Mulroney's testimony in Parliament

[Carinthia]

What "first" public inquiry are you referring to?

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

I want to know why Chretien was so quick to give Mulroney 2.2 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.

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.

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.

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?

Because I and others see right through it.

Sure, get picky about wording. You know exactly what investigation I'm talking about. The one where the result of it was that Mulroney ended up with 2.2 mil.

Schreiber testified the RCMP did not interview him and the goings on with the RCMP of late leads me to think he is telling the truth. I'm sure there are records of those interviews that I hope will come out if in fact they exist.

The fact the Chretien ordered the payment of the 2.2 mil is reason to douse a new investigation? This Liberal prefers to know!

I didn't say anybody was power hungry.

Agreed on your point that corruption has ocurred with the Liberals too. Having said that, it would appear to me that my call for an investigation comes from my capacity for objectivity. As you wish to squelch an investigation prompts me to beg the question...where's yours?

As for the comments here regarding the sentiment that we should all just forget about it as it happened so long ago is ludicrous. If I had embezzled money as an employee of a bank 15 years ago, do you think the bank would say, "oh, it happened so long ago, let's all just forget about it as she's moved on with her life now". There may be a statute on that one, but if there isn't, they would surely nail my butt to the wall.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Carinthia

[August1991]

Sure, get picky about wording. You know exactly what investigation I'm talking about. The one where the result of it was that Mulroney ended up with 2.2 mil.

Mulroney didn't get the money. He gave it to the lawyers he hired to defend himself against the government lawyers the Liberals hired using taxpayer money.

Carinthia, I don't know if you have ever faced a government investigation. It's a daunting experience. Unless you have lived through it, you don't really understand what the State is.

As for the comments here regarding the sentiment that we should all just forget about it as it happened so long ago is ludicrous. If I had embezzled money as an employee of a bank 15 years ago, do you think the bank would say, "oh, it happened so long ago, let's all just forget about it as she's moved on with her life now". There may be a statute on that one, but if there isn't, they would surely nail my butt to the wall.

Look, if Walmart wants to sue an employee for a theft that ocurred 15 years ago to recuperate money, I say fine. Heck, if Walmart gets the police involved because it's a criminal matter, I have no problem.

But if a former PM is involved, Canada's political stage will be occupied for the next several months with questions of money, contracts, signatures, expense accounts.

In the life of a country, do we want to take up so much time of several million people in such a manner? The democratic political life of a country is like a bureaucratic meeting. (Ever been to one? They're awful. Life is too short.)

Welcome to Politics 101. Let's pick issues that matter to put before the public.

Let me put this in crass terms. If you were an honest PM, would you want to direct public attention to isotopes and saving people's lives or direct it to figuring out who paid what money when 10 years ago?

If Stephen Harper is a partisan politician, he'll open up an investigation and for the next six months, the Canadian political stage will be occupied by Andrew Coyne-type questions. If Harper is a decent human being, he'll drop this and take an interest in isotopes, free trade and reforming our tax system.

The political stage has only so much space.

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[capricorn]

Sure, get picky about wording. You know exactly what investigation I'm talking about. The one where the result of it was that Mulroney ended up with 2.2 mil.

The distinction is important. There was the airbus inquiry and there was the lawsuit by Mulroney. I didn't know which you were referring to because you used the word inquiry not lawsuit.

Schreiber testified the RCMP did not interview him and the goings on with the RCMP of late leads me to think he is telling the truth.

I'm not surprised. Good to know you take the word of a man fighting extradition to face charges of bribery, fraud and tax evasion over the word of an RCMP spokesperson merely confirming he was interviewed several times during an investigation.

The fact the Chretien ordered the payment of the 2.2 mil is reason to douse a new investigation? This Liberal prefers to know!

I suppose you're aware that Chretien himself said an inquiry is not necessary. He said it is a matter for police authorities to handle. It appears the Liberals are divided over this question.

Agreed on your point that corruption has ocurred with the Liberals too.

Liberal corruption was proved. No such corruption was proved against the defunct Progressive Conservative party or the present Conservative Party of Canada.

Having said that, it would appear to me that my call for an investigation comes from my capacity for objectivity. As you wish to squelch an investigation prompts me to beg the question...where's yours?

Objectivity has nothing to do with it. You're simply following the Liberal mantra. That's the Liberal way.

As for the comments here regarding the sentiment that we should all just forget about it as it happened so long ago is ludicrous.

I respect all opinions of forum members here and find them interesting.

