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.
And if Brian asked you to jump off a bridge, would you do that, too?
12:11 PM
Wallace (CPC): (eeek, he has quite the odd, yellow shirt on today) I read your documents, but what really comes up is less than 1" thick of stuff that is actually important (holding up a few sheets of paper). We have your letter from May 8, 2007 where you make accusations and threaten to disclose stuff. But in July 20, 2006 letter--the whole second page, and most of the 1st pg is filled (w/positive discussion of relationship w/BM), e.g. quoting letter, you say these projects were "correct, private and nobody's business"..."you were the best advocate I could have retained"; (Wallace to Schreiber) your signature is on the bottom of this letter, sir. Do you agree with what you wrote?
Schreiber: (incredibly pissed) Don't you get it?! I got the draft from Mr. MacKay that BM wanted this letter. So I gave it to him.
Wallace (CPC): Not the question--do you agree with what you wrote (in the July 20, 2006 letter)?
Schreiber: I wrote what he wanted. I don't care what's in the letter. Sure, it's not my letter, it's his (Elmer MacKay's) letter.
Wallace (CPC): look at the letters to PM Harper: 11 out of 15 are just cover letters to correspondence (i.e. Schreiber sent to other Ministers or MPs); one was about Afghanistan and our "brave men and women being killed in LAVs" and three letters asking PM Harper & Ministers to intervene in your extradition. The extradition started when the Liberals were in government?
Schreiber: yes.
Wallace (CPC): You sent a letter to PM Harper June 16, 2006 with a long list of Liberals you're sure were involved in getting you out of Canada. You're asking PM Harper to get involved. Why did you think the Conservative government would get involved in an extradition process that had already started? What gave you that impression?
Schreiber: very simple. Look at (Harper's) Nov 2005 speech in Quebec, I think: he said, "Only a Conservative government can clean up the mess the Liberals made for the last 12 years, blah, blah, blah" and that he wanted a "public prosecutor."
Wallace (CPC): We think people who are accused should be able to face their accusers. You said a week ago that you were a judge in Germany. Why have you not gone back to face your accusers if you're innocent?
Schreiber: (laughs) I would not get a day in court. I recommend you go to a computer and look at "human rights violations in Germany," then you get a better understanding. My case is political in Germany, too; it has nothing to do w/the charges, the charges don't even exist anymore.
Wallace (CPC): but if you were part of the (German judicial system), and you understand the system and you believe in the system, that innocent people will be found "not guilty," why would you not--instead of wasting taxpayers' money on appeal after appeal--go back and face your accusers and be relieved of those penalties and then retire back here, in Canada. I still don't understand why, if you're innocent, you're fighting it.
Schreiber: well, wait and see. We have a good chance in Canada to do the same thing they do in Germany--try me here, prosecute me here, I would love to do this tomorrow, so that Canadians (would) find out how they've been setup by a conspiracy with the Germans. I would love it. Perhaps you can help me on that (*smiling* at Wallace)
Wallace (CPC): (irritated) Oh, so this is a conspiracy against you?!
Schreiber: yeah, sure.
Wallace (CPC): and that's from the Justice Dept, RCMP, the German Justice...
Schreiber: yes, the German prosecutors, they initiated the whole thing. If you read what I wrote (*snerk*), you would know all of this.
Wallace (CPC): So this public inquiry you've asked for, is it about Airbus or how you've been treated in your extradition process? (ok, fair question, Wallace...)
Schreiber: I'm interested in an inquiry to clear the whole mess around me, including the mess w/the letter of request to Switzerland and how the Canadian Justice Dept initiated this in Germany in 1995.
Wallace (CPC): I'll share my time w/Mr. Del Mastro.
Schreiber: (incredibly pissed) Don't you get it?! I got the draft from Mr. MacKay that BM wanted this letter. So I gave it to him.
Wallace (CPC): Not the question--do you agree with what you wrote (in the July 20, 2006 letter)?
Schreiber: I wrote what he wanted. I don't care what's in the letter. Sure, it's not my letter, it's his (Elmer MacKay's) letter.
Wallace (CPC): look at the letters to PM Harper: 11 out of 15 are just cover letters to correspondence (i.e. Schreiber sent to other Ministers or MPs); one was about Afghanistan and our "brave men and women being killed in LAVs" and three letters asking PM Harper & Ministers to intervene in your extradition. The extradition started when the Liberals were in government?
Schreiber: yes.
Wallace (CPC): You sent a letter to PM Harper June 16, 2006 with a long list of Liberals you're sure were involved in getting you out of Canada. You're asking PM Harper to get involved. Why did you think the Conservative government would get involved in an extradition process that had already started? What gave you that impression?
