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.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Now let me tell you about my first meeting w/Mr. Schreiber, when he did ask me to work with him. Sometime in late Aug 1993, after resuming the practise of law in Montreal, I received a call from Mr. Doucet, whom I knew to be representing or working as a lobbyist for Mr. Schreiber, and others here in Ottawa. He told me of his having received a call from Mr. Schreiber, asking for my participation in an international economic mandate. There was certainly no reason to turn down such a possibility. It was entirely consistent w/current conflict of interest guidelines. Fred Doucet, I understand, conveyed my acceptance to Mr. Schreiber, b/c Doucet called back to say that Mr. Schreiber wanted to meet on Aug 27, 1993, at the CP hotel at the International Airport in Mirabel, Quebec, where he'd booked a room in anticipation of his flight, that night, to Europe. I agreed to meet him there, b/c me and my family were renting a cottage (awwww....) in l'Estérel, less than 1/2 hour away. I was driven by an RCMP detail to the hotel and escorted to Mr. Schreiber's room.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: During our discussion, Mr. Schreiber initially expressed annoyance that the gov that I had headed had not approved the BHP. He told me he planned to institute legal action to recover costs and he left me w/a copy of the lawsuit. I told him he was free to take whatever course of action he chose. He then indicated that it would be very helpful to Thyssen to have a former PM assist them in their international promotion of their 'peacekeeping vehicles,' (i.e. tanks?) and gave me a copy of merchandising documents regarding their vehicles. He then asked to retain me for this international representation. And when I indicated that this kind of global activity was something I could usefully do, provided that none of the activity would relate to domestic-side activity related to the vehicles. At that point, Mr. Schreiber produced a legal sized envelope (man-sized?) and handed it to me. At that point, Mr. Schreiber said, "this is the first retainer payment." He told me that this would be the first of three retainer payments for three years. When I hesitated, he said, "I'm an international businessman and I only deal in cash. This is the way I do business."
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: when I look back on it today, I realize that I made a serious error in judgement in receiving a payment in cash for this assignment, even though, it was decidedly not illegal to do so. That mistake in judgement was mine alone. I apologize and accept responsibility for it. (repeats this last part in French) Mr. Schreiber recently said, in the media, that the cash payment was, quote: "A way of putting some distance between myself and the former PM." And then he said, "Do you think Mr. Mulroney wanted to receive a cheque w/my signature on it?" The answer to his question is a resounding "YES!" Had he offered to pay by cheque, of course I would have accepted. As I said, he was known to me at that time only as a successful business man, and naturally, I would have preferred payment that way. The truth is, that I should have declined the offer. I should have insisted that the payment be made in a more transparent and accountable manner. By not doing so, I inadvertently created an impression of impropriety that I hope will not reflect adversely on the high office I was privileged to hold.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: When I left office after a decade of public service in Ottawa, I experienced the same uncertainty that confronts many former parliamentarians as they return to private life. I thought my prospects were good. The economic opportunity presented to me by Mr. Schreiber seemed like a good one, and one that I could handle well, given the international dimension of the requirements. After accepting the international payment on the retainer, and during the time the 2 subsequent payments were made, I made trips to China, Russia, Europe and throughout the USA where I met w/gov and other leaders and explored w/them, the prospects of this 'peacekeeping vehicle' (grrrr...they're tanks!) either for their national needs or for use in other international peacekeeping initiatives either under their sponsorship or under the sponsorship of the UN.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: About 2 yrs after this agreement, which Mr. Schreiber himself has characterized as perfectly legal, in all respects, my world almost ended w/the publication of the false and defamatory letter on the Airbus matter. I was paralyzed w/anxiety and incomprehension when it hit, as I was struggling to understand the nature of this unfolding catastrophe, and to reassure family, friends and country that I was innocent. As Mr. Schreiber was accused (in the same letter to the Swiss), obviously my retainer work came to an abrupt and immediate halt. I had only used the retainer for expenses incurred while promoting his interests internationally.
(NOTE: we should have started a drinking game. Take a shot whenever BM says "my family" or "international(ly)").
