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.
The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately
10:55 AM
Szabo (chair, LPC): give the floor to the Hon. Ken Dryden
Dryden (LPC): Mr. Mulroney, I'll only take a short period of time. I'll not interrupt you. You held the most privileged position in the country. Once a PM of Canada, you're always PM of Canada, w/all the assumptions and hopes that come w/this honoured position. I've followed this matter more closely as a citizen, than I have as a MP. What I want to know is---Mr. Schreiber is at least a shadowy character, and has been for a long time. I understand how first contacts happen and how mistakes can be made. But why did your association w/Schreiber go on for year after year? Why in cash? Why in various different cities? Why in hotel rooms? Why, Mr. Mulroney?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you say that Mr. Schreiber is, at best (or least) a shadowy character. Few people would disagree w/that assessment today. But I ask you, Mr. Dryden, to reflect on the fact that it wasn't always so. 15 yrs ago, he was known as I said, as the chairman of Thyssen Canada, w/3 000 employees...he was known in Canada, in Alberta, Ottawa, Montreal, as a successful businessman. Hard-driving, but successful. So that's the KHS that I knew, and met. His associates involved people like Lalonde and MacEachen--very reassuring. People from both sides of the aisle. Like Elmer MacKay--you won't find a more honourable man in Canada than Elmer MacKay. So this was the kind of person that the association was with. So this was all I knew about the person in question. You and I might remember a little differently than 15 yrs ago and view people differently.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: You asked, 'why in cash.' I tried to answer that in my opening stmt and in a number of questions. Mr. Dryden, as he has said to me, he was an international businessman, and he only dealt in cash. I hesitated. He said to one of the papers, "do you think BM would have accepted a cheque from me?" Well, of course I would have, b/c back then he was known to me only as a respectable businessman. But he said he only dealt in cash. I've acknowledged, sir, that this was a mistake in judgement, and I've apologized for it.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Your question was, 'why in different cities? ' Mirabel? He had hired a suite, in the hotel, going to Europe. In Montreal, he had a room in the Queen Elizabeth hotel, and he had come from elsewhere in Canada and that night he was going back to Germany--no, to Switzerland. And through an intermediary, he asked if I could come by and have coffee w/him. And in the Pierre Hotel, in NY, he was, as I understand it, he was there to attend (the night before) a dinner w/Hon Allan MacEachen celebrating the German/North American experience, some association, and that's where he was the night before. And he planned to attend, as did I, to attend a lunch or dinner to celebrate Elmer MacKay's wedding. And there was a small reception to celebrate. The coincidence worked, we met at the Pierre Hotel, and that's where the transaction took place. Look at it in retrospect, you look at the details, and it looks circumspect, but in reality, it's as innocent as I just told you. He was there w/Allan MacEachen and we were going to participate in a wedding tribute to MacKay.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think your question is also significant, sir, b/c questions were asked about reporting. I sat in his hotel room, at his invitation, and gave him a report in excess of an hour on the various initiatives that I had undertaken around the world, to try to bring to fruition some success w/this product. My ultimate objective, Mr. Dryden, was...where can I be helpful? I thought if I could see the members of the P5--the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, France, etc.), that I could then see the Sec. General, if any interest had been evinced. And put to them the proposal that, this Thyssen product was superb--that we could then take advantage of this and generalize this opportunity for members who were on peacekeeping missions. That's why I went to China, to Russia, to the USA...
11:03 AM
Rodriguez (LPC): Thank you for being here today. On Nov 9, 2007, PM Harper stated that he, his ministers and caucus should cease any further relationship w/you. I'd like to look a little more closely at your relationship w/Mr. Harper. Is it true that you were asked to make telephone calls on behalf of the PM to ministers or members, for e.g. when Mr. Michael Chong wanted to leave cabinet?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: No, no one asked me to do anything. Chong was a young man whom I knew for some time. He was one of my supporters when I was in government. I had learned through the grapevine that Michael was getting ready to resign from cabinet, and I felt that it was not a decision that was well grounded. I said, "Michael...there are times when cabinet ministers have to resign, but to resign on a motion from the House, moved by almost all members, the recognition of the Quebecois as a nation, that makes no sense." I called and asked him to think again. Talk to his wife. Then make a decision, but it was in vain.
