Mulroney's testimony in Parliament

[noahbody]

As far as Harper and Mulroney, I say there is a connection, but one that will be hard to prove unless someone within the government, as a govt worker, comes forward and tells.

What connection would that be? That they know each other?

Of course you'd hope so. You're still in denial that the party to which you pledge your loyality to was basically a criminal organisation; the most corrupt government in the history of Canada. If only you could paint the Conservative governement with the same brush, you'd feel so much better. But you can't or at least you shouldn't.

I assume you're about to write the sponsorship scandal had to do with only a few beurocrats, competely ignoring the players involved, chief of staff, personal friend of PM, brother of PM, etc. Denial is bliss.

[capricorn]

Perhaps a better idea would be for the government to try and recover the $2.1 million from Mulroney, given that he lied under oath in the lawsuit where he won that $2.1 million, instead of spending millions on an inquiry?

A lot of people also feel that way. The problem is that it would cost us more than $2.1M to collect it assuming we would win the case. Remember that when Mulroney initially sued the government nine lawyers were lined up to represent the government and he won. The legal fees alone would surpass what we'd try to recover.

[Keepitsimple]

Didn't he receive his first payment when he was an MP? He was not a private citizen then.

Yes...you are correct and I was not accurate in my statement. His first payment - for future services - was accepted when he was still an MP - 1 month prior to becoming a private citizen.....but he explained that the "deal" was for future international consulting services for creating a market for the Thyssen Peacekeeping vehicle - and that in no way is in violation of ethical standards at the time - and possibly even today. It makes complete sense that it would be for non-domestic consulting services because Mulroney would have absolutely no influence with the Chretien Liberals - they hated him - and that's another story unto itself.

[jdobbin]

Yes...you are correct and I was not accurate in my statement. His first payment - for future services - was accepted when he was still an MP - 1 month prior to becoming a private citizen.....but he explained that the "deal" was for future international consulting services for creating a market for the Thyssen Peacekeeping vehicle - and that in no way is in violation of ethical standards at the time - and possibly even today. It makes complete sense that it would be for non-domestic consulting services because Mulroney would have absolutely no influence with the Chretien Liberals - they hated him - and that's another story unto itself.

There was no paperwork to suggest that it was for international lobbying. And all documents that Mulroney said he did have for consulting were destroyed. I'm afraid all we have is Mulroney's word for it. He is going to have to produce some evidence that he did any work in the international market.

[capricorn]

Let not forget that Mulroney is also a lawyer and being the PM he knew the rules all around.

Schreiber was a judge for 9 years. I suppose both knew the rules.

He also watched Schreiber testify so he knew how to present himself.

I don't doubt Schreiber watched and studied Mulroney's testimony. He too will use this when he recalled by the committee. What would you suggest? Keeping both incommunicado between testimonies?

Another point in his character is when he leave Ottawa, they took furniture that belong to Canada. It was reported he paid 125,000 for it, but it wasn't his to take and it would be antique handed down from MacDonald's era.

Not true. The furniture and decorations were accumulated by the Mulroneys over the years.

The reference to furniture relates to an attempt by the Mulroneys in 1993 to sell the furniture, decorations and drapery they had accumulated at 24 Sussex Dr. and the Harrington Lake retreat to the National Capital Commission for about $150,000. The NCC said it was getting a bargain, but, bowing to public pressure, the Mulroneys returned the cheque in July of 1993.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=132808

This has also been confirmed by commentators on various newscasts.

As far as Harper and Mulroney, I say there is a connection, but one that will be hard to prove unless someone within the government, as a govt worker, comes forward and tells.

The connection is that they are both politicians who have known each other for many years. I know the opposition is frustrated that nothing sticks to Harper in this saga. I doubt the existence of a public service whistleblower who has the goods to make your dream come true.

[Fortunata]

A lot of people also feel that way. The problem is that it would cost us more than $2.1M to collect it assuming we would win the case. Remember that when Mulroney initially sued the government nine lawyers were lined up to represent the government and he won. The legal fees alone would surpass what we'd try to recover.

