Karlheinz Schreiber returned to the Commons Ethics committee for the third time on Thursday, December 6. As with the two previous meetings (Nov 29 and Dec 4), the following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. You can return to the beginning of this 'series,' by clicking here: Part I.
"Everybody wanted to get something"
Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Van Kesteren, you have 5 min.
***grumbling***
Szabo rolls his eyes, sometime between Hiebert and Van Kesteren--it was very slight but probably the most facial expression he's exhibited all day (screen grabs from here):
***grumbling***
Szabo rolls his eyes, sometime between Hiebert and Van Kesteren--it was very slight but probably the most facial expression he's exhibited all day (screen grabs from here):
Van Kesteren (CPC): Mr. Schreiber, I'd like to remind you that the party you referred to was the Progressive Conservatives...this is the Conservative party before you today.
***howls of laughter and groans***
Van Kesteren (CPC): I'd like to understand the timeline. You gave BM money in installments. When did you expect to 1st receive services? Want dates.
Schreiber: after the election, especially when Kim Campbell would form the next Conservative (*snerk*) government in Canada.
Van Kesteren (CPC): You cut off the installments at one point b/c, as you testified last week, you didn't receive services. Is it your testimony that BM provided no services to you whatsoever?
Schreiber: not to my knowledge. If he has done "secret services," I don't know about it.
Van Kesteren (CPC): you must've trusted BM quite a bit to give him the 2nd and 3rd 100K before he even provided one hour's worth of service. Why did you give him 3/5 of money before seeing even an hour's work? I don't understand that.
Schreiber: I think I was right in my expectations when you see what he's doing today in his role as an international lobbyist. I thought there might be something we could do together. I was very much entrusted and thought he's done quite a lot for companies he's working for. Unfortunately, not for me.
Van Kesteren (CPC): Canadians want to know why you paid in cash. You said, "cash was available," and that the money was your money. Tell us the source of this cash.
Schreiber: from the accts where money went to GCI. Since the BHP collapsed--the $4 million from Thyssen--I kept my share, kept 500K in reserve, in case I can do something w/BHP in future and this is the main reason BM--I don't know why people can't understand there's more than one reason for doing something. One (reason) was BHP, one was for German reunification and the third was for the expectation of "other" business. Simple like that.
Van Kesteren (CPC): but we're dealing with huge amounts of cash. Was dealing in large amounts of cash normal for you?
Schreiber: yes.
Van Kesteren (CPC): were you attempting to avoid a paper trail by using cash?
Schreiber: at least I am not entrusted when I do something for my side, where I was not clear where it should go...I expected BM would tell me what company or what law firm or whatever...that was not clear on the 23rd of June (1993).
Van Kesteren (CPC): but were you attempting to avoid a paper trail or to help BM avoid scrutiny?
Schreiber: to be quite frank, people who know me, knew that I don't care about those things.
Van Kesteren (CPC): tell us a bit about bank acct, code name "BRITAIN"...what does it stand for?
Schreiber: "Brian Mulroney and the Cape Breton Bear Head Project"
Van Kesteren (CPC): when did you open it?
Schreiber: couple of weeks after my meeting w/BM at Harrington Lake after I'd identified a banker in Zurich and found out what money's available.
Van Kesteren (CPC): is this acct still open?
Schreiber: no, everything has disappeared.
Van Kesteren (CPC): why did you close it? Where did the 200K go?
Schreiber: the 200K I took back and sent to another acct of mine b/c it was my money
Van Kesteren (CPC): (exasperated) I suggest that Canadians would wonder about the cash and that it was used to avoid scrutiny, or papertrail. Were you or BM using cash to avoid scrutiny?
Schreiber: when I was arrested, everyone reported back how much money I had...In my life, you go around, it's common to go w/o credit cards or something. I'm a businessman, and you get much better bargains if you deal in cash (!!). Same was true for Jean Charest's donation---had it in my bank and I gave it to him.
12:00 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): going now to Sukh Dhaliwal
Dhaliwal (LPC): you said when Peter MacKay worked at Thyssen that he was being prepared for a future job at BHP. Did you help him get this job through Elmer MacKay?
