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.
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*)
"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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment