It's Brian's turn to cry, Part XII: "Clean as a hound's tooth"

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11) the following is NOT a transcript, so quote at your own risk ;) Time-stamps are approximate. This is the twelfth and final Part of this series. You can return to the beginning of this 'series,' by clicking here: Part I.

"Clean as a hound's tooth"

Szabo (chair, LPC): I'm going to give Mr. Van Kesteren 3 min. That's all the time we have and he hasn't had a turn yet, today...

12:51 PM
Van Kesteren (CPC): Mr. S has alleged that he, Moores and Ouellet were the principals involved in your leadership campaign. Is that true?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: who? (incredulous) Schreiber?! Of course not! He said, in a book, he had nothing to do w/1983. He didn't participate in any way.
Van Kesteren (CPC): were you aware that Mr. Moores had an interest in GCI when you appointed him to the board of Air Canada?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I don't think GCI existed at the time. I think he, and the fine young man from Winnipeg named Jamie Burns, had an embryonic organization called "Alta Vista" and I think they worked together. (Note: I think Schreiber referred to this as "Alta Nova," but I don't know which one is correct). When he was appointed, his appt lasted hardly at all, b/c he had received a mandate from Wardair, and he was in conflict.
Van Kesteren (CPC): Mr. Schreiber made subtle suggestion that decisions about major purchases go far beyond government, and involve major players. Would you want to comment? Truth?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: not familiar w/international conspiracies, very well...the Liberals, the Germans, the Conservatives, Irwin Cotler, me, Stephen Harper, all of you...I'm not too familiar with all of that. I don't have a clue what he's talking about.
Van Kesteren (CPC): well that's settling...

***laughter***

Van Kesteren (CPC): we've brought forward some legislation, the Accountability Act. During your tenure as PM, did decisions like Airbus pass significant scrutiny to avoid suspicion, to avoid the kind of things we're talking about? We've now enacted measures to prevent this sort of thing (ha!! Bullshit!) but, at that time, were there enough measures to make sure that this was a good deal, that it passed the litmus test?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: well, life moves on. This was 20 yrs ago. Ottawa was different then, life was different then. (*eyeroll*) Now, the rigour that you all bring to public policy (*puke*) is greater than our time. You're all to be congratulated for that. I think the Accountability Act that you all brought in is excellent. Tremendous. The more transparency, the better it is, and the better it will be. But the Airbus matter was investigated by the RCMP, then re-examined by the RCMP, and then the examination went on for another 6 yrs, when I received a letter in 2003 from commissioner saying there's nothing here. They've investigated it here, and around the world, and there's nothing here. There will be no charges. So, while we didn't have the transparency that you have here, which is much to your credit, in this case that you raise, it was clean as a hound's tooth.
Szabo (chair, LPC): I've been told you want to make a brief closing statement to the cmte.

12:55 PM
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: It'll be extremely brief. (Don't believe him!) I want to thank all members of the cmte, from all parties, for taking the time to examine this matter. You'll draw whatever conclusions you think are appropriate. This has been another very demanding and brutal time for my family and me. Only through courts or parliament, can the rights of individuals be protected. It's up to you to judge the credibility of the people who come before you, and swear to tell you the truth, which I have done. I swore to tell the truth and I've told you the absolute truth. I won't go into any of the stuff, the false stmts, the affidavits, the letter of extortion, the blackmail--this has got to tell you something of the man. What regard for your reputation--if you were part of his Get out of Jail possibility, you'd go down in flames. He'll take anybody down with him--he threw Elmer MacKay under the bus! Elmer MacKay was one of the most outstanding public servants--along w/his son--that I know. He doesn't care about anything except himself and staying away from Germany.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I'll conclude, Mr. Chairman, by simply saying this: on Dec 2, 1995, Mr. Schreiber was interviewed by the Toronto Sun:

Accusations of bribery against Brian Mulroney are as much of a hoax as the Hitler diaries, German deal maker Karlheinz Schreiber says, in an exclusive interview with the Saturday Sun, Schreiber yesterday said that the former Tory PM was "totally innocent" of RCMP allegations he accepted $5 million in kickbacks as the result of Airbus commissions, nor was a Swiss bank account ever opened for him." [...](BM interjects: "Listen to this!") "as much as I'm involved, as much as I know, as much as I've seen, Mr. Mulroney is totally innocent. He is involved in this as much as the Pope-not at all."

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Then, Nov 15, 2007, Toronto Star, they refer to an article in The Star 2000 (interview w/KHS):

In an interview with two Toronto Star reporters, two months after he'd been arrested and released on bail, Schreiber was adamant that Mulroney had never done anything wrong. "Mulroney is as innocent as the Pope," he said.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: So let me conclude, for all of us, and certainly for me as well, it's probably part of human nature, from Sir John A. MacDonald on...all made mistakes...as I said in my Memoirs, I sure have. Part of the greatness of Sir John was that he was flawed. All of us are, in some way. But the most difficult thing in life is to admit one's mistakes, but it's also the most important. But it's even harder to do so, in public. I hope others will do the same, about their mistakes, if not for me, but for my family. Because it's the right thing to do. I'd like to thank you all, and I wish you all a very happy Holiday Season w/your family.