Schreiber: no, Mr. Elmer MacKay had nothing to do with it, it had to do w/Thyssen Execs. His son was here and we thought it was time--(describes economic problems in Nova Scotia at the time, w/plant closings, refinery down, etc.) "I mean, jobs were needed!" So, we got Edmund Chiasson (lawyer for Doucet who did all corporate business for Thyssen) and thought, we need somebody there (from Nova Scotia) and, in the future we should recruit people. When Peter MacKay--young guy, a lawyer from Nova Scotia, my friend's son (everybody likes Elmer MacKay)--so let him go there and see if he has the capability and if he understands what's going on.
Dhaliwal (LPC): also tell us what Peter MacKay's role was supposed to be in BHP.
Schreiber: at the time I was working here? Nothing. He was in Germany. No, it was his father (who was Min. of ACOA).
Dhaliwal (LPC): the letter you wrote May 8, 2007, you wrote BM: in this letter, you state that you're prepared to disclose that BM asked you, through his lawyers, to commit perjury, to protect him. Did this happen in 1999?
Schreiber: yes.
Dhaliwal (LPC): Jan 26, 2000 letter. Do you have a copy? (Schreiber is handed a copy) The letter was prepared by your lawyers. Does this letter describe an attempt to have you perjure yourself?
Schreiber: yes
Dhaliwal (LPC): in Jan 26, 2000 letter, your lawyer says that he got two calls directly from BM on Oct 17, seeking a letter from you to absolve BM from ever receiving 300K. At any time, did BM communicated this request to you directly?
Schreiber: number one, it is not correct, there was never anything spelled out specifically regarding the 300K. But yes, this is how the trouble started, when I refused to sign an affidavit that BM never received any payment from me. From that time on, I got pretty lousy treatment, eh? (ch-yeah! I guess so) For e.g. Luc Lavoie said that Schreiber is "the biggest fucking liar on earth."
Dhaliwal (LPC): BM called your lawyer, but did you receive any calls from BM directly?
Schreiber: no
Szabo (chair, LPC): (embarrassed) I'd ask that we use 'parliamentary language,' ok? ('fucking liar' isn't parliamentary? Whale oil beef hooked...)
Dhaliwal (LPC): Also in the letter dated May 8, 2007 to BM, you say you'll disclose the reason for BM's trip to Europe in 1998. At this meeting, BM was attempting to determine if anyone else would know about the 300K cash payment. Correct?
Schreiber: No. He was concerned that there was evidence of any payment he received.
Dhaliwal (LPC): he just wanted to make sure there's no proof of any money he may have received?
Schreiber: yes
Dhaliwal (LPC): You state that you are prepared to disclose (in the May 8, 2007 letter) that BM received payments from GCI, Fred Doucet, Frank Moores, and Gary Ouellet. Did GCI, Moores, Doucet or Ouellet receive any commissions from Airbus?
Schreiber: yes, they are shareholders of GCI and entitled to those funds.
Dhaliwal (LPC): would any of those payments BM received be related to Airbus? Yes or No?
Schreiber: I can't say, I do not know...when you receive money from five different clients, how can you say from what money you paid? It's impossible.
Dhaliwal (LPC): can you tell me--elaborate on that conversation you were telling Mme. Lavallée about?
Schreiber: I tried to tell you, this all started at the beginning, when BM wanted to be PM, and "everybody wanted to get something"..."everybody wanted to do business." BM, when no longer PM, he can work for GCI. I was a witness that BM supported GCI in many ways. Whenever Thyssen Executives showed up, this is why I'm so bitter about the whole thing, they were received by BM. Mr. Moores went there with me and, of course, the executives from Thyssen. They got the information from BM that "everything is fine, he is grateful that Thyssen follows invitation to Sinclair Stevens and doing what the Canadian government wanted to do." But when you look at the Airbus, when BM appointed Moores to Air Canada, it was a clear signal, the backing of the Canadian government.
Dhaliwal (LPC): last question--you also claim, in the same letter, that BM supported fraud related to the Thyssen project and Moores. Was BM ever aware of the commission IAL was to be paid on an understanding in princ., being these to establish the BHP when there were three Ministers present at the understanding-in-princ. agreement?
Schreiber: this was my understanding from discussions w/Moores and Ouellet b/c they all recommended that I would sue the government, which I did, and received a claim by Ian Scott b/c since BM confirmed that BHP would go ahead, now came the two documents (which were the basis for the payment). Then, w/o saying anything about it, BM killed the (BH) project! I couldn't believe it! Now, I ask you, when this happens just after Thyssen paid, I don't know if you would've been in my position, how would you feel? This is why there was huge fallout between Moores and BM. Mr. Ouellet recommended heavily that I would sue him.
