon, Mr. MacKay. This is Erica Pereira. I'm calling from the ethics committee. I spoke to you last week regarding an appearance I believe we had scheduled February 12 from 3:30 to 5:30. I was just calling because I'm trying to jiggle a bunch of other witnesses' schedules, and I was wondering if there was any possibility that you would be available, instead of the 12th, for the 14th of February, at the same time, 3:30 to 5:30. I have openings on the 14th of February and the 7th. They're both Thursdays, from 3:30 to 5:30. If there is any way you could change your schedule to another day, I would really super appreciate it. My phone number”--and she gives her phone number--“If you would give me a call back as soon as possible, I would appreciate it. Thank you very much.”
I agreed, but before changing my arrangements again, I contacted the clerk of your committee, Mr. Rumas, and asked, since others were doing it, could I appear by teleconference. He was very nice. He indicated that he thought it was a reasonable request. I waited in vain for any contact from the committee--not a very good way to run a committee or to help witnesses.
Anyway, I'm coming to the point. I rearranged my affairs, and while doing some chores to prepare for my absence from home, which, because of travel arrangements and logistics, would be at least two days, I had a bad fall. My wife immediately called the committee.
While I was getting some medical attention, I received another message on my answering machine, this time from a well-known journalist, Stephen Maher, and I'm going to read what he said: “Mr. MacKay, it's Steve Maher calling from The Chronicle Herald. I was talking to Mr. Szabo today, chairman of the ethics committee, and he said, how can I put it...he said that you've had a fall—and I'm sorry to hear that—and you're not going to be able to make it here for testimony.” He also said: “He made a joke about rehearsal time, as if he suspects you're rehearsing your testimony or something. If you care to talk to me about that or tell me what you think about that, give me a call.”
The next morning Mr. Szabo was prominently displayed in The Chronicle Herald, Atlantic Canada's largest newspaper. Mr. Maher wrote the following story, prominently displayed:
Elmer MacKay can't take stand; Tumble halts planned testimony.
I'm not going to read this story--it's fairly lengthy--but I'm going to read some of it:
Mr. MacKay's wife called the committee Tuesday night to tell them that her husband, a longtime friend of Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber, recently took a tumble and had to go to the emergency room, Liberal MP Paul Szabo said Wednesday.
“He's not in good enough shape to fly to Ottawa tomorrow, nor to go to Halifax for a video conference”...
As he was telling reporters about the news, Mr. Szabo rolled his eyes, suggesting he was suspicious of Mr. MacKay's story. Asked about that, he joked, “I just said it's unfortunate. I mean, rehearsal time. You know.
It goes on to say:
Mr. MacKay was the key minister in the Mulroney cabinet pushing the armoured car...
and so on. Mr. Szabo went on, further in the story:
...he doesn't have reason to believe witnesses are getting together to get their stories straight, in spite of his joke about Mr. MacKay.
“I'm not going to speculate”, he said. “Anything's possible, and the way this thing is shaping up is...he said, she said. The lines are drawn...”
and so on.
Last is this:
West Nova MP Robert Thibault, a Liberal member of the committee, said he wouldn't be surprised if witnesses friendly to Mr. Mulroney are discussing their testimony, since Mr. Mulroney's legal and public relations team has mounted a campaign to influence the process.
Well, I can assure you, Mr. Szabo, that there's been no coaching or rehearsing here. But when this story appeared my phone began to ring off the wall--many outraged calls demanding to know what was going on. What was Mr. Szabo suggesting?
So, sir, my question to you is, just what were you suggesting? And how can you, as chairman of the ethics committee, commit such a breach of ethics and procedure in mocking and undermining a witness who is scheduled to appear and to give testimony?
I happen to have been able to come before a lot of committees in my over twenty years in Parliament, and I've never experienced anything like this. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Szabo, as far as I'm concerned, you should recuse yourself from taking part in any of these proceedings when I'm giving evidence here today. And I make that request to you very respectfully.
FIrst of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me back to respond to some of the testimony you have heard and to assist you further.
Let me first deal with Mr. Mulroney's allegations that I have contradicted myself under oath, which you will agree with me is a very important matter.
Mr. Mulroney lied to you when he told you that I contradicted myself in my previous affidavits and testimony. He lied to you because he is motivated to try to show there's no need for a public inquiry. That is his only goal.
Mr. Mulroney tried one of the oldest tricks in the book. He's a lawyer and he tried to mislead you by misquoting my testimony. He took my testimony out of context and did not read to you my complete answers. He tried this trick on you and he tried this trick on the Canadian public.
Mr. Mulroney has show business in his family genes and he tried his show business smoke-and-mirrors skills on you. He failed miserably. Canadians got it right when you see the poll results that came up in the Globe after his testimony, and I am very honoured that Canadians gave me 84%--27,800 votes. And this is an obligation for me to satisfy the Canadians and not to disappoint them.
