It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VII: The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately

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")

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part VI: A perfectly legitimate businessman

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.

A perfectly legitimate businessman

10:35 AM
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, thank you for being here. Today you've spoken to the nation and answered some questions that have been lingering on the minds of Canadians for years. However, that does not change the fact that the public trust has been broken. What we've been told has cast a shadow over the institution of gov. This cmte has sought to shed light on your actions. Now, Canadians understand that the PM is just a person, but Canadians also expect that person to reflect the dignity of high-office. Even if, at the end of the day, no code or law was broken, even the appearance of wrongdoing is a problem. Canadians want to know what happened so that we can put this saga behind us. First: about the cash, Mr. Mulroney, when you received the first payment, were you still a MP?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, I was. And that is, as you know, not a violation of the HOC act.
Hiebert (CPC): you've told this cmte that you declared money as income, but you also indicated that some was used for expenses.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: partially, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): so did you declare all the money as income, or some, b/c some was expenses
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: all of it sir, and I absorbed the money I used for expenses. Filed for the full amount and paid full tax on it.
Hiebert (CPC): when Mr. Schreiber provided that money, did you give him a kind of receipt?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I didn't, in fact, he didn't even indicate to me---he told a newspaper that, when he gave it to me, that I had no idea what the amount was or the denominations were--and he told someone else on TV that he's a European businessman and that's how transactions were done...and that's essentially what he told me, so I had no idea. (Whoops!)
Hiebert (CPC): did Mr. Schreiber tell you what the source of the cash was?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no
Hiebert (CPC): you had no idea where the money was from?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, now Mr. Hiebert (in schoolteacher voice to the young whippersnapper), as I tried to indicate, it's easy to look back 15 yrs later at a KHS or anybody else and--you have to look back 15 yrs and see the gentleman I was meeting. I was meeting the chairman of Thyssen Canada (KHS) who had 3000 employees in Canada, as a part of Thyssen Industries, which had 180 000 employees world-wide. And Mr. Schreiber was promoting an entirely legitimate project in eastern Nova Scotia, and that's the way I knew him, as a perfectly legitimate businessman. And so when I met w/him, I met the KHS of 1993, not the KHS of today.
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, the following questions relate to the 1985 Code of Conduct for Employees that you personally put in place as PM. My first question: did you ever violate the 1985 code?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir
Hiebert (CPC): did Mr. Schreiber ever offer you employment?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: while I was in office? No sir.
Hiebert (CPC): after stepping down as PM, did you ever have an agreement w/Mr. Schreiber? That you would work for him in connection w/any "specific ongoing proceeding, transaction, negotiation or case, to which the Government of the day was a party" (quoting directly from the 1985 Code)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Mr. Hiebert, that's a very important question, and if you'll allow me, I'd like to respond through the words of Mr. Schreiber himself. Mr. Schreiber testified in the MBB helicopter (Eurocopter) case, under oath, here' s the question from Mr. Bernstein, "those thoughts, that idea that you had, this plan (to retain the services of Mr. M), what time are we talking about?" Mr. S: "after Mr. M has left gov" Bernstein: "after he had ceased? After he had stepped down as PM?" Mr. S: "yes. Yeah." Under oath (pointing at Hiebert), Mr. Schreiber repeats the same provision under oath, within a stone's throw of this room (pointing around the room now, dramatically), in 2004, in the affidavit that he filed on the 7th of Nov (2007) that gave rise to this activity. He's saying, under oath, that he hired me only after I was no longer PM. In the affidavit he filed, he said the exact opposite, that it took place 23 June at Harrington Lake. I told you, sir, that every single allegation Mr. Schreiber made about me in that affidavit (7 Nov 2007) is false. And, w/your permission, I'd like to go through every single allegation w/you and indicate the extent to which these falsehoods are now on your record, unchallenged.
Hiebert (CPC): after you stepped down as PM, did Mr. Schreiber ask you to contact any member of fed gov on his behalf?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): after you stepped down as PM, did Mr. Schreiber ever ask you to advise him on how his business could benefit from the programs of the fed gov at the time?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Mulroney, there's been some questions about your activity after you stepped down as PM, but while you were still a MP. I'm now referring to the provisions of the Parliament of Canada--you indicated that you accepted some amount of money while you were still sitting as an MP. Did you render any services to Mr. Schreiber in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter before parliament?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): did you influence, or attempt to influence, on behalf of Mr. Schreiber or any other of his interests, any other MP as you were sitting as a MP?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Hiebert (CPC): Mr. Chairman, I think it's clear that Mr. Schreiber is desperate to avoid facing extradition to Germany. He's testified to the (number of cases he has before the courts). And PM Harper has stated that he never met KHS and Schreiber confirmed that in his own testimony. Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Schreiber hoped, undoubtedly, that you could advocate on his behalf, to PMS, to help him w/his extradition problems. Mr. Schreiber indicated that he believed that you were going to raise this issue w/PM Harper last summer. PM Harper has stated that he has never discussed this matter w/you. Mr. Mulroney, could you tell the cmte if you ever raised this subject w/the current PM, and if you did not, why not?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: PM Harper is completely accurate. Moreover, he has had nothing to do directly or indirectly w/any aspect of this, in any way. I did not raise, directly or indirectly, w/PM Harper or any member of the HOC on any side. Mr. Hiebert, let me just read this, I've told you the falsity of Mr. Schreiber's stmts in his affidavit. He repudiated his own testimony, under oath. Here's another article from his affidavit, section 39: "I wrote the July 20, 2006 at the request of Mr. Mulroney, b/c he told me that he was going to meet PM Harper and that Mr. Mulroney was going to show PM Harper a copy of Exhibit 15." I have not spoken to Mr. Schreiber in 7 years. That's a complete fabrication, and it's an example from this affidavit that has generated this feeding frenzy ...Look, he succeeded! He got what he wanted! (*smiling and gesturing expansively*) He's sitting in his mansion over in Rockcliffe, chuckling. He organized this 7 Nov affidavit and it's all false! But he got his "Get out of Jail" card, and he's sitting over there, and he got what he wanted. But one thing that he did do, is that he seriously mislead every member of this House. And it is false. And how do we know it's false? Because he repudiated it, every single provision of it, in different testimonies given under oath! (very red faced)