Szabo (chair, LPC): clearly there are discrepancies between the witnesses. Likely asking you to come back sometime in Feb, or that you'll be able to come back and clarify any outstanding matters. To all, a very Merry Christmas.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: and I particularly thank you, Mr. Chair, for your courtesy.

*Adjournment*

Return to Part XI ("I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"), or return to the beginning of the series, Part I ("It was like a near-death experience," except it wasn't")
Photo Credit: Icanhascheezburger

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part XI: "I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11) 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.

"I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"

12:30 PM
Wallace (CPC): I haven't followed your career, sir, since you left office. Are you still at the same law firm that you joined when you 1st left office?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I am sir.
Wallace (CPC): so the agreement that you had w/your law office, that allowed you to still have your own independent, international consulting business, would that agreement still be in effect?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, it is.
Wallace (CPC): could we get a copy of that, to see the agreement?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: sure
Wallace (CPC): were you expecting to make money as an individual on your international consulting business?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I didn't have a clue
Wallace (CPC): wouldn't you have registered for a GST number then?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I didn't have a clue when I started out.
Wallace (CPC): we need some sense of proof that you were creating a legitimate 2nd business for yourself. I happen to be familiar w/records management issues, and that you can get rid of them after 7 yrs etc, but do you have any proof that you had a legitimate 2nd business on the side of your legal business? Can you provide this cmte anything?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: with respect to this transaction?
Wallace (CPC): have you done any other business under this umbrella?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I do have a legitimate international business (ok, ok...jeeesh!)
Wallace (CPC): that you pay tax on every year?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, of course. I indicated to other members that this is the only transaction--I'm here to explain and to acknowledge my error. Everything else, both w/my law firm (prestigious law firm, around for 135 yrs *eyeroll*) and my consulting business have been done perfectly legally.
Wallace (CPC): does your consulting business have a name?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Wallace (CPC): and it's legally registered to pay PST, GST, etc. And you can provide that info to us?
***Gah! Why not ask him for the *name* of his "legitimate" 2nd business?! You were *so* close, Wallace!***
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, sir.
Wallace (CPC): other than dealings w/Schreiber, everything else has a record?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: absolutely!
Wallace (CPC): I've seen you on TV, Mr. Prime Minister (Ewww---we don't have "Mr" Prime Ministers here in Canaduh, eh?), asking for a public inquiry, which this government has committed to. What do you expect--Mr. Schreiber wants one, you want one, I'm not sure I want one--but what are your expectations?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: on 7 Nov 2007, Mr. Schreiber files an affidavit, which provoked a feeding frenzy (that he wanted), it results in a 'Get out of Jail card,' and the creation of this cmte. He appeared 4 or 5 times. The affidavit was chosen to provoke public concern and alarm, b/c he evoked the names of a former and current PM and suggested impropriety. He made other stmts that would provoke alarm. Then, all hell broke loose, w/everybody asking for a public inquiry, statements were made that were so outrageous, that I was forced to sue my new friend, Mr. Thibault!

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: at that time, it's "Here we go again," with a series of false allegations, designed to drag me through the mud. And so, I called to indicate my innocence--asked for a Royal Commission of inquiry. (asking for help from counsel to find docs) Repeating this, b/c so important, as it would be to you, if you were falsely accused. Think of this: after he has implicated me, w/his allegations, and Mr. Harper, he is asked directly "Mr. Schreiber will save his new revelations for the inquiry" (from the National Post article, Nov 15, 2007).
Wallace (CPC): Mr. Schreiber sent us two binders, plus a third binder w/a bunch of Googled stuff. But one has about 7 letters to you, from him, starting in 2006. There's a wide variety--one he admits that he hasn't corresponded w/you since 2000 when you met at an event for Mr. Munk (Peter Munk, chairman of Barrick Gold). Is that accurate?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's right.
Wallace (CPC): and before this event in 2000, would you say that you were in touch w/Mr. Schreiber on a regular basis?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: well, intermittent. If at all. But I know, since 2000 I've not had a word with him or responded to any of his letters.
Wallace (CPC): so when he gave you that money, the 300 or 225--225, sorry sir--he hasn't given us any record of that. Do you have any correspondence w/him where he's asking for a record of work you would have done on behalf of the 225K?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir. (Oopsie!)
Wallace (CPC): so you've provided him w/no receipt and he's asked for absolutely none.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's correct. He was satisfied w/the full report I gave him--over an hour!--at the Pierre Hotel in NYC. And he said, "this is tremendous initiatives, hard work, visiting these heads of state..." (Oh, *puke* enough with the Yeltsin meetings, already!)
Wallace (CPC): this was a verbal report though. There was one witness to this verbal report in NYC?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's right.
Wallace (CPC): you said you weren't sure if it was 300K or 225K...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you shouldn't be surprised (Mr. Wallace). Mr. Schreiber came here and said that he gave 30K to Jean Charest's brother for his campaign. Then he told (Stevie) Cameron and (Harvey) Cashore for his book that Schreiber had expressed his admiration for Charest in the time honoured fashion of a donation to his campaign of 13K. And then Charest himself said it was 10K.
Wallace (CPC): that segues nicely into my next question (cutting off BM). You've quoted Mr. Schreiber from court cases, from affidavits--things you have to swear to--how do we know if he's lying in court or in the affidavit? How are we supposed to know the difference?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you figure that one out, you're going to heaven.
***laughter***