There is a principle involved here. I thought the Harperconservatives labeled themselves the principled party? We have a thread that says just that. Money over principles? That's what got Mulroney involved with Schreiber to start with. Maybe the new CPC billboard should say, "Selectively Principled."

The connection is that they are both politicians who have known each other for many years. I know the opposition is frustrated that nothing sticks to Harper in this saga. I doubt the existence of a public service whistleblower who has the goods to make your dream come true.

Steve called Mulroney a trusted adviser. That's not just a small connection no matter how you want to spin it.

[capricorn]

There is a principle involved here.

Thank you. I knew it wouldn't take long for an anti Conservative to bring "principle" into the equation. I was not disappointed.

[Fortunata]

Thank you. I knew it wouldn't take long for an anti Conservative to bring "principle" into the equation. I was not disappointed.

You think that principle has no place in government?

[noahbody]

You think that principle has no place in government?

And you voted for which party last election?

[Fortunata]

And you voted for which party last election?

Not the Libs if that's what you were inferring.

Which makes the argument for the Cons once again ..... but the Liberals.

It's sad that this government and it's supporters cannot or will not stand on their own merits and principles, which it seems Con supporters don't really care about - only if it's a fraction better, or can be spun as better, than the Liberals before them.

[Keepitsimple]

There was no paperwork to suggest that it was for international lobbying. And all documents that Mulroney said he did have for consulting were destroyed. I'm afraid all we have is Mulroney's word for it. He is going to have to produce some evidence that he did any work in the international market.

No paperwork produced so far but as I said - it makes sense that it WAS for international lobbying because the Liberals under Chretien would have nothing to do with him - and when he left office - his popularity with Canadians was in the basement - but he still had a lot of international connections. There is more than Mulroney's word on this issue. If more investigation is required, he has said that he met with China, Russia, France and I believe some other European countries to discuss the Thyssen vehicle. I'm sure that even 15 years later, there are ways to verify that he indeed took those trips. Many of the things in Mulroney's testament can be at least partially verified because they involve trips and meeting people. Schreiber on the other hand is careful to make statements that can never be verified. I'm not a Mulroney fan - I always thought he had a "sermonizing voice" - like a priest. Although I tend to be a Conservative, I consider Mulroney to be far removed from the current Conservative Party. I'm just sitting back and listening to the testimony and trying to be impartial....and that's tough to do seeing as much of the allegations of 15 years ago - Stevie Cameron/Fifth Estate/CBC - made him out to be a complete crook before he even got to say a word. More and more, it appears those allegations were built on a foundation that was at best, misleading.

[Michael Bluth]

Not the Libs if that's what you were inferring.

So you voted for a party with no realistic chance of forming Government. Hmmm, explains your unrealistic expectations.

[Topaz]

What connection would that be? That they know each other?

Of course you'd hope so. You're still in denial that the party to which you pledge your loyality to was basically a criminal organisation; the most corrupt government in the history of Canada. If only you could paint the Conservative governement with the same brush, you'd feel so much better. But you can't or at least you shouldn't.

I assume you're about to write the sponsorship scandal had to do with only a few beurocrats, competely ignoring the players involved, chief of staff, personal friend of PM, brother of PM, etc. Denial is bliss.

I don't pledge my loyalty to any party. I listen to the leaders of the parties and see what their character is like. As a matter of fact, I voted for Mulroney twice! The second time is when his trouble started. I've voted for the Libs and if the Cons and Libs keeping going on each other I could vote NDP!! I was totally against what happen with the scandal in the Lib party. Today, if you look at the Lib. party it almost new members and it will be new members in the next elections. It was the QUEBEC LIBS that gave the party its bad name. It was Mulroney and some his members that gave the Cons no support! You know Harper govt is a secret govt, he tells nothing. He has to remember he is a civil servant to Canadians, we pay his wages

[Topaz]

Thank you. I knew it wouldn't take long for an anti Conservative to bring "principle" into the equation. I was not disappointed.

Question capricorn, were you a PC supporter or a Alliance supporter before Harper??