Del Mastro (CPC): Point of order, Mr. Chair! You extended the invitation to the witness that, if he would like to make a stmt (or clarify) at any time, that he could. The witness has indicated that he'd like to go through the affidavit of 7 Nov and I'd like to request to the chair, if he would like to do that, it's very relevant. I'd like you to extend that offer.
Szabo (chair, LPC): if it's germane and relevant and, you feel it would be helpful, Mr. Mulroney...

***grumbling***

Szabo (chair, LPC): just a moment, just a moment...I want to make sure, b/c I'm also contemplating our next session of break. How long would it be? 5 min 10 min?

10:49 AM
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: max. I can be very brief. I won't go through the entire affidavit, but let me draw to your attention, something that should be persuasive to all of you, regardless of political party, the quest for the truth, then those that appear before you must respect you by telling you the truth with respect to everything, even, sir, if it's embarrassing, as it's been for me, to acknowledge accepting money from Mr. Schreiber.
Szabo (chair, LPC): just with respect to one of the responses to Mr. Hiebert, you said: "accepting money while you were a MP was not in violation of "the HOC act?" Were you, in fact, referring to the "Parliament of Canada Act?"
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I'm sorry, sir, yes.
Szabo (chair, LPC): Ok, and that was with respect to Section 41 under "Influence Peddling." Thank you. If you wish, is this an appropriate time for you to make your comments? Please proceed.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: in the 7 Nov affidavit, at Section 15, Mr. Schreiber swears under oath, that it was at this meeting that Mr. Mulroney and I entered the agreement on 23 June 1993, Mr. Mulroney was still in office as PM of Canada and consequently resided at 24 Sussex. So the thrust of it is, June 93, I'm still PM, and, according to him, we make a deal at Harrington Lake. Mr. Schreiber also filed another affidavit. In another trial. Dealing w/his extradition, before another court, same year, 8 months before he filed the false 7 Nov affidavit. Filed before the Fed Court of Canada, discussing his testimony in Eurocopter trial, he takes great pride that, Mr. Justice Paul Boulanger (sp??) examined his testimony very carefully and declared he was not a hostile witness. And that's b/c Mr. Bernstein had sought to have him declared a hostile witness, saying he wasn't telling the truth. But Justice Boulanger disagreed and said Schreiber was telling the truth. In the Eurocopter case, Mr. Schreiber was telling the truth. And Mr. Schreiber was so proud of that, that in his other affidavit from March this Year, 8 months before he gave you the phony affidavit (the 'Get out of Jail' affidavit), he says Judge Boulanger agreed every word he said in Eurocopter case was true. And what did he say in the Eurocopter case? Question: "these thoughts, these ideas you had to hire Mr. Mulroney? What time are we talking about?" Schreiber's Answer: "after Mr. Mulroney had left government" (Mulroney very animated and red-faced again). Question: "after he had ceased, after he had stepped down as PM?" Schreiber's Answer: "Yes, Yeah."
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: In Eurocopter, he says this under oath (holding it up), so proud of it, he repeats it in his March 2007 affidavit. Eight months later, in his November affidavit--his Get out of Jail affidavit--he says exactly the opposite! That he made a deal w/me on 23 June 1993 in Harrington Lake. Which one is perjury? Is it the one under oath, March 3, 2007? Or is it the one under oath in a court room in Toronto, November 7. At no time, directly or indirectly was the matter of anything that dealt w/employment raised by Schreiber to me while I was PM. And this (Eurocopter testimony) was made just a stone's throw away from here. And he didn't file this one, did he? You don't have this one. I think you should take a look at it. It's interesting.