Continue to Part VI ("And if Brian asked you to jump off a bridge, would you do that, too?"), or return to Part IV ("Party Pooper").
***howls of laughter and groans***
Van Kesteren (CPC): I'd like to understand the timeline. You gave BM money in installments. When did you expect to 1st receive services? Want dates.
Schreiber: after the election, especially when Kim Campbell would form the next Conservative (*snerk*) government in Canada.
Van Kesteren (CPC): You cut off the installments at one point b/c, as you testified last week, you didn't receive services. Is it your testimony that BM provided no services to you whatsoever?
Schreiber: not to my knowledge. If he has done "secret services," I don't know about it.
Van Kesteren (CPC): you must've trusted BM quite a bit to give him the 2nd and 3rd 100K before he even provided one hour's worth of service. Why did you give him 3/5 of money before seeing even an hour's work? I don't understand that.
Schreiber: I think I was right in my expectations when you see what he's doing today in his role as an international lobbyist. I thought there might be something we could do together. I was very much entrusted and thought he's done quite a lot for companies he's working for. Unfortunately, not for me.
Van Kesteren (CPC): Canadians want to know why you paid in cash. You said, "cash was available," and that the money was your money. Tell us the source of this cash.
Schreiber: from the accts where money went to GCI. Since the BHP collapsed--the $4 million from Thyssen--I kept my share, kept 500K in reserve, in case I can do something w/BHP in future and this is the main reason BM--I don't know why people can't understand there's more than one reason for doing something. One (reason) was BHP, one was for German reunification and the third was for the expectation of "other" business. Simple like that.
Van Kesteren (CPC): but we're dealing with huge amounts of cash. Was dealing in large amounts of cash normal for you?
Schreiber: yes.
Van Kesteren (CPC): were you attempting to avoid a paper trail by using cash?
Schreiber: at least I am not entrusted when I do something for my side, where I was not clear where it should go...I expected BM would tell me what company or what law firm or whatever...that was not clear on the 23rd of June (1993).
Van Kesteren (CPC): but were you attempting to avoid a paper trail or to help BM avoid scrutiny?
Schreiber: to be quite frank, people who know me, knew that I don't care about those things.
Van Kesteren (CPC): tell us a bit about bank acct, code name "BRITAIN"...what does it stand for?
Schreiber: "Brian Mulroney and the Cape Breton Bear Head Project"
Van Kesteren (CPC): when did you open it?
Schreiber: couple of weeks after my meeting w/BM at Harrington Lake after I'd identified a banker in Zurich and found out what money's available.
Van Kesteren (CPC): is this acct still open?
Schreiber: no, everything has disappeared.
Van Kesteren (CPC): why did you close it? Where did the 200K go?
Schreiber: the 200K I took back and sent to another acct of mine b/c it was my money
Van Kesteren (CPC): (exasperated) I suggest that Canadians would wonder about the cash and that it was used to avoid scrutiny, or papertrail. Were you or BM using cash to avoid scrutiny?
Schreiber: when I was arrested, everyone reported back how much money I had...In my life, you go around, it's common to go w/o credit cards or something. I'm a businessman, and you get much better bargains if you deal in cash (!!). Same was true for Jean Charest's donation---had it in my bank and I gave it to him.
12:00 PM
Szabo (chair, LPC): going now to Sukh Dhaliwal
Dhaliwal (LPC): you said when Peter MacKay worked at Thyssen that he was being prepared for a future job at BHP. Did you help him get this job through Elmer MacKay?
Schreiber: no, Mr. Elmer MacKay had nothing to do with it, it had to do w/Thyssen Execs. His son was here and we thought it was time--(describes economic problems in Nova Scotia at the time, w/plant closings, refinery down, etc.) "I mean, jobs were needed!" So, we got Edmund Chiasson (lawyer for Doucet who did all corporate business for Thyssen) and thought, we need somebody there (from Nova Scotia) and, in the future we should recruit people. When Peter MacKay--young guy, a lawyer from Nova Scotia, my friend's son (everybody likes Elmer MacKay)--so let him go there and see if he has the capability and if he understands what's going on.