[jdobbin]

No paperwork produced so far but as I said - it makes sense that it WAS for international lobbying because the Liberals under Chretien would have nothing to do with him - and when he left office - his popularity with Canadians was in the basement - but he still had a lot of international connections. There is more than Mulroney's word on this issue. If more investigation is required, he has said that he met with China, Russia, France and I believe some other European countries to discuss the Thyssen vehicle. I'm sure that even 15 years later, there are ways to verify that he indeed took those trips. Many of the things in Mulroney's testament can be at least partially verified because they involve trips and meeting people. Schreiber on the other hand is careful to make statements that can never be verified. I'm not a Mulroney fan - I always thought he had a "sermonizing voice" - like a priest. Although I tend to be a Conservative, I consider Mulroney to be far removed from the current Conservative Party. I'm just sitting back and listening to the testimony and trying to be impartial....and that's tough to do seeing as much of the allegations of 15 years ago - Stevie Cameron/Fifth Estate/CBC - made him out to be a complete crook before he even got to say a word. More and more, it appears those allegations were built on a foundation that was at best, misleading.

I am not prepared to take Mulroney's word on things without proof. What you think makes sense will only be verified by paperwork or witness testimony. He has been evasive from the beginning about his relationship and what he did and he remains so today.

[DrGreenthumb]

I don't know why anyone would have any problem with someone at the CBC suggesting questions to a comittee member about Mulroney. In my opinion if an investigative reporter, or anyone at the publicly owned television station thought that they knew a pertinent question that government should be questioned about it is their duty as a civil servant and as a patriotic Canadian to see that question is asked. It is no secret that Harper pre screens the questions he ALLOWS the press to ask. Only Harper approved reporters get access to his pre-approved press releases( see propaganda).

If the CBC knows anything incriminating about the government we should all encourage them to help in uncovering any wrongdoing. The last thing we should do is encourage the conservative party to keep operating so secretly and critisize the press for at least TRYING to ask the questions we as Canadians need answered.

[August1991]

I am not prepared to take Mulroney's word on things without proof. What you think makes sense will only be verified by paperwork or witness testimony. He has been evasive from the beginning about his relationship and what he did and he remains so today.

There's not going to be any paper work or any other evidence. It doesn't exist. That's why I referred to this as Watergate without the tapes.

I have heard some people suggest taht the committee get hold of Mulroney's tax forms but I don't know what that would prove. He declared the money as income in 1999 and paid income tax on it.

I suppose the mistake regarding not paying taxes on the money until 6 years later (after Schreiber was charged with...bribery) falls under not worth listing......or maybe the mistake is simply being caught.

As Mulroney explained, the money was a retainer for expenses related to international lobbying. Menard several intelligent questions about this and accepted that nothing was illegal. It was highly unorthodox however. Law firms accept payments like this all the time but they rarely if ever accept them in cash and put them in a wall safe - although I suppose it has happened.

In 1999, when Mulroney realized that Schreiber was under investigation for tax fraud (among other things), he decided to treat the money as income and declare it. According to Mulroney, he hadn't touched most of the money although I wished the committee had asked such questions

Didn't he receive his first payment when he was an MP? He was not a private citizen then.

He did. But under rules of the House at the time, this was perfectly legal.

----

Mulroney's narrative covers all the details and explains any discrepancy. It's just about 10 years too late. One could conceivably argue that 10 years ago, Mulroney wisely decided that politics being politics, there is no way of really telling the truth. It invariably gets spun one way or the other.

IOW, what is the truth here? God knows really. Sometimes I think that the only criteria to use in judging anything is whether any good will come of it. How you get to the good is beside the point.

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[Michael Bluth]

According to Mulroney, he hadn't touched most of the money although I wished the committee had asked such questions.

Perhaps if Canada's publicly-funded national broadcaster had seen such a question to their advantage Pablo Rodriguez would have asked that question.

[jdobbin]

There's not going to be any paper work or any other evidence. It doesn't exist. That's why I referred to this as Watergate without the tapes.

I have heard some people suggest taht the committee get hold of Mulroney's tax forms but I don't know what that would prove. He declared the money as income in 1999 and paid income tax on it.

As Mulroney explained, the money was a retainer for expenses related to international lobbying. Menard several intelligent questions about this and accepted that nothing was illegal. It was highly unorthodox however. Law firms accept payments like this all the time but they rarely if ever accept them in cash and put them in a wall safe - although I suppose it has happened.