Coming up next: Part VII ("The Conservative Godfather v. The Johnny Come Lately"), or return to Part V ("Winnipeg in January? Now, that's downright nutty!")
Picture of Fat Tony (The Simpsons): Answers.com

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part V: Winnipeg in January? Now *that's* downright nutty!

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.

Winnipeg in January? Now, that's downright nutty!

10:23 AM
Martin (NDP): Mr. Mulroney, when people use cash in business deals of that size, they're either trying to hide any record of something they know to be wrong or they're trying to avoid paying taxes. That's the way most Canadians see it, and neither look very good, frankly, for a former PM, let me simply say. You're saying that you would have us believe that you made these deals so that you could promote world peace by selling "peacekeeping" vehicles to other countries. (*snerk*) Did you also try to sell pasta making machines to the president of Italy while you were touring the world? One of your spokespeople said that one of your things was to promote pasta making machines--one of the early incarnations of what this money was really for.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (annoyed, eyebrows are way up on his forehead) Well, Mr. Martin, that was Mr. Schreiber who said that, under oath...
Martin (NDP): ...it was Luc Lavoie...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (interrupting) No, Sir, it was Mr. Schreiber, under oath...in the Eurocopter case, down the Street, in 2004.
Martin (NDP): you said...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (interrupting) Excuse me sir...

***Martin & BM interrupting each other, so Szabo calls for Order***

Szabo (chair, LPC): the translators have difficulty when two people talk at the same time; should the answer take substantial time, I will not penalize the member. Mr. Martin, pose your question & allow him to answer...
Martin (NDP): (starts to speak, but he's interrupted again by BM--Martin throws his hands up in frustration)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Excuse me, sir! Excuse me: he posed a question ...
Szabo (chair, LPC): I just want Mr. Martin to repeat the question...
Martin (NDP): the question I have--you said that the money you got in NY, you put it into a safety deposit box. Do you have any access ...
Szabo (chair, LPC): (clearly getting irritated w/Martin) Order! Order please...that's not the question you just asked Mr. Mulroney, that I wanted you to repeat. I want BM to respond to your previous question, where the pasta reference was made...I won't dock your time for this, Mr. Martin, but I want to be fair to the witness.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Mr. Martin suggested that this had something to do w/pasta machines, and that I was out promoting "world peace." Now, I would hope that something like this (peace?) would result, but that wasn't my objective. The objective, as quoted, by KHS, in the case of R v. MBB helicopter in 2004, here's the mandate...

****interruption****

Szabo (chair, LPC): (to Martin) Don't worry, I'm stopping the clock on this question, you won't be docked for this...
Tilson (vice-chair, CPC): Point of order! I don't understand all this stopping of the clock business. I mean, Mr. Martin asks the question, the witness is entitled to answer...all this stopping of the clock, is uh...nutty...(CPC toadie, probably Del Mastro, pipes up: "It's ridiculous!"). Martin asks, witness answers and it has nothing to do w/stopping the clock...

10:27 AM
Szabo (chair, LPC): Ok, on the same point of order, Mr. Murphy?
Murphy (LPC): yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree wholeheartedly w/Mr. Tilson. You're very magnanimous w/other members' time. And maybe Mr. Mulroney should make his answers succinct and w/in the brief time frames of the questioner.
Szabo (chair, LPC): Thank you, colleagues, I want to be equitable w/all members. When there's a disagreement, I've been stopping the clock, but I'm not going to be doing this anymore, but in the event that the answer is exceptionally long, I'm going to provide additional time for the members.