For example, I come back now to Mr. Mulroney. He misled you about my November 7 affidavit and my March 3 affidavit. On page 15 of your official transcript of his appearance, Mr. Mulroney testified as follows:
Which one is perjury, Mr. Chairman and colleagues? Is it the one under oath, which he filed in another affidavit on March 3? Or is it the affidavit he filed under oath in a courtroom in Toronto on November 7? They can't both be true.
Mr. Mulroney tried to pull this trick on you because he knew you didn't have my March 3 affidavit. I have now given you the complete March 3 affidavit. You can double-check this and you will see there is no reference at all in my March 3 affidavit to me saying anything about my dealings with Mr. Mulroney. My March 3 affidavit makes no mention or contradiction of anything I said in my November 7 affidavit. My March 3 affidavit has nothing to do with Mr. Mulroney; it relates to my Alberta lawsuit only.
Another example is that Mr. Mulroney, on page 15 of your official transcript, testifies as follows:
And what did he say in the Eurocopter case? What he said in the Eurocopter case was:
Question: “These thoughts of this idea that you had, this plan to hire Mr. Mulroney, what time are we talking about?”
Answer by Mr. Schreiber: “After Mr. Mulroney had left government.”
Question by Mr. Bernstein [the prosecutor]: “After he had ceased? After he had stepped down as Prime Minister?”
Answer by Mr. Schreiber: “Yes. Ja.”
Mr. Mulroney again tried the old trick of taking answers out of context and not reading to you my complete answer. Again, he knew you didn't have the MBB transcript.
I have now given you the transcript of my evidence in MBB, and you can double-check for yourself. It's pages 59 to 61. My testimony about engaging Mr. Mulroney after he left office as Prime Minister related to our discussions about Archer Daniels Midland. He was a member of the board for Midland. This discussion had nothing to do with the Bear Head project at all.
My testimony about discussing the Bear Head project with Mr. Mulroney occurred before he left office as Prime Minister. I have always been consistent on this point. That was my testimony in the MBB case, that was my testimony here at the committee, and that was my testimony in my November 7 affidavit. And it would be the same if I were to do it today.
Mr. Mulroney tried to trick you about what my prior testimony was because he knew you didn't have the transcripts. Now that you have the transcripts, please check them yourself. Mr. Mulroney even tried this trick on Justice Cullity in Toronto in a court case where I sued Mr. Mulroney for the $300,000.
Here is what Justice Cullity thought about Mr. Mulroney's attempt to trick him. I quote Justice Cullity at paragraph 45.
...I am not satisfied that the statements are sufficiently unequivocal and inconsistent with the allegations in Mr. Schreiber's affidavit to justify a decision to reject the letter out of hand.
It would be grossly unfair, and manifestly unjust, to Mr. Schreiber to rely on a strictly literal interpretation of answers to questions taken out of context from the transcript of his examination in a different matter in which the focus of everyone's intention was on other issues.
You can see the pattern and the repeated trick that Mr. Mulroney continued to try. He thinks he can fool you, experienced trial judges and the Canadian public. Rather than answer your questions, he interrupted you throughout the hearing on December 13. He ignored your questions because he couldn't wait to distract and mislead you with a prepared smoke-and-mirror show. That was his way of wasting hearing time and avoiding answering your important questions. It's obvious he came here with one goal: to avoid a public inquiry. The sparrows witnessed this in the meantime from the roofs of the buildings.
In October Mr. Mulroney announced that he wanted a full public inquiry. Then on December 13 he said, “Schreiber credibility destroyed, no need for inquiry”.
Mr. Mulroney has tried to avoid an inquiry at all costs. Even recently he refused to cooperate with the committee. Why is he so afraid to answer your questions directly and truthfully? We'll tell you why. It is the same reason he met in Zurich on February 2, 1998, to express his concerns that the money he received could be tracked back to him. As I said in my affidavit, I responded to Mr. Mulroney that Fred Doucet asked me to transfer funds from GCI to Mr. Mulroney's lawyer in Geneva related to Airbus. Mr. Mulroney is frightened by the truth.
Mr. Mulroney neglected to tell you that my November 7 affidavit was filed in court and that he had the right to cross-examine me on it; he had the right to challenge me on it. He never even asked or tried to challenge me on it. If Mr. Mulroney really thought he could challenge my affidavit, he would have instructed his lawyers to cross-examine me on it in Toronto. They didn't even ask for a cross-examination.
My November 7 affidavit remains unchallenged and uncontradicted. My March 3 affidavit remains unchallenged and uncontradicted. I gave you all my many letters that I sent to Mr. Mulroney in recent years. I made very serious points in my letters. All of my letters are also unchallenged. Mr. Mulroney never once wrote back to challenge, deny, or contradict anything I said to him in my letters.
Mr. Mulroney spent a lot of time exploiting my testimony in the MBB case. Justice Bélanger was the judge in the MBB case, and here is what he said about my testimony: “Mr. Schreiber appeared to understand his obligation as a witness and the need to be truthful...”. He did not follow the request of the prosecutor to call me a hostile witness.