12:40 PM
Murphy (LPC): I come from an Irish Canadian family...when you were elected, we were very proud...you've done a lot for the Irish Canadian community. (*puke*) I just have a few 'clean-up' questions--things that have been left on the table. If you could get the letter of May 8, 2007 from Mr. Schreiber to you: the letter, amongst other things, uses language like, "this is my last warning," and "I am prepared to disclose" (***possible translation difficulty*** Lavallée can't hear, but Murphy responds: 'that's because I'm not speaking')

***laughter***

Murphy (LPC): ...then there's a threat, 'it's in your hands what's going to happen.' You referred to this as a blackmail letter-why did you not go to the RCMP or police w/the letter?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: this is what he did. How he operates. Look what he did w/the affidavit. He's moved only to avoid extradition. He will do and say anything. One day he blames Mr. Chretien and the Liberals for the entire Airbus affair. Ooops! Mr. Harper wins, and he expects to get some help from PM Schreiber and the Conservatives. He doesn't get it. One day he is, through Greenspan, he is threatening to sue the 5th estate--the next day, he's the sweetheart of Sigma Chi to them. And they become his champions, when it suits his needs. I got this (May 8) letter? Pure, unadulterated Shreiber. I sent it to my lawyer and that was the end of it.
***N.B. Again, BM fails to mention that his lawyer also sent a letter to the 5th Estate, threatening to sue them if they connected him to the 'BRITAIN' acct***

Murphy (LPC): I understand. You declared on your 1999 tax return, the sum of $225K, and I understand that you would have had to send a letter of request to the Gov Can to report income later than you incurred it. In that letter, you would have had to set out the reason you were late in filing, what work you did, and therefore, I would like you to table that letter to this cmte. If you can't find it, then we ask your indulgence to get it from Rev Canada...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: first of all, I didn't write any letter. (Ooopsie!) None was asked and none was required. The only thing left that is sacred in Canada is the privacy of our tax returns. (Huhh?!) I told you, I declared it, and I had no dealings w/anybody beyond that.
Murphy (LPC): you didn't declare it in the year you incurred it? My understanding is that a letter would be required, Mr. Mulroney.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: we can debate if you'd like, sir, but I was involved in no such procedure.
Murphy (LPC): fine. Allegations that somehow you & family needed money in 1993--you did say to Mr. Newman, in one of those tapes (I have all your books ***laughter***) that you 'were going to do fine,' and you've done well, but was there an interregnum where you were worried? Didn't have money? Or was this completely false? I'd think it was, b/c you didn't use that money for personal expenses.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I can't be brief in this response, b/c I can only go on at length when I'm being taped...

***laughter***

Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Mulroney, we're at "time" right now, and I want to share it between the both of you...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I understand. Any member here, leaving office, somewhat uncertain about the future....did I have a ton of money? No. Was I broke? No. I had a wife and 4 children and a mother to support--as I had since my father's death (oh, boo-hoo!), but I felt confident that I could do it again. I know some have said they thought I had financial concerns, but that's not accurate, it's probably solicitude on their part.
***Note: the Toronto Star's Bob Hepburn suggests that Mulroney was NOT poor***

Murphy (LPC): good to hear. We're all gonna leave politics someday, we're all hopeful. You said the lawsuit was a hoax, and that it all collapsed on the courthouse steps. Most of your fees and expenses were paid by the 2.1 million settlement. There was another $38K for KPMG, which was not allowed (to be paid out of the 2.1 mill), so I suppose those came out of your own pocket. You are very firm today that the case was a hoax, so why did you settle and not seek out the full amount in damages to you & your family?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I said I would not accept any money for myself. You have to sue for funds to get your case before the courts. I have been damaged very severely by this around the world. When the government collapsed on the courthouse steps, they met w/my lawyers, and said, "inasmuch as your not going to accept any money for yourself--this collapse, at least what the government is ready to acknowledge--this is at least as good as you're going to get in any court judgement" and I didn't need any pushing in this respect (to settle out of court). I've told you about my family, but if it were your family, at a given time after this calamity, and the abuse and the headlines, you just want to get on w/your life. (make it stop! *blech*)

Murphy (LPC): you've said that you weren't asked about future dealings at the discovery (Palais de Justice); the claim you made in libel suit mentions Schreiber's name several times, and yet you've said in Para 12, Sub 2, the plaintiff (BM) has never received any payments from any form, from any person, whether person named or not, in the request for assistance for any consideration whatsoever; at the time you filed this claim, and you are a lawyer, that's not exactly true: you received money from KHS. That stmt, though not a sworn stmt, isn't exactly true.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it's exactly true! It relates to the letter of request, the accusation that money had been received by me from MBB, from Airbus, from Thyssen. That letter is exactly true! (pissed)

Coming up next, the final installment in the series, Part XII ("Clean as a hound's tooth"), or return to Part X ("Never ask a man 'how big' it was")
Pictures: cry-baby from Health-in-Action, and Emo Cat from Icanhascheezburger

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part X: Never ask a man 'how big' it was

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11) 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.