***Tilson grumbling something unintelligible in the corner***

Szabo (chair, LPC): Well, thank you (yeah, F-you, too, Tilson), I'm going back to Mr. Martin. You have 7 min left.
Martin (NDP): (interrupted by BM again)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Mr. Chairman, I was asked about the mandate. And I'm telling you, that this (document) goes to the core of the entire issue. The mandate was given under oath by Mr. Schreiber in the Eurocopter case in 2004. Here's what he said, "I have many things in mind, and I told you, I wanted to hire Mr. Mulroney for Thyssen, and he would be hired for the same thing he's doing now, and it would be nice to have a former Canadian PM on a peacekeeping track for Thyssen products, again, as the German gov wanted Thyssen to do. I was also involved in the pasta business, enriched Durham semolina products, with Archer Daniels Midland, and he provided me w/material." I was a Sr. Director of ADM. It's not some snarky comment about "pasta machines saving the peace of the world," it's an entirely legit business proposal that he proposed and I accepted. The only dubious part of it, as Mr. Menard suggested, is that I ought not have accepted the payment in cash. (looking very red in the face)
Martin (NDP): you said that you took money you had in NY in a safety deposit box--do you have a safety deposit box in Switzerland?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, sir.
Martin (NDP): you sued the gov Canada for $50 mill for saying you took money from KHS and you took a 2.1 mill settlement. Now, I believe you took money from KHS and that, if the gov of Canada knew you took money from KHS, you would not have received that settlement, and they would have fought that court battle to its legitimate end. Are you willing to give back that 2.1 million to the people of Canada? Now that we know you took money from Schreiber?

***laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (looking wounded) No, I took money for work done on his behalf around the world. I was paid to execute this mandate, that he read out in court...
Martin (NDP): then why did you deny having any dealings w/the man...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's completely false
Martin (NDP): by omission, you lead us to believe you had virtually no...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (hopping mad) I explained that in the province of Quebec...
Martin (NDP): you're splitting hairs...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (mad) I am NOT splitting hairs...
Martin (NDP): you're splitting hairs and the country isn't buying it...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (leaning back, red-faced but smiling...)
Szabo (chair, LPC): order! Answer, then another question!
Martin (NDP): I'm not calling you a liar, Mr. Mulroney, but I don't want anybody here to think I believe you...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (laughing) Mr. Martin...
Martin (NDP): one of the most disturbing allegations, if I can continue, is that KHS and Franz Josef Strauss interfered w/Canadian politics w/foreign money in 1983, in Winnipeg, to unseat Joe Clark who may have been the next PM of Canada, if foreign money had not intervened by this neoconservative government of Germany, who by Schreiber's testimony, was going around the world trying to promote neoconservative governments. Were you aware at that time that Walter Wolf and Franz Josef Strauss and KHS were parachuting delegates in, by charter plane to unseat Joe Clark's leadership and to place you, and F Moores in the next prime minister of Canada?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (smiling wryly) Mr. Chairman, the idea that someone would charter two Boeings loaded w/450 delegates to fly them into Winnipeg in the middle of a snowstorm in January 1983, without anybody knowing about it, it's pretty exceptional at a conservative meeting (So they were Airbus, not Boeings? *snerk*). But you quote Mr. Schreiber approvingly...but he was asked, under oath, what role he played in (my leadership). Mr. Bernstein asked, "who did you think this donation was in favour of," and he responded, "I believe this was in favour of Mr. Mulroney" in 1976. "Just to be clear, was this the leadership that resulted in Mr. Clark's election?" "Yes, Yes," (KHS responded). "Did you support Mr. M's leadership bid, the 2nd one, the one he ultimately won?" "No."
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (Mulroney looks downright gleeful and points at Pat Martin) So, no, he had nothing to do with my winning the leadership, and you sir--and I say this respectfully (*snerk*)--I hope before we leave that you'll find it in your heart to (rescind your earlier stmt) b/c it's repudiated by "your friend" Mr. Schreiber, right here.