I told you, I was a judge for nine years. I know exactly what I have to do, and I didn't want to commit perjury even by chance, even though I may have a problem once in a while with the language, because English is not my mother language. If you cannot understand that, I cannot help you. It's as simple as that.
On December 13, at the end of his appearance, Mr. Mulroney thanked you for your courtesy, then later accused each of you publicly of abusing him. During his testimony he promised to deliver documents to confirm his testimony. It has been over two months since his promises. You have followed up repeatedly. To date, he has delivered nothing to help you, and he broke his promises to you.
Let me now deal with Mr. Mulroney's lie about travelling internationally to sell armoured vehicles. It's simply common sense. There were no plans to even build. Without the plans, there were no vehicles to sell. More important is that there were export control laws in force at the time. You cannot just get on a plane and travel the world selling armoured vehicles. To do so would have been a violation of the export control laws. Of course, Mr. Mulroney's story about reporting to me in New York about all these international meetings to sell armoured vehicles was a complete fabrication. It didn't happen. And if he told me this nonsense in New York, I would have been forced to report him to the German and Canadian authorities.
I never asked him to do any work outside Canada. If he did go to these meetings without my knowledge, doesn't that mean he betrayed NATO by revealing military secrets to the communists? I have been in a war. I have been in the courts. I have been in communist countries. I know what I'm talking about.
Mr. Mulroney testified that I insisted on giving him cash. Mr. Mulroney was called to the bar of Quebec over 30 years ago. He has practised corporate law for decades. He knows the importance of properly documented business transactions. Why didn't he properly document this transaction and send me a receipt or an invoice? Now he wants you to believe that I forced him to accept cash. He accepted the cash because he didn't want it traced.
The $300,000 was trust money given to Mr. Mulroney. He stole it, because he didn't do any work for me. Mr. Mulroney was a member of the bar at the time. He knows you can't take money and keep it for yourself if you don't provide any services. There is no evidence of any services provided to this day, and I never even received a bill.
I have told you that I want this committee to succeed. I have delivered more documents to you. I have met with your representatives to help you. I want to help you get all your questions answered. Please let me help you further. I think this committee already has a place in Canadian history, because to my recollection, I've never heard that a committee like yours was forced to get a Speaker's warrant issued to stop the justice minister of its own government.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Schreiber, a number of witnesses we've heard testimony from, some of whom you know quite well, have suggested--and I'm going to put this delicately--that you're sometimes less than truthful. In answering questions I asked of Mr. Pelossi, your former employee, he was quite emphatic about that. Mr. Doucet in fact indicated that some of the things you said are “completely false”. Mr. Lavoie indicated strongly that he believes you're often less than truthful. Mr. Mulroney also disputes your version of reality. In addition, you've indicated to us directly in your earlier testimony that you'd sign anything to avoid extradition. Your handwriting on the agreement with Brian Mulroney contradicts your testimony that you paid Mr. Mulroney $300,000.
I also note that we've asked every witness who has come before us whether they have any evidence of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding Bear Head, Airbus, the PCO correspondence unit, or a consulting agreement between you and Mr. Mulroney, and not a single witness could produce any evidence.
I'm going to add to all this the most relevant matter of all, which is that despite the allegations you've raised, specifically of Fred Doucet asking for a kickback for the former Prime Minister, and that you gave him $300,000 and he performed no work, you haven't provided this committee with a shred of evidence to back this up.
The Chair: Mr. Del Mastro--
Mr. Dean Del Mastro: Hold on, I'm getting to the question.
:
Madame, I will go back and try one more time.
You know, when we met the first time, we spoke about the $300,000...but I would give one to you. I've told you now many times, number one, the commissions were not for me; it was all money to GCI. Can you accept that? Number two, the IAL company is not my company. This will all come out in an inquiry.
Then I had to look after the money because Pelossi couldn't do the job anymore, since he stole the money. Unfortunately, he was in jail when the first money came from MBB, and I gave my private account to IAL so they could transfer the money, because my friends in Canada wanted some money, but Pelossi was in jail.
This Carla Del Ponte is a tough cookie, as you know. You cannot go there...and they wouldn't let Pelossi out. That's number one.
Number two, regarding Frank Moores, on the one hand--and you saw this—I came here once at the beginning, and I said to you it was a Christmas gift, because nobody had seen it. It was always denied that Frank Moores had anything to do with Airbus. You saw the letter from Frank Moores to Franz Josef Strauss, the chairman, and you saw it from the chairman to Frank Moores. You saw the same thing with Thyssen, and you have in your hands the stuff from MBB where it says “commissions GCI”.
I can tell you something. I would love to send you--even privately if you want--a nice document. Do you know how much in consulting fees I made between 1989 and 1994? It was twenty-three million in Germany, and I paid the tax on it. That proves I'm pretty good.