Never ask a man 'how big' it was

12:16 PM
Rodriguez (LPC): on the Wireless Spectrum issue, while he was Industry Minister, have you ever met w/him at all? In which city? Have you ever phoned him, or has he phoned you? Did you ever talk about wireless w/Maxime Bernier?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (objecting-doesn't want to answer)
Szabo (chair, LPC): we already ruled on this, Mr. Mulroney, you have to answer.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I know, but I thought this would be overruled, b/c it has nothing to do w/our mandate. Please repeat it?
Rodriguez (LPC): (repeats the Wireless question)

***interruption***

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): I'd like to challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman. He's continuing on, w/this cross-examination...I challenge your ruling that he can continue on. It goes far beyond the mandate.
Szabo (chair, LPC): that's not debatable. Do members understand the challenge?
Hiebert (CPC): do we even know what members are signed in at this time?
Szabo (chair, LPC): we'll check w/the Clerk. We will do a roll call. The question is: shall the decision of the chairman be sustained? Yes or No?
***Mulroney interrupting, saying that the wireless thing has nothing to do w/the mandate***
Szabo (chair, LPC): I'm sorry, this point is not debatable, Mr. Mulroney. My decision is being challenged. (Roll call: CPCs all vote 'No,' and everyone else votes 'Yes.' Chairman's decision upheld and Mulroney has to answer Rodriguez's question about Wireless)

12:21 PM
Rodriguez (LPC): (repeating question about Wireless and whether BM met w/Bernier about this issue)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Mr. Bernier's father was a member of my caucus for 9 yrs. Very close to the family and I have been. When Maxime was elected, he communicated w/me for advice and counsel. I tried to help him along. When he was moved to Foreign Affairs, we had dinner in Montreal for a discussion of foreign policy issues and some larger perspective on the Can/US relationship and new trading initiatives...(really?! do tell!)
Szabo (chair, LPC): (interrupting) the question was about Wireless...you're on Foreign Affairs.
Del Mastro (CPC): Point of order!
(Szabo looks utterly exasperated)
Del Mastro (CPC): it's relevant to the question you've allowed. He's responding to what the meetings were about.
Szabo (chair, LPC): I'll allow it, but perhaps in the chronology it was asked--(Bernier's appointment to) Min. Industry came before Foreign Affairs. Please be cognisant of that.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: my meetings w/him were largely about Foreign Affairs. I have no recollection of meeting w/him when he was Industry Min. No recollection of any discussion which bore directly on any file at the time. General in nature and designed to assist him in his political responsibilities in Canada and later, internationally, not on any specific file. I think I was asked if I introduced Bernier to Pierre Karl Peladeau--I said no, b/c he did not need me to introduce him to anybody.
Rodriguez (LPC): the question was broader than that, and didn't have to do with any specific meeting. I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Dhaliwal.

12:25 PM
Dhaliwal (LPC): I and many Canadians have never seen that amount of cash. How did you know that there were 75 K in each (envelope)? Did you count them?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: when I depd them into the safe, it was in bundles of 10, and one 5...when you say that...oh, it's ok, it was extraneous...(cuts self off)
Dhaliwal (LPC): can you show us with your hands, how thick the envelope was?

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no I can't.
Dhaliwal (LPC): (laughing) we want to know (*shrugs* innocently). Was it an error or mistake to not know where the cash came from?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that would be a legitimate question, if you had not talked w/Mr. Schreiber and he told you he didn't know where it came from---it was from various things that wound up in different accts. He had devised a system to ensure that no one else knew--everything was conducted in such a manner that it was secret. I had no idea, sir. I just thought I was dealing w/a legitimate businessman. In 1993. It's worth mentioning, in defense of my position, that he also told you at that time, that this money came from the BRITAIN acct, that was designed for Brian. Well we know that was a hoax. He denied the whole thing in 1999. So, sir, I don't have a clue where the money came from.
Dhaliwal (LPC): you didn't charge GST on the $225K and you are the father of imposing this tax on Canadians? (*snerk*)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: the GST is a consumption tax that comes off at the border. And this was only for international work. The GST was not applicable. May I say in passing, how grateful I am to the Liberal party for your strong defense of the GST.

***laughter and applause***

Dhaliwal (LPC): I was meeting w/charities over the weekend and they asked me to ask you if you donated any of this money to any charities?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (pointing at Dhaliwal) No, sir! At the time, I established scholarships in the name of my late parents at St. Francis Xavier, St. Thomas (Fredericton) and at Concordia in Montreal. And I financed all of those scholarships out of my own pocket.
Dhaliwal (LPC): you declared the income tax after KHS was arrested. Would you have declared the income tax if he had not been arrested?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I don't know the answer to that, sir. Depends. If you look at the letters, in 2004, saying I was going to get the Nobel Peace Prize for the anti-obesity pasta business--who knows? Maybe we would have had ongoing meetings. But when he was arrested for corruption, bribery and tax evasion, obviously I realized that this wasn't the guy I thought I had been dealing with. It was time to bring it to a halt and resolve matters.

Coming up next: Part XI ("I had a wife and 4 children, and a mother to support"), or return to Part IX ("Comartin brings it!")
Photo credit: Icanhascheezburger

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part IX: Comartin brings it!

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11) 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.

Comartin brings it!