In 1999, when Mulroney realized that Schreiber was under investigation for tax fraud (among other things), he decided to treat the money as income and declare it. According to Mulroney, he hadn't touched most of the money although I wished the committee had asked such questions

He did. But under rules of the House at the time, this was perfectly legal.

----

Mulroney's narrative covers all the details and explains any discrepancy. It's just about 10 years too late. One could conceivably argue that 10 years ago, Mulroney wisely decided that politics being politics, there is no way of really telling the truth. It invariably gets spun one way or the other.

IOW, what is the truth here? God knows really. Sometimes I think that the only criteria to use in judging anything is whether any good will come of it. How you get to the good is beside the point.

We are told there are no documents for anything. I think a search warrant would probably be helpful. Mulroney's evasiveness does not warrant any trust at all in the matter. There is no evidence that Mulroney was hired for international work and no evidence he did any international lobbying. At the moment, it seems like a backstory. The fact that he declared all the cash as income and destroyed all so-called expense records sounds like a desperate measure. I think further testimony about who he met and when he met them would help back up his story.

It debatable whether his activities were legal. I think that is what an inquiry should look into. However, the Tories are patting themselves on the back about a job well done in clearing Mulroney and the old PC party from any of the stink of their involvement with Shreiber. I'd love to hear under oath from the numerous aides that have worked for Mulroney. There are also several former cabinet ministers who could shed some light on the lobbying Mulroney did while in office for Shreiber.

There are numerous questions left after this and it is telling that Mulroney no longer wants an inquiry.

Edited December 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

Question capricorn, were you a PC supporter or a Alliance supporter before Harper??

Neither.

My family traditionally supported the Liberals. Prior to the 2004 elections, I had always voted Liberal. It came to a point that I could no longer stomach their corruption and arrogance. I felt strongly that a change in government was needed. So in 2004 and 2006 I voted Conservative. I also joined the party, worked on election campaigns and make donations. Perhaps this is why I have become so partisan in my political views.

I used to be proud of the Liberal party but I feel let down. Now I think they can’t even act as a responsible opposition party. In fact, it pains me to say that the Bloc was more effective in the opposition’s role than the Liberals. They’re doing Canadians a huge disservice because we need a strong and effective opposition to keep the government, majority or minority, in check.

As for the NDP and fringe parties, I simply tolerate them. IMO they reflect our democracy which invites different points of view.

Thanks for the question topaz. It merited more than a one liner.

[capricorn]

You think that principle has no place in government?

What is so principled about throwing taxpayers' money at something that has already been decided and would probably result in a second failure.

As a caring Canadian, would you not prefer that the millions saved from a frivolous legal action be spent on valid social programs?

Trying to recover the money paid to Mulroney, which by the way was an out of court settlement authorized by Jean Chretien, is nothing but an attempt to tarnish the Conservative brand. The smokescreen isn't working.

[Carinthia]

What is so principled about throwing taxpayers' money at something that has already been decided and would probably result in a second failure.

As a caring Canadian, would you not prefer that the millions saved from a frivolous legal action be spent on valid social programs?

Trying to recover the money paid to Mulroney, which by the way was an out of court settlement authorized by Jean Chretien, is nothing but an attempt to tarnish the Conservative brand. The smokescreen isn't working.

It's necessary to conduct a public inquiry because the first one was obviously skimmed over. The RCMP didn't even interview Schreiber at that time. It's not just about Mulroney, its about the RCMP and perhaps other politicians who may have inside knowledge or assisted in some way. It is irrelevant when this took place. It is on the public stage now. New events have come to light and I want answers and I don't care how much money it takes. What kind of example do we set, and how do we maintain trust in our leaders if we keep alowing them to sweep corruption under the rug?

To me, all the Conservative loyalists here who think this investigation should be tossed aside, are only afraid that the fall out will have an impact on the Conservatives winning the next election. That's just saying that you don't care how dishonest an MP is just so long as your party of choice stays in power. Playing the "cost of it card" is just an excuse to gag everybody because it makes you uncomfortable and nervous.

How do you know the so called smoke screen isn't working?