***huge laughter***

Martin (NDP): (shaking his head, emphatically, "no") Mr. Schreiber is no friend of mine.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I withdraw that, if you make your own withdrawal.
Martin (NDP): let's see how the day goes. Now, Mr. Mulroney, you said you had absolutely nothing to do w/the Air Canada purchase of Airbus. During the 2 year period of time leading up to the Airbus purchase, you replaced 13 of the 15 Board of Directors of AC, including appointing Frank Moores to the BOD of Air Canada, your long-term associate, he was also the principal lobbyist working on behalf of Airbus. Now, did you know that he was lobbying at the time you appointed him to the Air Canada BOD?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: what we found out, first, Mr. Moores was appointed as part of a group...
Martin (NDP): 13 out of 15...I assume the two who weren't changed were already conservatives
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: you know what, you might be right. I have no idea. I do know that Moores was the former Premier of Newfoundland, a former member of this House, a former member of the Transport cmte, and he was appointed b/c he was the Newfoundland representative on the board. These were the recommendations of the Min Transport to our cabinet, and we acted on them. Mr. Moores was appointed for a few months and then he withdrew and retired, not b/c of Airbus, but b/c he had an economic association w/Wardair. And so, he had to resign of his own volition...so, sir (***Martin interrupting***)
Martin (NDP): let me ask you about your blind trusts. A lot of public office holders have them. Let me ask you, did you have any shares in GCI or any subsidiary in a blind trust while you were PM or in parliament?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: of course not.

Coming up next: Part VI ("A perfectly legitimate businessman"), or return to Part IV ("It was all very sophisticated")

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part IV: It was all very sophisticated

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.

It was all very sophisticated

Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you, I'm going to give the floor to Mme. Lavallée

10:09
Lavallée (BQ): I'll be turning my time over to Mr. Ménard.
Ménard (BQ): first, the payment that you received was for how much?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: 75K
Ménard (BQ): and it was in cash?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Ménard (BQ): I'm curious to know, in what denominations?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: 1000 dollar bills (Oopsie!)
Ménard (BQ): what did you do w/that 75K?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I deposited it in a safety deposit box at home. As I was saying, nothing was touched b/c I simply used a small portion of these funds for the expenses I incurred in my international mandate. That was all.
Ménard (BQ): so you got that as a retainer, in cash...why deposit it in a safety deposit box? You feel that was money that you earned, so why not invest it somewhere?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: we were in l'Estérel, I put it in the safety deposit box, and when we moved to Montréal, I did exactly the same thing.
Ménard (BQ): how long did you keep it there (in the safety deposit box)?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Until it was settled. As I said in my statement, I paid my expenses and then, once the relationship was over, I compensated myself for my professional work.
Ménard (BQ): did you keep track of your "professional work?" (*snerk*)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (annoyed) yes, I said so.
Ménard (BQ): yes, you did speak about it, but you had some accounting, some time-sheets?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I didn't have any accounting, (Oopsie!) but as you know, M. Menard, when you're travelling internationally, I met w/Chinese leadership, met the head of the gov in Russia, head of gov in France, and a number of leaders in the USA. A number of trips I made for the same purpose as the one I described w/Mr. Yeltsin. (Ah yes...it was all very sophisticated and...how you say? Internationale *snort*)
Ménard (BQ): that's what I'm trying to understand...you had 75K in cash in a safety deposit box...you were travelling. Did you regularly get money from that (box) to get money for the trip?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, not at all, I used my credit card. When I was travelling internationally. As you know, as a lawyer in Montréal, I was travelling for a number of clients, so I used my credit cards, and at the end, I assigned a very modest percentage of that to Mr. Schreiber's acct. The rest I kept either for the office or for myself.
Ménard (BQ): did you keep track of that? Any notes on the amount you attributed? Where did you write it down?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I kept it in the records I had w/me, I gave a file to Mr. Yeltsin...(Huh? We have to go dig up Boris to find out?!)
Ménard (BQ): We don't have time to go into all those details...so you were travelling internationally for other clients. Isn't it true that for all the other clients, notes were taken, there was some accounting done, so that each client could see how much you spent or how much you allocated?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Ménard (BQ): so that was done at a big office, like the one in which you worked. Why, in the case of this client, did you not deposit it in a bank account, as an advance, as you did from other clients?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I told you, it was an error in judgement on my part. Should have proceeded differently, and I've come here to the cmte to apologize for that.
Ménard (BQ): what I'm intrigued by is that an error of judgement--it took you so long to notice it. In what year did you notice it?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it is a human error. When you recognize it...it includes all the aspects of human error. (seriously, dude...not kewl)
Ménard (BQ): but if I understand correctly, the error was ongoing, you received other payments in cash, and rather than put them in a bank, rather than accounting for a percentage of costs to the client, in this case you went to your safety deposit box at home...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I told you, at the beginning that this was a sort of "watching brief," that Mr. Schreiber gave me for the international work and I think I told you as well that this was the only client that had compensated me this way. And the reason Mr. Schreiber gave me cash, was that he dealt only in cash. And I told you that I should not have accepted it--I should have asked for a more transparent way of receiving money.
Ménard (BQ): why--if you thought this was legitimate money, and you said you would have preferred to receive a cheque, so you did have some concern about receiving large amounts of cash--so why not keep it in a bank, so you could justify the travel costs that you were incurring from Mr. Schreiber, as compared to costs for other clients?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that was a personal decision. Remember, I didn't claim any expense from the Canadian gov, I absorbed all the expenses for myself. I declared all of it (as income).
Ménard (BQ): that was not my question. Moving on. For the 2nd payment, Nov 1993 or Dec--that payment was in cash as well. How much was that payment?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: 75K
Ménard (BQ): 75 as well. Ok, for the third payment at the Pierre Hotel, in NYC. Also received in cash. You brought the money back here?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I left it in New York.
Ménard (BQ): did you travel to NY to get the money? You just left it in NY?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I left it in NY until I declared it as income. And the amount of expenses that I absorbed, at which point it became my money and I allowed myself to use it. It wasn't in an account, it was in a safety deposit box.
Ménard (BQ): do you realize that the way in which you acted in this matter did not make it appear as though it was a legitimate transaction?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: but it was not only legitimate, it was perfectly legal. But I will concede that the circumstances might lead some to some apprehension or some notion of impropriety. That's why I have accepted some responsibility for it. (Gee, that's mighty big of ye, Brian...)
Ménard (BQ): one last question: do you know why the 1000 dollar bills were eliminated?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes, to eliminate 1000 dollar transactions
Ménard (BQ): b/c usually they're used for illegal ends.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (pissed) yes, but you're not suggesting that there was anything illegal in the trans'n in question?
Ménard (BQ): no, I'm saying that it should have suggested to you that there was something illegal there.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (angry) No, there was nothing illegal there! This was a legitimate transaction! Absolutely legit and legal. Nothing illegal whatsoever. It should have suggested to me, that I should be cautious and careful, I do concede that.
Ménard (BQ): you were acting like someone in an illegal transaction.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (mad) No! I was acting like someone involved in a legal transaction, but one that raised certain questions, however.