11:54 AM
Del Mastro (CPC): you've stated a number of times here, today, that Mr. Schreiber would do or say anything to avoid extradition. His lawyer, Greenspan, has said as much. He testified to us that he would sign any letter that might help him avoid extradition (i.e. the July 20, 2006 letter ostensibly dictated to Schreiber by Elmer MacKay). The problem is, he's the only person who's been talking. You haven't said anything to defend yourself. And I think Canadians have wanted to hear from you. Why haven't they?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Because it was a private matter, undertaken in the private sector. Obviously, in retrospect, I made an unwise decision, but I also made an unwise decision in defense of this. For a number of people, like Mr. Thibault, asked about the BRITAIN account. Mr. Schreiber said how the deal was done at Harrington Lake and he scurried off to Europe and created this BRITAIN acct--he wasn't sure if it was for 300K or 500K--but this BRITAIN acct was created for me. I think that Mr. Thibault interrogated him very closely on this. Very thoroughly. Mr. Schreiber sat here and swore under oath that, yes, indeed, Mr. Thibault, the BRITAIN acct was for BM. He neglected to tell you that on Oct 20, 1999, he instructed Greenspan to write to the CBC and say (link added):

Before I wrote this letter this morning, I read Philip Mathias' article in the National Post wherein he states the show, the fifth estate is expected to report that the word BRITAIN appears in banking docs belonging to Mr. Schreiber. He stated to Mr. Schreiber that BRITAIN is close to 'Brian,' in order to imply a connection between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. If Mr. Mathias is correct in what he expects, and he expects you to report and run on your show tonight, without the benefit of my on-air questions and answers, you will have committed grave wrongs against Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. That would be a false, inaccurate, malicious, groundless inference. There is no resemblance to the truth in that reckless suggestion. Your conduct will attempt to ruin the reputation of people by innuendo and falsehoods, when I can give you an accurate, truthful, meaningful and balanced response to your irresponsible innuendo.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Well, so much for the BRITAIN acct! This letter was signed by Edward Greenspan, QC, an excellent lawyer in T.O. who represents Mr. Schreiber's interests. If, you have ever seen a repudiation more total & complete, I'd like to examine it.
(***N.B. Mulroney's lawyer also sent a letter to the CBC, very similar to that which was sent by Greenspan!)
Del Mastro (CPC): I agree w/you, but I just think that, if that statement had been made in 1999, that would have been a powerful stmt. Mr. Schreiber...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Excuse me! This stmt that Mr. Greenspan sent to the 5th Estate? They never referred to it! They just continued their implication that "Britain" equals "Brian," just to continue their enabling role, to be a Get out of Jail card for Mr. Schreiber.
Del Mastro (CPC): Mr. Schreiber's lawsuit against you...there's been speculation, including today, that money was for services already provided by you (bribes)...I told Mr. Schreiber, obviously you wouldn't sue BM if they were bribes or kickbacks. And he agreed, that that's not why he was suing you. So I'm asking you: why do you think Mr. Schreiber is suing you? It seems to me that he has no receipts, no contracts, his allegations are all of meetings, one-on-one, it seems to me he'll have an uphill battle trying to prove any of this. Why is he doing this?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think it was part & parcel of a strategy to dupe members of this cmte and two important media institutions in his ultimate objective to avoid extradition to Germany. Your question is NB: what did he do for the money? Why did he sue me 14 years later? 14 years! Let me tell you, just briefly, what he was saying just 3 yrs ago. He sued me as part of a strategy to excite interest in Canada, to include Mr. Harper in allegations--who had nothing to do with anything--I mean, what better way than to accuse a PM and former PM of impropriety to get a feeding frenzy going? Listen to this--it's an unsolicited letter from Mr. Schreiber July 22, 2004:

Dear Brian, friends from around the world call and told me they never understood better than now why I like the man BM even more than PM BM. It's the quality of the human being that counts most in life. Your performance at Pres Ronald Reagan's funeral--I say au revoir today to a gifted leader, an historic President, a gracious human being--has put you at the top of admiration and respect around the world.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: ...and then, low and behold, another letter from Mr. Schreiber, July 2004 (link and emphasis added):

Dear Brian, Now he's got power. Is Brian Mulroney Canada's greatest deal broker ever? I say: Yes. And I saw it already coming when I met you at Harrington Lake. Since the Reagan funeral, in my opinion, your personal power increased even more, and so do your personal obligations to the world. Fate plays an important role in the life of human beings. We know this. Nobody can escape fate. Fate has put you, in my opinion, in a position where you are able to help the human beings, especially the children of North America and around the world in a dramatic way and your skill may put you in a special historical place and you will win the Nobel Peace Prize. Dear Brian, with your help, and the support of Mr. Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we should be able to fight the obesity epidemic in the USA (relating to the pasta machine, Spaghetissimo); I am convinced the project will impress you and find your interest to help the children.

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: This is 2004! And he thinks I'm the greatest guy in the world! He knows I know Bill Gates, and he wants me to help in this regard. I admit, this is not a universally held opinion, but it's interesting that it's his!
Del Mastro (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, of the evidence that Mr. Schreiber presented, the most troubling document is a letter dated May 8, 2007, a letter that makes very significant accusations. Did you receive that letter? If so, did you respond?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (initially confused, but clues in) OH! The "Blackmail Letter," no, no I did not (respond to it).
Szabo (chair, LPC): to clarify, you made reference to Mr. Schreiber's deportation?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I'm sorry.