Rodriguez (LPC): in preparing for today's meeting, did you or a member of your team get in touch w/any member of gov? Or member on the gov side?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no
Rodriguez (LPC): did Mr. Harper consult w/you on a gov strategy in Quebec?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no. Well, sometimes I would receive a friendly call, but that was it.
Rodriguez (LPC): it was reported that you had a discussion w/Maxime Bernier about the wireless spectrum issue, and that during the discussion, you reportedly asked the Minister to meet w/Pierre Karl Peladeau (CEO) from Quebecor...
***grumbling from CPC***
Szabo (chair, LPC): Order! Order! I'm just asking for quiet. On a point of order, Mr. Tilson?
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): the Point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that this is the biggest fishing expedition I've ever seen, and it has absolutely nothing to do w/the mandate of these proceedings....And Mr. Rodriguez, who comes in here, you know, as a "Johnny come Lately," w/questions that have nothing to do w/these proceedings!
***cross-talk...Szabo tries to quiet everybody down***
Szabo (chair, LPC): the Point of Order is that the matter is not relevant to-I would like you to address the member's Point of Order (Rodriguez)?
Rodriguez (LPC): I would like to mention to Mr. Tilson that he can make the same Point of Order w/respect (b/c of the assholish way Tilson asked the question). Two points: in the mandate...allegations by the current and former government, including relevant correspondence w/ the Privy Council's Office and the PMO. In line w/codes of ethics, and other relevant docs. Secondly, Mr. Schreiber said several times that he asked BM to intervene w/PM Harper's government. So is it even necessary for the cmte to know whether BM had contacts w/government?
Murphy (LPC): Mr. Harper forbade members of his government from contacting Mr. Mulroney. And it also goes to the core of any parliamentary hearing, and that is credibility. Mr. Mulroney did meet or speak, and that's crucial to his credibility.
Del Mastro (CPC): we were afraid that these hearings could descend into a partisan witchhunt. Clearly not germane to the mandate, i.e. KHS's extradition, the Airbus settlement, everybody knows this. I would extend to Mr. Rodriguez that he has not been here for very much of it...***interruption*** Ok, so his attendance isn't relevant, but let me make the point that, in this case, everybody knows that the only reference to the current PMO is whether they intervened in this case, and the current testimony indicates that they have not. And that is the only way it could be relevant. His question is simply not relevant to the witness' testimony today.
Szabo (chair, LPC): we've had this discussion before. Members will know that we have, in addition to the Airbus settlement issue, allegations were made by the party coming before us, i.e. new testimony, new evidence, contradictions for instance, that Mr. Schreiber has testified that the money is for BHP, not Airbus, which changes the dynamic of our hearings. The other evidence that has come out has broadened our focus. I believe it was Mr. Wallace who asked to include "present or past" governments. In view of that, I understand that it might not turn out to be relevant, in terms of our recommendations, but Mr. Rodriguez has raised an item which is on the border, but it is in general relevant. Could you repeat the question and allow the witness to respond?
Rodriguez (LPC): (repeats question about Pierre Karl Peladeau of Quebecor meeting w/Maxime Bernier)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think I can tell you that Mr. Pierre Karl Peladeau, who's one of the most influential and successful people in the province of Quebec and in Montreal, who's company controls the largest media empire in Canada, knows Bernier a lot better than me. He doesn't need me for an introduction to Bernier or anybody else.
Rodriguez (LPC): so you didn't speak to Bernier on this issue?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I made no presentation on this or anything else.
Szabo (chair, LPC): your time has expired. I'm going to Mr. Tilson.