Szabo (chair, LPC): I neglected to ask, during Thibault's questions, that you provide the document you were reading from. You also indicated that you had an agreement w/your law firm for certain international business. Was this legal work?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, business.
Szabo (chair, LPC): did you file income tax returns in any other jurisdiction than Canada? (remember, Szabo is a CPA!)
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: probably in the USA, under our tax agreements, if I was receiving revenue from activities in the US, which I was.
Szabo (chair, LPC): referring to the safety deposit box in your home, but you also referred to a ledger you were keeping? You have a written ledger?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, that was 15 yrs ago. As soon as the tax issues were resolved, I disposed of those documents. (Major Oopsie!)
Szabo (chair, LPC): could you, at this time, later, provide us w/a general summary of the disposition of the $75K?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I would be happy to, sir. I'd be happy to record the various trips on those 4 or 5 important occasions, plus the full report I gave to Mr. Schreiber, in the presence of someone else...that time in NY.
Szabo (chair, LPC): who was that someone else?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Fred Doucet.
Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you. I should also indicate that Mr. Mulroney was invited to be here and he is here voluntarily and fully cooperative. (Gawd, Szabo's waaaaay too nice, eh?) Moving on to Mr. Pat Martin...

Coming up next: Part V ("Winnipeg in January? Now, that's downright nutty!"), or return to Part III ("International Man of Mystery")
Painting: "Gentlemen's Club," by Jeff Williams

Read more!

It's Brian's turn to cry, Part III: International Man of Mystery

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.

International Man of Mystery

9:35 AM
Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you, Mr. Mulroney, for your stmt. (oops, problem w/the earpieces. Szabo is smiling and looking a bit nervous and fidgety about all of this) Just for clarification, twice during your stmt, you referred to leaving "public office," and questions have come up in our proceedings related to the timing of matters as related to stepping down as PM or as an MP. So, when you referred to "leaving public office," were you referring to being PM or when you left as an MP?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I was referring to stepping down as PM.
Szabo (chair, LPC): thank you, kindly. I understand, Mr. Mulroney, you would like to have a little break at this time. I accede to your request. Suspend now and resume at 9:50 AM.