12:05 PM
Comartin (NDP): the 1000 dollar bills, were these US or CAD?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: CAD
Comartin (NDP): even the 1000 dollar bills in NY?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Comartin (NDP): the 1000 dollar bills in NY--that money never came to Canada? It stayed in the states?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (stayed in the states)
Comartin (NDP): did you declare that money as income? Did you pay taxes in the US?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I declared it in Canada and paid all taxes in Canada b/c I'm a Canadian citizen, pursuant to our...
Comartin (NDP): when did you declare that income?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: after Mr. Schreiber was arrested. In 1999. (Ooops!)
Comartin (NDP): in a single year? Or over a two year period?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: my advisers figured out what cheques to sign and I did that sir.
Comartin (NDP): from 1993 to 1999, or 2000, I assume you had your own accounting firm that did your tax returns? Who were they?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Yes. (inaudible name)
Comartin (NDP): you said that when this money was received, it wasn't taxable yet b/c you hadn't prepared an invoice for Mr. Schreiber yet?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no. Because at the time, what I'd used at the time was expenses and expenses are not taxable until the matter is resolved and the bill was sent.
Comartin (NDP): Mr. Mulroney, you practised law for a long time before you became PM, but you were treating this as not revenue coming into you as a practising lawyer?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it was completely separate from my law firm
Comartin (NDP): how would you categorize...were you a consultant?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes.
Comartin (NDP): you didn't see yourself as an employee of Thyssen?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I was an international consultant.
Comartin (NDP): just in terms of employment, when you received the 1st 100K, or 75K, you were still a MP, is that correct?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think that's probably right, sir.
Comartin (NDP): the record shows that you received that 1st payment in August, but again, you didn't view yourself as an employee. You saw yourself as a consultant. Were you registered as a lobbyist, either under Fed legislation or any other legislation in this country at that time?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir, I've never lobbied any government.
Comartin (NDP): and you took the position that the work you did with respect to the military vehicles was all done internationally?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Comartin (NDP): you had an exchange w/Pat Martin earlier--did you feel that you were also being retained to work on obtaining contracts or business w/Mr. Schreiber about pasta?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: He (KHS) says that. I didn't say that.
Comartin (NDP): I know he says that, but I want to know, was the retainer only for the military vehicles or...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: he was in error. I believe that the pasta matters to which he refers (writing to me about Bill Gates etc.) came later. In his testimony, he says he hired me for two reasons: the Thyssen work and the anti-obesity pasta business that he proposed to develop.
Comartin (NDP): the meeting at Harrington Lake on June 23, while you were still PM. Did the business of pasta machines arise at any time during that meeting? It was only about the military vehicles?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (annoyed) No, Sir! It was about nothing! There was no conversation or undertaking of any kind regarding my employment. Bear Head was mentioned, and my only comment was my regret that it didn't come about. I was in favour of it, Mr. Comartin. It would have been a great job creator in Nova Scotia.
Comartin (NDP): when did you feel you were first retained with respect to military vehicles?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I believe the end of August (1993)
Comartin (NDP): at the time you received your 1st payment?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, although Mr. Schreiber testifies that it was late 93 or early 94 (Note: I think he means that Schreiber testified it was late 92 or early 93, actually)
Comartin (NDP): he also testified that he gave you the money in Aug 1993...Ok, but at the time that you received the money in the hotel room, and he gave you the envelope, was there any discussion at that time about what the 75K was for?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: of course!
Comartin (NDP): so just the military vehicles or the pasta bus as well?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, just the military vehicles.
Comartin (NDP): and you were still a MP at this time?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I was, sir.
Comartin (NDP): with regard to how these funds were handled...not clear on the money in NY. You declared it here and paid full taxes here, w/no expenses for flying around the world. What happened to that money? Literally we have 75K sitting in a safe deposit box in NY. What happened to it?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it stayed there until I settled everything w/Revenue Canada and Quebec.
Comartin (NDP): you told us that already. What happened to it?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: a-a-a-after that period, I integrated those funds over a period of time into my own requirements in the USA.
Comartin (NDP): so you never ran afoul of the rule about transferring amounts >$10 000 over international boundaries?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no
Comartin (NDP): you say you integrated it into your businesses in...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: cash flow.
Comartin (NDP): but you never declared it in the US...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: but I didn't have to, under the tax agreement we have w/the US, I declared my world wide income as we all must and I paid full taxes on it.
Comartin (NDP): you said you didn't have to declare it when received but only when you sent a bill. Did you ever send Mr. Schreiber a bill?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I never sent Mr. Schreiber a bill in that sense.
Comartin (NDP): why not?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Because he told you, in his testimony, he said, "I viewed Mr. Mulroney's initiative..."
Comartin (NDP): so we're supposed to believe him now?

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, no...not at all. You were asking me, it was his money, and ...
Comartin (NDP): no, I'm asking you what you did with it. Mr. Mulroney, I've been practising law for a long time, and it's really difficult---I mean, for every business, professional, consultant etc that I've ever acted for, they take money in, take the deductions off, and they do it all in the year that they're in...you didn't do that sir.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I didn't sir, but you're right, that's what's normally done.
Comartin (NDP): And I would suggest that you didn't declare those expenses b/c you didn't keep records and you couldn't show the income tax people...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (snarky, angry) Well, you can suggest whatever you want, Mr. Comartin, it doesn't matter, b/c I didn't claim any expenses--I paid it all as income, to the tax authorities of Canada. I'm sorry sir, but if you wish to impugn my character or integrity, that's ok (sarcastically)
Comartin (NDP): (interrupting) are you able to produce records to show that specifically that 40K/yr expenses?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, no, not 40K/yr, 40K in total
Comartin (NDP): you have expense sheets? E.g. "I flew to Russia to see Mr. Yeltsin, I flew to France to see Mr. Mitterand, I apportioned $1000 for this flight, these hotels, these restaurants?"
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I had all of them, until such time as I paid taxes on that. (and then he got rid of them--Ooopsie!)