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: In Aug 1999, Mr. Schreiber was arrested in Toronto under an international warrant and charged in Germany w/corruption, fraud, bribery and income tax evasion. Although, Mr. Chairman, I've learned to be skeptical of charges made by some governments against private citizens, this stunning new development put in serious doubt my relationship w/him. I thought the best way to deal w/this situation was to declare the entire amount as income, although I had only used it for expenses--absorbing all the expenses myself (awwww...so sad) and compensating myself for the fees to which I was entitled. I then instructed my advisers to contact the Income Tax authorities to ensure that the full amount received in this private transaction was declared by me as income and all applicable taxes paid. Now, as you may know, Mr. Schreiber and I are in litigation over the value of services rendered a this moment in Toronto. That dispute will be decided in court.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: There is another matter, ladies and gentlemen, which I'd like to draw to the cmte's attention, so that we can cut short any errors in interpretation. Because the media have misinterpreted my relationship w/Mr. Schreiber (looks up from his notes, clearly indignant). In my defamation lawsuit, gov attorneys asked me questions and examined me on discovery, before my plea in 1996. In Quebec, the law is crystal clear that a defendant chooses to do this before his defense, then only asked questions relevant to the allegation in the statement of claim. The claim I had made against the gov of Canada was confined to the statements they made, i.e. allegations that I had received bribes as PM, notably in connection w/Airbus. This was the legal background to my appearance in the Montreal court house.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: When I took the stand that morning, the gov of Canada was represented by no less than nine lawyers. The hearing had been scheduled for 2 days, but only lasted 1 1/2 days, b/c the nine gov attorneys had no further questions. They never once asked me directly if I'd entered into a commercial relationship w/Mr. Schreiber after leaving office. Much has been made in the media about a statement I made, quote, "I never had any dealings w/Mr. Schreiber," amounting to a denial that I had ever had business dealings w/him in public life. This report of my testimony is clearly false, as even Mr. Schreiber himself made absolutely clear last week. And although the charge has been resuscitated lately, it had been corrected earlier this year in both the National Post and the Globe & Mail, either clarifying or apologizing for repeating this libel. And I quote from the NP (emphasis is BM's--he's really angry!):
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: In a final word, members of the cmte, I ask you to take a minute and consider how you and your families would feel if you were wrongly accused. Last week, a fine young parliamentarian had his reputation assaulted, when a fellow MP made damaging allegations about him in the HOC. Within minutes, this story was across the country, particularly in BC, where he lives, works and represents a constituency in the HOC. His reputation was damaged, his credibility affected, and his integrity challenged. As Edward R. Murrow once said, "A lie can make its way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on in the morning." (check: this quote has also been attributed to Churchill, James Callaghan and Mark Twain!) Fortunately, the errant MP soon apologized and withdrew the false allegation. But the damage was done. But what happens to you if there is no prompt withdrawal (like, the rhythm method?) and you are forced to fight on frequently for years and at enormous emotional and financial cost to defend yourself and your family against this accusation? What happens to you? And your kids? (your kids?! They go to Harvard and/or host crappy knock-off reality shows?) Twelve years ago, my reputation, legacy and family honour were almost destroyed on the basis of false information conveyed to the Swiss government
(Mr. Kitty responds: "Ok, I'll be on the couch, since you're already on the cross").