9:53 AM
Thibault (LPC): I understand that, for you and your family, that these allegations would be very difficult. But understand that you are here today b/c you received $300K in cash, and that leaves a lot of questions in peoples' minds. One of the questions that I have--remaining questions--and even Mr. Schreiber said there was no money related to Airbus. But what happened to all these commissions by MBB, by Airbus in Canada? If not to you, then to people close to your gov, and we must continue to explore this question. I think we need an inquiry. Your work for Thyssen, after you left the position of PM--you said you were working for Thyssen on "international" matters and not domestic?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: that's correct.
Thibault (LPC): the two subsequent payments of $100K you received while you were working at the law firm?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes.
Thibault (LPC): did the payments go through the law firm or to you directly?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I should say, Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Thibault goes any further, that I want to indicate formally--which I indicated the only other time I discussed this on the record in the G&M on 10 November 2003--I was asked and I indicated that I had been compensated in cash for the transaction, but as I told the G&M, was that there was a dispute about the amount. It was 75K per year for 3 yrs work-total of $225K.
Thibault (LPC): did the money go through the law firm, the two subsequent amounts?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: they didn't go through the law firm (Whoops!)
Thibault (LPC): thank you...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (annoyed) No, just a minute! I negotiated a provision w/the law firm that would allow me to deal with this kind of matter in the manner that I did. It was an exception...
Thibault (LPC): thank you
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: it was a single exception to the partnership rule.
Thibault (LPC): thank you, I appreciate your brevity. You were working for Thyssen internationally--did you report to Thyssen on the work that you did, either in written reports to Thyssen or to Mr. S?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: not in written reports, but to Mr. Schreiber, yes. (Whoops x 2!)
Thibault (LPC): did you make notes of your progress?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Thibault (LPC): can you provide them to the cmte?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I can't provide them to the cmte today. (Whoops x 3!) It was some 14-15 yrs ago. I reported, for eg., in great detail, for almost an hour, in the presence of another person, w/Mr. Schreiber, in the Pierre Hotel in NY, about my visits to China, Russia and France. I referred about the summer of 1994, when I was invited by Yeltsin to Russia and we went there and I thought it was an excellent opportunity...(rambling)
Szabo (chair, LPC): (interrupting) Mr. Thibault, I'm going to give you another minute. Mr. Mulroney, the members will ask more details about the nature of the report at a later time, but I think that Mr. Thibault just wants the documents, any docs you may have...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: I will be happy to provide any docs to the cmte, but perhaps my honourable friend (*snerk*) would be interested in this point, b/c he was asking about the reporting process and what I might have said...
Szabo (chair, LPC): I'm going to give you an opportunity to make a stmt, but not in the middle of the member's question...

***Del Mastro (CPC) asks for point of order***

Del Mastro (CPC): (complaining to Szabo) You took great leniency w/Mr. Schreiber in allowing him to elaborate on stmts and meander into dead ends all over the place...I think (BM) should be given that latitude. In the interest of fairness, I think the witness should be allowed to make his stmts.
Szabo (chair, LPC): (stammering a bit) the point is that if the flow of the member's questions is going to be interrupted by a stmt...
Del Mastro (CPC): he should be permitted the time to answer the question!
Szabo (chair, LPC): I agree...the question was "do you have notes and can we have them"
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: No, the question was, 'did you report to Mr. Schreiber?' and I said, "yes, I did," and I was explaining and I'm sure my honourable friend (*snerk*), but just to give you an idea of it, I reported to him in NY very fully on the contacts that I'd made, which involved a visit w/Yeltsin, knowing their requirements in Chechnya and elsewhere and whether they would be interested in discussing this w/me and moving this file along. Yeltsin said he knew this company well and thought highly of it. And I said, in that case, I thought why don't we move to the next step together, which was to the "P5" (UN permanent 5 members of the Sec. Council) and he said, "Brian, I'd love to but I have a problem; we're broke, we have no money," so as a result of that, I moved on, and looked for another prospect.