Coming up next: Part X ("Never ask a man 'how big' it was"), or return to Part VIII ("You've been very generous with your taxes")

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VIII: "You've been very generous with your taxes"

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (or "BM," as I've come to know him) presented himself to the Commons Ethics committee for an exhausting 3 1/2 hours on Thursday. As with the Schreiber testimony (Nov 29, Dec 4, Dec 6, and Dec 11) 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.

"You've been very generous with your taxes"

11:13 AM
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): We talked a little bit about Section 41 of the Parliament of Canada Act. You've indicated that you've not violated that legislation. We talked about the 1985 Code and you indicated that you did not violate that document. My question: specifically w/section 60, the limitation period (long pause while counsel provides doc); Section 60 talks about--the area, sir, where you travelled to different countries etc.--this section says "former public office holders except for Ministers of the Crown for whom the prescribed period is 2 years--should not, w/in the period of 1 yr after leaving office accept an appointment w/a Board of Directors or employment w/an entity w/which they had significant official dealings during the period of 1 yr prior to the termination of their service..." do you feel you violated this section?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: No, I don't believe I did, b/c my association was entirely international--outside Canada, w/view to ascertaining the nature of the opportunities that might be available.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): so you feel this section just has to do w/dealings inside Canada?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes. That's my interpretation. As was Section 59. I read them together.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): That's right, and you should read them together. But clearly what you were doing was w/in those times, this prescribed period?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, that's right sir.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): now you mentioned in your opening stmt--and I'm curious as to what you meant--you talked about how the gov of Canada showed up w/9 lawyers and didn't deal w/certain things. Can you elaborate on that?

***grumbling***

Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): can we have some order?!
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I can tell you, sir, two things: before the Airbus matter exploded, and we wanted to do everything, you understand, we had a couple of days warning it was going to hit. I could see the end of my life, w/this thing becoming public. (what a bluidy drama queen!) And so, one of my lawyers, Roger Tassé, the former Dep. Min Justice under Trudeau, and Chretien, I asked him to go to Ottawa and visit w/RCMP and Dept Justice and say, "Look, these allegations are false...and he (BM) is ready to come up here and see you, to bring his tax returns, his stmt of net worth, anything you want, you can interrogate him on any association he's ever had..." they turned Roger Tassé down cold. They went out and hired a bunch of lawyers (getting red in the face again) to prove the unproveable. When it became clear that the (1995 allegations) were false, they collapsed on the court house steps. They didn't negotiate the settlement b/c they didn't know about a commercial relationship w/Mr. Schreiber (that I was hiding)--they settled b/c it was false. It was a hoax! A complete fabrication! And so when I show up for the discovery, I walk to the Palais de Justice in Montreal, I see 9 lawyers representing the Government of Canada--they interrogate me for a day and a half and not one of them asked me directly if I had a business association w/Mr. Schreiber after (I) left government, and by the way, that question would have been totally out of order. Because it violated the provisions of the Quebec civil code, but I would have answered it. I was never asked it! That's what happened. The hostility that we saw when Roger went up to Ottawa was astounding. Rather than deal with it then, they kept hiring more lawyers, and that's what we saw.
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): and you believe that this incident is one of the things that lead to what we're doing today?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (man, he is really worked up!) Absolutely! The false stmts in the affidavit triggered this feeding frenzy! Where Mr. Schreiber, aided by two different broadcasting or publishing groups--his enablers--filed a false affidavit, here we are today--did you find out anything new here? (mockingly) This big, secret thing that he was supposed to do? I'll tell you that on Nov 15, the National Post interviewed Mr. Schreiber, big headlines: 'boy oh boy, when I get down there, I'm going to make some headlines! Biggest scandal in Can'n history! Let me out of jail and boy, oh boy, are you going to love me, it'll be like Christmas!' The NP asks the following question, the final comment in the Nov 15 article--I ask you all to pay particular attention to this, b/c it's 8 days after (KHS) files his false affidavit--"while Mr. Schreiber will save his new revelations for the inquiry, when asked outright if he knows of any wrongdoing by Mr. Mulroney, he answers, "I don't know."" The inquiry has to find out?! The devil made me do it? And he goes on (reading sarcastically): "this is something I would like to find out. I'm very suspicious, in the meantime, that things happened, that I might not even know about." This is the man who, 8 days earlier, signs an affidavit loaded down w/allegations like a Xmas tree (ok, ok, enough w/the Christmas...), and that was his get out of Jail card. And he created this feeding frenzy w/his two media allies and here we are today!
Szabo (chair, LPC): Mr. Tilson, I'll give you another 2 min

11:22 AM
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): you mentioned in your opening stmt, comments by an RCMP informant that caused you a lot of problems? I'd like you to tell us the name of that person and what that person did.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: as you know, I didn't place any name. Everybody knows, in Canada, look, in politics, we know that we all have people who dislike us--I know there's so few in my case...