Schreiber: very simple. Look at (Harper's) Nov 2005 speech in Quebec, I think: he said, "Only a Conservative government can clean up the mess the Liberals made for the last 12 years, blah, blah, blah" and that he wanted a "public prosecutor."
Wallace (CPC): We think people who are accused should be able to face their accusers. You said a week ago that you were a judge in Germany. Why have you not gone back to face your accusers if you're innocent?
Schreiber: (laughs) I would not get a day in court. I recommend you go to a computer and look at "human rights violations in Germany," then you get a better understanding. My case is political in Germany, too; it has nothing to do w/the charges, the charges don't even exist anymore.
Wallace (CPC): but if you were part of the (German judicial system), and you understand the system and you believe in the system, that innocent people will be found "not guilty," why would you not--instead of wasting taxpayers' money on appeal after appeal--go back and face your accusers and be relieved of those penalties and then retire back here, in Canada. I still don't understand why, if you're innocent, you're fighting it.
Schreiber: well, wait and see. We have a good chance in Canada to do the same thing they do in Germany--try me here, prosecute me here, I would love to do this tomorrow, so that Canadians (would) find out how they've been setup by a conspiracy with the Germans. I would love it. Perhaps you can help me on that (*smiling* at Wallace)
Wallace (CPC): (irritated) Oh, so this is a conspiracy against you?!
Schreiber: yeah, sure.
Wallace (CPC): and that's from the Justice Dept, RCMP, the German Justice...
Schreiber: yes, the German prosecutors, they initiated the whole thing. If you read what I wrote (*snerk*), you would know all of this.
Wallace (CPC): So this public inquiry you've asked for, is it about Airbus or how you've been treated in your extradition process? (ok, fair question, Wallace...)
Schreiber: I'm interested in an inquiry to clear the whole mess around me, including the mess w/the letter of request to Switzerland and how the Canadian Justice Dept initiated this in Germany in 1995.
Wallace (CPC): I'll share my time w/Mr. Del Mastro.
12:16 PM
Del Mastro (CPC): I want to start w/a quote from Nov 15, 2007 Canadian Press article, where your lawyer Edward Greenspan said, "Everything we have to do, we have to do."I asked you the other day if the Airbus deal was done b/c it was good business and you said "yes, sir." The option was a Boeing 727 jet that was inferior in every way and Airbus was a better plane. Pat Martin was asking you to speculate the other day and I was objecting b/c you couldn't possibly know how--you have no idea what I do w/my money, but (Martin) asked if you knew who else benefitted from commission--you said, since money from GCI the shareholders were entitled to that money. Martin asked whether public office holders benefitted. You allege that, back in the late 90s, you were asked to direct GCI money to BM.
Schreiber: yes.
Del Mastro (CPC): who owned GCI at the time?
Schreiber: the same shareholders.
Del Mastro (CPC): (very excited and proud of himself) No! No! Isn't it true that Pierre Bourque Sr. owned GCI beginning from 1993? Isn't it true that PB Sr. was a Liberal (Oh! the horrors! *eyeroll*)
Schreiber: no, no, no, when I spoke w/him for sure Mr. Moores was the head of the company (GCI) and he was the one who handled all the cases in Switzerland. (Del Mastro keeps interrupting Schreiber here: "you didn't know that?! Huh? Huh? You didn't know that?!")
***NOTE*** I can't confirm Del Mastro's allegation that Bourque Sr. owned GCI. I can find references to Bourque using GCI as a lobbying firm for his own developing company, but, at most, I think Bourque had partial ownership (this site refers to a Globe & Mail article hinting that Bourque was part-owner). Bourque Sr. was convicted on Jan 31, 2000 for tax-evasion:
Schreiber: May I remind you...that I said it was either 1992 or 1993...
Del Mastro (CPC): Funny, your memory seems to all of a sudden fail you...today I think that your memory has been outstanding: numbers, dates, places... but all of a sudden you get cornered on something and it's (mocking Schreiber) "I don't know"
Schreiber: I said quite a while ago that this was the case...look at the transcript
Del Mastro (CPC): just funny that in the names that you mention, that Pierre Bourque Sr isn't among them...
Schreiber: I don't know about him, and let me remind you that BM's book, you don't see my name, Walter Wolf, so what do you say about that?
(*tee-hee* this reminds me of Bart Simpson's rant about Krusty the Clown: "Krusty's autobiography was self-serving, with many glaring omissions!"
Del Mastro (CPC): You've signed your name to quite a few letters, going back to Mr. Wallace's questioning. Are you saying that you will sign your name to things that aren't true?
Schreiber: What?!
Del Mastro (CPC): (repeats last question slowly and patronizingly)
Schreiber: no
Del Mastro (CPC): so therefore the letter you sent to BM in 2006 was true-that you were good friends, that Airbus was a hoax...
Schreiber: how much more often do you want to hear from me that I would have signed anything at the time?
**translation problem; pause to fix it***
Szabo (chair, LPC): although it makes good conversation, you can't jump in on people's answers, b/c the translators can't keep up.
Del Mastro (CPC): you said you wouldn't sign your name to something wasn't true.
Schreiber: but BM was going help me w/Mr. Harper, I thought, so I would have signed my name to anything.
Del Mastro (CPC): so now we're back to that "everything we have to do, we'll do" quote from your lawyer. You would sign your name to something that wasn't true, b/c that fits.
Schreiber: yes, if BM had asked me to sign anything that day, I would have signed it.
Continue to Part VII ("Bless this Mess"), or return to Part V ("Everybody wanted to get something").
Photo Credits: Mike Wallace screen-shot grabbed from ctv.ca (video clip w/Mike Duffy recap); ragingDean Del Mastro King Kong pic from Solarnavigator.net
Schreiber: yes.
Del Mastro (CPC): who owned GCI at the time?
Schreiber: the same shareholders.
Del Mastro (CPC): (very excited and proud of himself) No! No! Isn't it true that Pierre Bourque Sr. owned GCI beginning from 1993? Isn't it true that PB Sr. was a Liberal (Oh! the horrors! *eyeroll*)
Schreiber: no, no, no, when I spoke w/him for sure Mr. Moores was the head of the company (GCI) and he was the one who handled all the cases in Switzerland. (Del Mastro keeps interrupting Schreiber here: "you didn't know that?! Huh? Huh? You didn't know that?!")
***NOTE*** I can't confirm Del Mastro's allegation that Bourque Sr. owned GCI. I can find references to Bourque using GCI as a lobbying firm for his own developing company, but, at most, I think Bourque had partial ownership (this site refers to a Globe & Mail article hinting that Bourque was part-owner). Bourque Sr. was convicted on Jan 31, 2000 for tax-evasion:
What's unusual about this case is the source of the unreported income. It was paid to Bourque by GCI, a lobbying group with links to the conservative government of Brian Mulroney. It's also a company that was working for Bourque to secure the lease of an $80-million building constructed by the developer. [...] Pat MacAdam, a former friend of Brian Mulroney who worked for GCI, was paid $250,000 for successfully landing the lease. MacAdam was also convicted of income tax evasion for failing to report this income.Del Mastro (CPC): So the fact that Mr. Moores was no longer in that position at the time you're alleging you're being asked to direct money to BM (from GCI), don't you think that's important?
Schreiber: May I remind you...that I said it was either 1992 or 1993...
Del Mastro (CPC): Funny, your memory seems to all of a sudden fail you...today I think that your memory has been outstanding: numbers, dates, places... but all of a sudden you get cornered on something and it's (mocking Schreiber) "I don't know"
Schreiber: I said quite a while ago that this was the case...look at the transcript
Del Mastro (CPC): just funny that in the names that you mention, that Pierre Bourque Sr isn't among them...
Schreiber: I don't know about him, and let me remind you that BM's book, you don't see my name, Walter Wolf, so what do you say about that?
(*tee-hee* this reminds me of Bart Simpson's rant about Krusty the Clown: "Krusty's autobiography was self-serving, with many glaring omissions!"
Del Mastro (CPC): You've signed your name to quite a few letters, going back to Mr. Wallace's questioning. Are you saying that you will sign your name to things that aren't true?
Schreiber: What?!
Del Mastro (CPC): (repeats last question slowly and patronizingly)
Schreiber: no
Del Mastro (CPC): so therefore the letter you sent to BM in 2006 was true-that you were good friends, that Airbus was a hoax...
Schreiber: how much more often do you want to hear from me that I would have signed anything at the time?
**translation problem; pause to fix it***
Szabo (chair, LPC): although it makes good conversation, you can't jump in on people's answers, b/c the translators can't keep up.
Del Mastro (CPC): you said you wouldn't sign your name to something wasn't true.
Schreiber: but BM was going help me w/Mr. Harper, I thought, so I would have signed my name to anything.
Del Mastro (CPC): so now we're back to that "everything we have to do, we'll do" quote from your lawyer. You would sign your name to something that wasn't true, b/c that fits.
Schreiber: yes, if BM had asked me to sign anything that day, I would have signed it.
Continue to Part VII ("Bless this Mess"), or return to Part V ("Everybody wanted to get something").
Photo Credits: Mike Wallace screen-shot grabbed from ctv.ca (video clip w/Mike Duffy recap); raging
No comments:
Post a Comment