***loud laughter***

Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (smiling at his own story) This was the kind of consultation I was doing around the world, w/Mitterand, w/China, w/the US government...
Szabo (chair, LPC): I will make sure you have all the time you need to elaborate--I'll ask at the end of each member's time-slot, so that it doesn't interrupt the flow of questions.
Thibault (LPC): When you received the money at the Hotel Pierre, did you bring that money back into Canada?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: No, I did not.
Thibault (LPC): Did you deposit it in the US?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Yes, I did.
Thibault (LPC): In your deposition, in lawsuit against gov Canada, on pg 98, question 276, you said you've never had a bank acct outside Montreal, and never have. How do you explain that?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: It was a safety deposit box. (Whoops x 4!)
Thibault (LPC): Not an acct? Ok, thank you. Mr. Mulroney, the allegations by KHS is that on Oct 17, 1999, your counsel (Tremblay) approached KHS's lawyer (Hladun) seeking an affidavit--indicating that at no time, did you, Mr. Mulroney, solicit or receive money from Mr. Schreiber. Is that correct?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: What is correct is that there was a discussion between counsel and on Jan 26, 2000 (will provide later), Mr. Schreiber's lawyer wrote in Edmonton--wrote to lawyer in Toronto, "I received a call from Mr. Mulroney, who advised that he instructed his lawyer (Tremblay) to issue a letter to CBC's "Fifth Estate," indicating if there's the slightest indication that Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Moores and Mr. Mulroney were involved in any way, then there would be terrible consequences," i.e. I assume as alleged in the letter of request. The only memorialisation that was being sought was, as Mr. Schreiber has now told you...
Thibault (LPC): the question is on Oct 17, 1999, did your counsel contact Mr. Schreiber's lawyer?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I contacted Mr. Hladun who was an excellent lawyer out in Edmonton, representing Mr. Schreiber, and he says the reason for the contact by me was, "I assume as alleged in the letter of request." (getting very irritated) He assumed that my call related to the allegations and the money that went through on the Airbus deal, from which I received not a cent. But sir, in the interest of completeness and accuracy for your important question (very sarcastically), from the same lawyer in 2005 on same issue, to the CBC:

I have learned that the CBC has referenced that they have evidence that the writer, Mr. Hladun, asked to have Mr. Schreiber provide a letter to Mr. M that, quote, "at no time did Mr. Mulroney solicit or receive compensation of any kind from Mr. KHS." First off, to my mind, there's no such evidence b/c I've never had a conversation w/BM about compensation. The only conversations I've had w/anyone were in the context of and limited to the allegations of improper payments made as referenced in the Sept 1995 letter of request delivered by the Canadian gov to the Swiss authorities in what became known as the Airbus...

Thibault (LPC): the suggestion here would have been that--this would have come from the Thyssen money, the 300K, you argue that it's 225K, but that amount of money, and subsequent to that conversation, you would have made your declaration...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (angry but smiling oddly at Thibault) But sir, that's completely false! You can't throw that out there as a preparatory statement...
Thibault (LPC): I accept that as your comment. In the summer of 2006, you met w/PM Harper at Harrington Lake. Did you, w/Elmer MacKay, solicit a letter from Mr. Schreiber for that meeting?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: of course not (great umbrage at this question).
Thibault (LPC): did you discuss the wireless spectrum issue w/the PM at that time, or at any other time?
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (laughing) I think the PM (Harper) has already responded in the HOC to that question. The answer, of course, is negative.
Thibault (LPC): this whole thing, you admit is an error...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: no, I don't admit the whole thing was an error...

***assorted grumbling in the room***

Thibault (LPC): To accept the money, accept in cash, was an error...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: yes
Thibault (LPC): Canadians are asking that question. They remember a great debater, in Canadian politics, suggesting, "Sir, you had an option!" And you chose at Harrington Lake, to suggest to Mr. Schreiber that he could go back to you w/his dealings. Then you exercised the option to accept money--in cash--in a hotel room in Montreal. And then, in your deposition, you suggest that you were having coffee every now and then...
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: (interrupting, angry) That is not right, sir! (pointing at Thibault)
Thibault (LPC):...then you accept money in a hotel room, the Queen Elizabeth hotel, and then the Pierre Hotel (NYC), accepting money in cash...the question that remains: Is this the tip of an iceburg of a lot of money that flowed?
Szabo (chair, LPC): I'm going to allow Mr. Mulroney to respond to stmts.
Rt. Hon. B. Mulroney: Well, I hope we can come back to some of your preparatory remarks, that I hope I can persuade you that you've been seriously mislead. I don't have a clue what Mr. Schreiber did w/his money internationally. He came before you, and Mme. Lavallée had asked him questions w/o getting answers. She did everything--asked all kinds of questions about accuracy, the name of the lawyer, the amounts of money, the benefits--no answers were provided. Now you want to know from me how Mr. Schreiber conducted his business internationally?! Sir, I don't know anymore than Mme. Lavallée after her questioning. I'm sorry, I can't help you. (very indignant and pissy)

Coming up next: Part IV ("It was all very sophisticated"), or return to Part II ("I'll be on the couch, since you're already on the Cross")
Photo Credit: Solarnavigator.net

Read more!