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.
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
"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
No comments:
Post a Comment