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: not hard to remember them. But very few of these people make a life's work of pursuing us--of engineering a vendetta, so personal, either of you, sir, Mr. Dryden, or you sir, or me. This person did. And when we found out--and how we found out, there was a trial in T.O. and the RCMP had to produce a very lengthy affidavit. In the affidavit, they ID'd Ms. Stevie Cameron, as an informant, so deeply embedded in the force that they gave her a code name, A2648. She was a journalist! She was passing herself off as an investigative journalist while she was a police informant! If you read the testimony of Gallant and Fiegenwald, here's what you find: they go to T.O. on instructions on direction of Murray (RCMP), and they say, "well, we've got nothing on Airbus, but I hear on the CBC that Stevie Cameron's got a lot of stuff. So you go down and see her." So they go to her home and, eventually, she hands over her files, and it's on the basis of this, together w/comment from Mr. Pelossi, that the whole matter was initiated. So failed and flawed was the letter to Switzerland, that the Government of Canada had to re-do it 7 times! Upping the ante every time, so that the Swiss would take cognisance of it and do something w/the information.
Szabo (chair, LPC): suggest we take another health break at this time (read: pee break) till 11:35 or 11:40.

11:44 AM
Ménard (BQ): (mid-sentence)...the interest account, the bar...in what account did you deposit it? A personal account or a business account?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you're saying whether some people wondering if this money was for services rendered or to be rendered. Mr. Schreiber answered your question...
Ménard (BQ): I know your answer, that it was for services to be rendered, but I'm asking how we should believe you. It would help if you could explain that you acted w/Mr. Schreiber as you did w/other clients. In the case w/other clients, all expenses and all fees passed through bank accts to you or you invoiced them, correct?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (nods)
Ménard (BQ): this is the only client that you dealt w/in this manner?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, M. Ménard, Schreiber was the only client that offered cash and insisted on paying cash.
Ménard (BQ): but that pertains to how you were paid, not how you were invoiced...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I understood that I was obtaining what he would call a "watching brief," in his interests worldwide. In potential sales of vehicles used for keeping the peace (*puke* They're tanks!). It was international. (He said 'international' again! Take a drink!)
Ménard (BQ): but you said you did incur expenses. So you took money from those safety deposit boxes. So how much money was ultimately left in that safety deposit box?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: about 180K.
Ménard (BQ): so you incurred expenses of ~45K?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: about 15K per year
Ménard (BQ): were those expenses you incurred legitimate expenses for the client, and did the money you took out--if it was money owing to you, and therefore perfectly legal, then why did you declare the whole amount as income?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: the whole amount was 225K, working out (after expenses to) ~40K per year. That was the invoice I could have presented to meet leaders in Russia etc. Did I serve my client well? Absolutely! For 40K/yr? I don't think there's a lawyer in Canada or Quebec that would say that's the least bit excessive. But you asked why I declared the whole amount as income? Because when Mr. Schreiber was charged and arrested, I didn't know what was going on. Mr. Ménard, he's arrested, he's charged w/bribery, corruption, fraud...I say to myself, "that's not the Schreiber I knew..."
Ménard (BQ): but you'd only used 45K incurred as expenses. You could have claimed those as expenses and instead you paid taxes on the full amount.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I declared everything.
Ménard (BQ): you've been very generous w/your taxes (*snerk*)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, b/c I didn't want there to be any questions anywhere, but wanted to make sure I'd be basically settled w/Revenue Canada and Revenue Quebec..
Ménard (BQ): the perception is that this money is intended to be sealed from Revenue Canada etc. (b/c you kept it in a safe deposit box)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (angry, red-faced) Hold on a second! Given that I was dealing w/a retainer, under the tax laws, disbursements from a retainer are not taxable in any way, until such time as you feel...
Ménard (BQ): never mind that. Why did you not take the money that were your legitimate expenses? Why did you not do the same as you did w/other retainers you were paid? And invoice as you went along?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: as I said, it was an error on my part
Ménard (BQ): (untranslated) "Un de mes amis qui disait: "Errare ou mal munes bis errare is diabolicum," je dirais: "Perseverare errare is diabolicum." (translated)...but an error you continued to repeat for two years...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: the error is indivisible. It's an error in its entirety and I have apologized. Persevering is an error? If we were in Baie Comeau, I'm sure I would have a reply to your Latin tag (WTF?!)
Ménard (BQ): what was your initial reaction to the cash payment? You were party leader and knew about discipline, and wanted it for your caucus. If you learned that a member of your cabinet had received cash payments and was keeping it in a safe deposit box in his home, wouldn't you want an explanation?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: oh yes. And if the explanation was that it was a legal contract, and the member had rendered visible and tangible services, I would agree, except that I would have said, "I wish you had handled it differently than you did."
Ménard (BQ): but that wasn't your reaction to your own actions.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I'm explaining: it was a mistake
Ménard (BQ): did you keep an accounting of the expenses incurred on Mr. Schreiber's behalf?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, up to the moment that the tax issue was settled and until I had absorbed all the expenses.
Ménard (BQ): were you in financial difficulty when Mr. Schreiber offered you cash?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no sir.

Coming up next: Part IX ("Comartin brings it!"), or return to Part VII ("The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately")
Scrooge McDuck courtesy of silverbearcafe.com

Read more!