Coming up next: Part VIII ("You've been very generous with your taxes"), or return to Part VI ("A perfectly legitimate businessman")
The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately
10:55 AM
Szabo (chair, LPC): give the floor to the Hon. Ken Dryden
Dryden (LPC): Mr. Mulroney, I'll only take a short period of time. I'll not interrupt you. You held the most privileged position in the country. Once a PM of Canada, you're always PM of Canada, w/all the assumptions and hopes that come w/this honoured position. I've followed this matter more closely as a citizen, than I have as a MP. What I want to know is---Mr. Schreiber is at least a shadowy character, and has been for a long time. I understand how first contacts happen and how mistakes can be made. But why did your association w/Schreiber go on for year after year? Why in cash? Why in various different cities? Why in hotel rooms? Why, Mr. Mulroney?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you say that Mr. Schreiber is, at best (or least) a shadowy character. Few people would disagree w/that assessment today. But I ask you, Mr. Dryden, to reflect on the fact that it wasn't always so. 15 yrs ago, he was known as I said, as the chairman of Thyssen Canada, w/3 000 employees...he was known in Canada, in Alberta, Ottawa, Montreal, as a successful businessman. Hard-driving, but successful. So that's the KHS that I knew, and met. His associates involved people like Lalonde and MacEachen--very reassuring. People from both sides of the aisle. Like Elmer MacKay--you won't find a more honourable man in Canada than Elmer MacKay. So this was the kind of person that the association was with. So this was all I knew about the person in question. You and I might remember a little differently than 15 yrs ago and view people differently.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: You asked, 'why in cash.' I tried to answer that in my opening stmt and in a number of questions. Mr. Dryden, as he has said to me, he was an international businessman, and he only dealt in cash. I hesitated. He said to one of the papers, "do you think BM would have accepted a cheque from me?" Well, of course I would have, b/c back then he was known to me only as a respectable businessman. But he said he only dealt in cash. I've acknowledged, sir, that this was a mistake in judgement, and I've apologized for it.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Your question was, 'why in different cities? ' Mirabel? He had hired a suite, in the hotel, going to Europe. In Montreal, he had a room in the Queen Elizabeth hotel, and he had come from elsewhere in Canada and that night he was going back to Germany--no, to Switzerland. And through an intermediary, he asked if I could come by and have coffee w/him. And in the Pierre Hotel, in NY, he was, as I understand it, he was there to attend (the night before) a dinner w/Hon Allan MacEachen celebrating the German/North American experience, some association, and that's where he was the night before. And he planned to attend, as did I, to attend a lunch or dinner to celebrate Elmer MacKay's wedding. And there was a small reception to celebrate. The coincidence worked, we met at the Pierre Hotel, and that's where the transaction took place. Look at it in retrospect, you look at the details, and it looks circumspect, but in reality, it's as innocent as I just told you. He was there w/Allan MacEachen and we were going to participate in a wedding tribute to MacKay.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think your question is also significant, sir, b/c questions were asked about reporting. I sat in his hotel room, at his invitation, and gave him a report in excess of an hour on the various initiatives that I had undertaken around the world, to try to bring to fruition some success w/this product. My ultimate objective, Mr. Dryden, was...where can I be helpful? I thought if I could see the members of the P5--the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, France, etc.), that I could then see the Sec. General, if any interest had been evinced. And put to them the proposal that, this Thyssen product was superb--that we could then take advantage of this and generalize this opportunity for members who were on peacekeeping missions. That's why I went to China, to Russia, to the USA...
11:03 AM
Rodriguez (LPC): Thank you for being here today. On Nov 9, 2007, PM Harper stated that he, his ministers and caucus should cease any further relationship w/you. I'd like to look a little more closely at your relationship w/Mr. Harper. Is it true that you were asked to make telephone calls on behalf of the PM to ministers or members, for e.g. when Mr. Michael Chong wanted to leave cabinet?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: No, no one asked me to do anything. Chong was a young man whom I knew for some time. He was one of my supporters when I was in government. I had learned through the grapevine that Michael was getting ready to resign from cabinet, and I felt that it was not a decision that was well grounded. I said, "Michael...there are times when cabinet ministers have to resign, but to resign on a motion from the House, moved by almost all members, the recognition of the Quebecois as a nation, that makes no sense." I called and asked him to think again. Talk to his wife. Then make a decision, but it was in vain.