Dhaliwal (LPC): also tell us what Peter MacKay's role was supposed to be in BHP.
Schreiber: at the time I was working here? Nothing. He was in Germany. No, it was his father (who was Min. of ACOA).
Dhaliwal (LPC): the letter you wrote May 8, 2007, you wrote BM: in this letter, you state that you're prepared to disclose that BM asked you, through his lawyers, to commit perjury, to protect him. Did this happen in 1999?
Schreiber: yes.
Dhaliwal (LPC): Jan 26, 2000 letter. Do you have a copy? (Schreiber is handed a copy) The letter was prepared by your lawyers. Does this letter describe an attempt to have you perjure yourself?
Schreiber: yes
Dhaliwal (LPC): in Jan 26, 2000 letter, your lawyer says that he got two calls directly from BM on Oct 17, seeking a letter from you to absolve BM from ever receiving 300K. At any time, did BM communicated this request to you directly?
Schreiber: number one, it is not correct, there was never anything spelled out specifically regarding the 300K. But yes, this is how the trouble started, when I refused to sign an affidavit that BM never received any payment from me. From that time on, I got pretty lousy treatment, eh? (ch-yeah! I guess so) For e.g. Luc Lavoie said that Schreiber is "the biggest fucking liar on earth."
Dhaliwal (LPC): BM called your lawyer, but did you receive any calls from BM directly?
Schreiber: no
Szabo (chair, LPC): (embarrassed) I'd ask that we use 'parliamentary language,' ok? ('fucking liar' isn't parliamentary? Whale oil beef hooked...)
Dhaliwal (LPC): Also in the letter dated May 8, 2007 to BM, you say you'll disclose the reason for BM's trip to Europe in 1998. At this meeting, BM was attempting to determine if anyone else would know about the 300K cash payment. Correct?
Schreiber: No. He was concerned that there was evidence of any payment he received.
Dhaliwal (LPC): he just wanted to make sure there's no proof of any money he may have received?
Schreiber: yes
Dhaliwal (LPC): You state that you are prepared to disclose (in the May 8, 2007 letter) that BM received payments from GCI, Fred Doucet, Frank Moores, and Gary Ouellet. Did GCI, Moores, Doucet or Ouellet receive any commissions from Airbus?
Schreiber: yes, they are shareholders of GCI and entitled to those funds.
Dhaliwal (LPC): would any of those payments BM received be related to Airbus? Yes or No?
Schreiber: I can't say, I do not know...when you receive money from five different clients, how can you say from what money you paid? It's impossible.
Dhaliwal (LPC): can you tell me--elaborate on that conversation you were telling Mme. Lavallée about?
Schreiber: I tried to tell you, this all started at the beginning, when BM wanted to be PM, and "everybody wanted to get something"..."everybody wanted to do business." BM, when no longer PM, he can work for GCI. I was a witness that BM supported GCI in many ways. Whenever Thyssen Executives showed up, this is why I'm so bitter about the whole thing, they were received by BM. Mr. Moores went there with me and, of course, the executives from Thyssen. They got the information from BM that "everything is fine, he is grateful that Thyssen follows invitation to Sinclair Stevens and doing what the Canadian government wanted to do." But when you look at the Airbus, when BM appointed Moores to Air Canada, it was a clear signal, the backing of the Canadian government.
Dhaliwal (LPC): last question--you also claim, in the same letter, that BM supported fraud related to the Thyssen project and Moores. Was BM ever aware of the commission IAL was to be paid on an understanding in princ., being these to establish the BHP when there were three Ministers present at the understanding-in-princ. agreement?
Schreiber: this was my understanding from discussions w/Moores and Ouellet b/c they all recommended that I would sue the government, which I did, and received a claim by Ian Scott b/c since BM confirmed that BHP would go ahead, now came the two documents (which were the basis for the payment). Then, w/o saying anything about it, BM killed the (BH) project! I couldn't believe it! Now, I ask you, when this happens just after Thyssen paid, I don't know if you would've been in my position, how would you feel? This is why there was huge fallout between Moores and BM. Mr. Ouellet recommended heavily that I would sue him.
Continue to Part VI ("And if Brian asked you to jump off a bridge, would you do that, too?"), or return to Part IV ("Party Pooper").
No comments:
Post a Comment