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: As noted, the individual largely at the source of this enormous travesty was a member of the Canandian media, who was also, as it turned out, was also an RCMP informant w/a huge axe to grind (NOTE: referring to Stevie Cameron). Since November, I've again been smeared and dragged through the mud as a result of an affidavit filed in court by Mr. Schreiber. Every. Single. Relevant allegation made by Mr. Schreiber about me in that document is completely false (speaking staccato, really punching out this last stmt! Angry!). And so, Mr. Chairman, now we know why I'm here today--b/c of an error in judgement I made 15 yrs ago, while I was in the private sector, out of office. But principally, b/c KHS as you saw last week, and again this week, will say anything, sign anything and do anything to avoid extradition. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Coming up next: Part III ("International Man of Mystery"), or return to Part I ("'It was like a near-death experience,' except it wasn't")
Photo Credit: Icanhascheezburger
I'll be on the couch, since you're already on the Cross
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Now let me tell you about my first meeting w/Mr. Schreiber, when he did ask me to work with him. Sometime in late Aug 1993, after resuming the practise of law in Montreal, I received a call from Mr. Doucet, whom I knew to be representing or working as a lobbyist for Mr. Schreiber, and others here in Ottawa. He told me of his having received a call from Mr. Schreiber, asking for my participation in an international economic mandate. There was certainly no reason to turn down such a possibility. It was entirely consistent w/current conflict of interest guidelines. Fred Doucet, I understand, conveyed my acceptance to Mr. Schreiber, b/c Doucet called back to say that Mr. Schreiber wanted to meet on Aug 27, 1993, at the CP hotel at the International Airport in Mirabel, Quebec, where he'd booked a room in anticipation of his flight, that night, to Europe. I agreed to meet him there, b/c me and my family were renting a cottage (awwww....) in l'Estérel, less than 1/2 hour away. I was driven by an RCMP detail to the hotel and escorted to Mr. Schreiber's room.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: During our discussion, Mr. Schreiber initially expressed annoyance that the gov that I had headed had not approved the BHP. He told me he planned to institute legal action to recover costs and he left me w/a copy of the lawsuit. I told him he was free to take whatever course of action he chose. He then indicated that it would be very helpful to Thyssen to have a former PM assist them in their international promotion of their 'peacekeeping vehicles,' (i.e. tanks?) and gave me a copy of merchandising documents regarding their vehicles. He then asked to retain me for this international representation. And when I indicated that this kind of global activity was something I could usefully do, provided that none of the activity would relate to domestic-side activity related to the vehicles. At that point, Mr. Schreiber produced a legal sized envelope (man-sized?) and handed it to me. At that point, Mr. Schreiber said, "this is the first retainer payment." He told me that this would be the first of three retainer payments for three years. When I hesitated, he said, "I'm an international businessman and I only deal in cash. This is the way I do business."
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: when I look back on it today, I realize that I made a serious error in judgement in receiving a payment in cash for this assignment, even though, it was decidedly not illegal to do so. That mistake in judgement was mine alone. I apologize and accept responsibility for it. (repeats this last part in French) Mr. Schreiber recently said, in the media, that the cash payment was, quote: "A way of putting some distance between myself and the former PM." And then he said, "Do you think Mr. Mulroney wanted to receive a cheque w/my signature on it?" The answer to his question is a resounding "YES!" Had he offered to pay by cheque, of course I would have accepted. As I said, he was known to me at that time only as a successful business man, and naturally, I would have preferred payment that way. The truth is, that I should have declined the offer. I should have insisted that the payment be made in a more transparent and accountable manner. By not doing so, I inadvertently created an impression of impropriety that I hope will not reflect adversely on the high office I was privileged to hold.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: When I left office after a decade of public service in Ottawa, I experienced the same uncertainty that confronts many former parliamentarians as they return to private life. I thought my prospects were good. The economic opportunity presented to me by Mr. Schreiber seemed like a good one, and one that I could handle well, given the international dimension of the requirements. After accepting the international payment on the retainer, and during the time the 2 subsequent payments were made, I made trips to China, Russia, Europe and throughout the USA where I met w/gov and other leaders and explored w/them, the prospects of this 'peacekeeping vehicle' (grrrr...they're tanks!) either for their national needs or for use in other international peacekeeping initiatives either under their sponsorship or under the sponsorship of the UN.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: About 2 yrs after this agreement, which Mr. Schreiber himself has characterized as perfectly legal, in all respects, my world almost ended w/the publication of the false and defamatory letter on the Airbus matter. I was paralyzed w/anxiety and incomprehension when it hit, as I was struggling to understand the nature of this unfolding catastrophe, and to reassure family, friends and country that I was innocent. As Mr. Schreiber was accused (in the same letter to the Swiss), obviously my retainer work came to an abrupt and immediate halt. I had only used the retainer for expenses incurred while promoting his interests internationally.
(NOTE: we should have started a drinking game. Take a shot whenever BM says "my family" or "international(ly)").