Rodriguez (LPC): in preparing for today's meeting, did you or a member of your team get in touch w/any member of gov? Or member on the gov side?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no
Rodriguez (LPC): did Mr. Harper consult w/you on a gov strategy in Quebec?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no. Well, sometimes I would receive a friendly call, but that was it.
Rodriguez (LPC): it was reported that you had a discussion w/Maxime Bernier about the wireless spectrum issue, and that during the discussion, you reportedly asked the Minister to meet w/Pierre Karl Peladeau (CEO) from Quebecor...
***grumbling from CPC***
Szabo (chair, LPC): Order! Order! I'm just asking for quiet. On a point of order, Mr. Tilson?
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): the Point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that this is the biggest fishing expedition I've ever seen, and it has absolutely nothing to do w/the mandate of these proceedings....And Mr. Rodriguez, who comes in here, you know, as a "Johnny come Lately," w/questions that have nothing to do w/these proceedings!
***cross-talk...Szabo tries to quiet everybody down***
Szabo (chair, LPC): the Point of Order is that the matter is not relevant to-I would like you to address the member's Point of Order (Rodriguez)?
Rodriguez (LPC): I would like to mention to Mr. Tilson that he can make the same Point of Order w/respect (b/c of the assholish way Tilson asked the question). Two points: in the mandate...allegations by the current and former government, including relevant correspondence w/ the Privy Council's Office and the PMO. In line w/codes of ethics, and other relevant docs. Secondly, Mr. Schreiber said several times that he asked BM to intervene w/PM Harper's government. So is it even necessary for the cmte to know whether BM had contacts w/government?
Murphy (LPC): Mr. Harper forbade members of his government from contacting Mr. Mulroney. And it also goes to the core of any parliamentary hearing, and that is credibility. Mr. Mulroney did meet or speak, and that's crucial to his credibility.
Del Mastro (CPC): we were afraid that these hearings could descend into a partisan witchhunt. Clearly not germane to the mandate, i.e. KHS's extradition, the Airbus settlement, everybody knows this. I would extend to Mr. Rodriguez that he has not been here for very much of it...***interruption*** Ok, so his attendance isn't relevant, but let me make the point that, in this case, everybody knows that the only reference to the current PMO is whether they intervened in this case, and the current testimony indicates that they have not. And that is the only way it could be relevant. His question is simply not relevant to the witness' testimony today.
Szabo (chair, LPC): we've had this discussion before. Members will know that we have, in addition to the Airbus settlement issue, allegations were made by the party coming before us, i.e. new testimony, new evidence, contradictions for instance, that Mr. Schreiber has testified that the money is for BHP, not Airbus, which changes the dynamic of our hearings. The other evidence that has come out has broadened our focus. I believe it was Mr. Wallace who asked to include "present or past" governments. In view of that, I understand that it might not turn out to be relevant, in terms of our recommendations, but Mr. Rodriguez has raised an item which is on the border, but it is in general relevant. Could you repeat the question and allow the witness to respond?
Rodriguez (LPC): (repeats question about Pierre Karl Peladeau of Quebecor meeting w/Maxime Bernier)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I think I can tell you that Mr. Pierre Karl Peladeau, who's one of the most influential and successful people in the province of Quebec and in Montreal, who's company controls the largest media empire in Canada, knows Bernier a lot better than me. He doesn't need me for an introduction to Bernier or anybody else.
Rodriguez (LPC): so you didn't speak to Bernier on this issue?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I made no presentation on this or anything else.
Szabo (chair, LPC): your time has expired. I'm going to Mr. Tilson.
Coming up next: Part VIII ("You've been very generous with your taxes"), or return to Part VI ("A perfectly legitimate businessman")
No comments:
Post a Comment