Edited December 15, 2007 by Carinthia

[capricorn]

It's necessary to conduct a public inquiry because the first one was obviously skimmed over.

What "first" public inquiry are you referring to?

The RCMP didn't even interview Schreiber at that time.

Yes they did.

RCMP Sgt. Sylvie Tremblay said last week the force "conducted a thorough investigation which included numerous interviews with Mr. Schreiber and his counsel between 2000 and 2006."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...d8-25f6f1c473c5

It's not just about Mulroney, its about the RCMP and perhaps other politicians who may have inside knowledge or assisted in some way. It is irrelevant when this took place. It is on the public stage now. New events have come to light and I want answers and I don't care how much money it takes.

I want to know why Chretien was so quick to give Mulroney 2.1 million dollars in an out of court settlement. Some Liberals would prefer not to know. As for money, what the heck, the Canadian treasury is a bottomless pit.

What kind of example do we set, and how do we maintain trust in our leaders if we keep alowing them to sweep corruption under the rug?

You were voting Liberal all the years that Liberal corruption was being swept under the carpet. What kind of example were you setting for other Canadians.

To me, all the Conservative loyalists here who think this investigation should be tossed aside, are only afraid that the fall out will have an impact on the Conservatives winning the next election.

Some Conservative supporters do want further investigation but not for the same reasons as Liberals. As far as the election, with this witch hunt the Liberals are providing plenty of ammunition for a Conservative majority.

That's just saying that you don't care how dishonest an MP is just so long as your party of choice stays in power.

Last December, following your leader's crowning victory he declared: "We must get back to power as soon as possible." Who did you say is power hungry?

How do you know the so called smoke screen isn't working?

Because I and others see right through it.

[August1991]

We are told there are no documents for anything. I think a search warrant would probably be helpful.

It would become a political witchhunt. What's the point?

When the RCMP lays charges, it must consult with the Crown Prosecutor and decide that there are grounds to convict. Should the RCMP open an investigation? [i like the US system of a Grand Jury becauase it resolves many of these questions when they are political.]

Harper has chosen to appoint an academic to determine the frame of an investigation. We are not laying charges. We are not even deciding to open an investigation. We are deciding the dimensions of an investigation. Presumably, some future PM will ask someone to decide whether we should set the dimensions of an investigation. How many steps removed can one be? It's like the stock market, a beauty contest or statistical moments. There's the most beautiful woman, who the judges believe is the most beautiful woman and then the opinion of the person who appoints the judges. And so on.

To me, all the Conservative loyalists here who think this investigation should be tossed aside, are only afraid that the fall out will have an impact on the Conservatives winning the next election.

Harper is completely unconnected to this. If anything, it would to his advantage if wrongdoing were uncovered. One reason Harper is PM is because he wants to clean up the way Ottawa works.

If they think clearly about this, the last thing the Liberals want is an election that turns on corruption or money in envelopes.

----

I happen to admire Brian Mulroney. I think he did alot of good for Canada. Does this matter? Not really. If Brian Mulroney were photographed holding up a dépanneur, then I suppose he should be charged. But that`s not the case here. An investigation would be a fishing expedition/witchhunt. Many would want a similar investigation of Chretien.

To what end all this?

I know that Andrew Coyne is hot to trot but Coyne doesn't live in the real world of real people and real decisions. For example, the government recently had to deal with bureaucracy and start a reactor to have isotopes for ill people around the world. Between an investigation of ex-PMs who soon will be dead and medical supplies for dying people, I think our politicians should get their priorities straight.

I would only hold an enquiry if the result would improve the operation of government. If the purpose is to settle old scores, I'd drop it.

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[Michael Bluth]

In my opinion if an investigative reporter, or anyone at the publicly owned television station thought that they knew a pertinent question that government should be questioned about it is their duty as a civil servant and as a patriotic Canadian to see that question is asked.

The media should be separate and distinct from the Government.

There should not be civil servants asking questions of the Government in the guise of media.

The role of civil servants is to provide services to the public and implement the policies formulated by the democratically elected Government.

The media should be independent of the Government and objective. Objectivity is not always obtained, but as long as the media isn't receiving tax money than I can vote as a consumer and refuse to watch them.