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: In Aug 1999, Mr. Schreiber was arrested in Toronto under an international warrant and charged in Germany w/corruption, fraud, bribery and income tax evasion. Although, Mr. Chairman, I've learned to be skeptical of charges made by some governments against private citizens, this stunning new development put in serious doubt my relationship w/him. I thought the best way to deal w/this situation was to declare the entire amount as income, although I had only used it for expenses--absorbing all the expenses myself (awwww...so sad) and compensating myself for the fees to which I was entitled. I then instructed my advisers to contact the Income Tax authorities to ensure that the full amount received in this private transaction was declared by me as income and all applicable taxes paid. Now, as you may know, Mr. Schreiber and I are in litigation over the value of services rendered a this moment in Toronto. That dispute will be decided in court.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: There is another matter, ladies and gentlemen, which I'd like to draw to the cmte's attention, so that we can cut short any errors in interpretation. Because the media have misinterpreted my relationship w/Mr. Schreiber (looks up from his notes, clearly indignant). In my defamation lawsuit, gov attorneys asked me questions and examined me on discovery, before my plea in 1996. In Quebec, the law is crystal clear that a defendant chooses to do this before his defense, then only asked questions relevant to the allegation in the statement of claim. The claim I had made against the gov of Canada was confined to the statements they made, i.e. allegations that I had received bribes as PM, notably in connection w/Airbus. This was the legal background to my appearance in the Montreal court house.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: When I took the stand that morning, the gov of Canada was represented by no less than nine lawyers. The hearing had been scheduled for 2 days, but only lasted 1 1/2 days, b/c the nine gov attorneys had no further questions. They never once asked me directly if I'd entered into a commercial relationship w/Mr. Schreiber after leaving office. Much has been made in the media about a statement I made, quote, "I never had any dealings w/Mr. Schreiber," amounting to a denial that I had ever had business dealings w/him in public life. This report of my testimony is clearly false, as even Mr. Schreiber himself made absolutely clear last week. And although the charge has been resuscitated lately, it had been corrected earlier this year in both the National Post and the Globe & Mail, either clarifying or apologizing for repeating this libel. And I quote from the NP (emphasis is BM's--he's really angry!):
...some of the testimony of former prime minister Brian Mulroney in his libel action against the government of Canada in 1996 was quoted. The column did not set the full context of a quote from the transcript where Mr. Mulroney said he had not had any dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. The column did not report that Mr. Mulroney was answering a question about the purchase by the federal government of the Airbus product and stated that he had no dealings with Mr. Schreiber in that context.Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Any reasonable interpretation of my testimony would suggest that when I used the language, "no dealings," I was clearly referring to the sale of Airbus aircraft, during the time I was in government.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: In a final word, members of the cmte, I ask you to take a minute and consider how you and your families would feel if you were wrongly accused. Last week, a fine young parliamentarian had his reputation assaulted, when a fellow MP made damaging allegations about him in the HOC. Within minutes, this story was across the country, particularly in BC, where he lives, works and represents a constituency in the HOC. His reputation was damaged, his credibility affected, and his integrity challenged. As Edward R. Murrow once said, "A lie can make its way around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on in the morning." (check: this quote has also been attributed to Churchill, James Callaghan and Mark Twain!) Fortunately, the errant MP soon apologized and withdrew the false allegation. But the damage was done. But what happens to you if there is no prompt withdrawal (like, the rhythm method?) and you are forced to fight on frequently for years and at enormous emotional and financial cost to defend yourself and your family against this accusation? What happens to you? And your kids? (your kids?! They go to Harvard and/or host crappy knock-off reality shows?) Twelve years ago, my reputation, legacy and family honour were almost destroyed on the basis of false information conveyed to the Swiss government
(Mr. Kitty responds: "Ok, I'll be on the couch, since you're already on the cross").
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: As noted, the individual largely at the source of this enormous travesty was a member of the Canandian media, who was also, as it turned out, was also an RCMP informant w/a huge axe to grind (NOTE: referring to Stevie Cameron). Since November, I've again been smeared and dragged through the mud as a result of an affidavit filed in court by Mr. Schreiber. Every. Single. Relevant allegation made by Mr. Schreiber about me in that document is completely false (speaking staccato, really punching out this last stmt! Angry!). And so, Mr. Chairman, now we know why I'm here today--b/c of an error in judgement I made 15 yrs ago, while I was in the private sector, out of office. But principally, b/c KHS as you saw last week, and again this week, will say anything, sign anything and do anything to avoid extradition. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Coming up next: Part III ("International Man of Mystery"), or return to Part I ("'It was like a near-death experience,' except it wasn't")
Photo Credit: Icanhascheezburger
No comments:
Post a Comment