[jdobbin]

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.

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 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.

I think there are quite a lot of ways this could improve the government. The fact that Harper wanted to dismiss the whole thing doesn't really sit well. It certainly doesn't look he is trying to clean up Ottawa.

As far your Grand Jury assessment, it is generally thought to be an easy thing to get an indictment in such a set up. Many say that the U.S. version is unconstitutional. I'm curious if it would be able to take place in Canada and not get struck down by the Charter.

The defendant in the Grand Jury cannot have a lawyer present and cannot call witnesses. You like this?

Many U.S. states are now opting for the Canadian system of a preliminary trial.

The right wing is far too satisfied that everything that needs to be known from Mulroney and Shreiber on this has been answered.

Edited December 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[August1991]

I think there are quite a lot of ways this could improve the government. The fact that Harper wanted to dismiss the whole thing doesn't really sit well. It certainly doesn't look he is trying to clean up Ottawa.

Does Harper want to dismiss this? That's not my impression. He intervened when his name was involved. He also seems to want to protect the institution of the PMO.

But Dobbin, would a full scale investigation into Schreiber/Mulroney/Airbus accomplish anything? If you had control of the public agenda of all Canadians for the next six months, would you choose this issue to put on the stage? Don't you think isotopes, global warming, tax reform, free trade, interprovincial trade matter more? How long would Canadians care about Mulroney's cash envelopes?

Unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, or there is a way to improve how government operates, I'd drop it if I were an honest PM who cared about the country. Other issues are more important. Such is politics.

---

BTW, I think Dion agrees with me. You'll notice that he has been remarkably silent for the past few weeks. I think Dion is right. As the Americans say, there are bigger fish to fry.

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Does Harper want to dismiss this? That's not my impression. He intervened when his name was involved. He also seems to want to protect the institution of the PMO.

But Dobbin, would a full scale investigation into Schreiber/Mulroney/Airbus accomplish anything? If you had control of the public agenda of all Canadians for the next six months, would you choose this issue to put on the stage? Don't you think isotopes, global warming, tax reform, free trade, interprovincial trade matter more? How long would Canadians care about Mulroney's cash envelopes?

Unless there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, or there is a way to improve how government operates, I'd drop it if I were an honest PM who cared about the country. Other issues are more important. Such is politics.

His MPs come in with prepared statements prior to Mulroney speaking saying that the matter is cleared? Seems to me that is dismissing things from the onset.

Nothing is preventing Harper from governing now. Why should an investigation of Shrieber and Mulroney's relationship tear the country apart. There are so many questions left unanswered. Was Mulroney's leadership of the party bought by paying Quebec delegates to Winnipeg? Was Mulroney lobbying for the armoured car while PM? What happened to the Airbus commissions? Was foreign money being used to support Conservative governments across Canada?

Perhaps an investigation will be able to reveal some of those answers.

[Carinthia]

Cap...what Mulroney "had" to use the 2.2 mil for means nothing to me. If he hadn't involved himself in shady dealings with shady people, he wouldn't have had to have lawyers in the first place. Poor man, who BTW tried to sell off antiques from 24 Sussex Drive that was the property of the people of Canada!

There is absolutely no reason what so ever why isotopes and all other important issues cannot be carried on as "business as usual" whilst this important to Canadian's issue, is resolved. I am not so naive as to think that the Government's business would have to cease while an investigation of Mulroney goes forth.

Let's not forget that Mulroney himelf called for this inquiry, that he now wishes would go away. As a past Prime Minister, I am quite sure he has the intestinal fortitude to withstand the scrutiny of the state. He's played the game for a very long time.

[August1991]

There is absolutely no reason what so ever why isotopes and all other important issues cannot be carried on as "business as usual" whilst this important to Canadian's issue, is resolved. I am not so naive as to think that the Government's business would have to cease while an investigation of Mulroney goes forth.

You have clearly never seen a political scandal. Ever hear of Watergate or Teapot Dome? I suggest you read or see Wilde's "An Ideal Husband".

Cap...what Mulroney "had" to use the 2.2 mil for means nothing to me. If he hadn't involved himself in shady dealings with shady people, he wouldn't have had to have lawyers in the first place. Poor man, who BTW tried to sell off antiques from 24 Sussex Drive that was the property of the people of Canada!

Fergawdsakes, Mulroney bought the furniture to furnish 24 Sussex (because Mila didn't like government-issue). They weren't antiques. They were his furniture. When Mulroney left 24 Sussex, he wanted to sell them to the government but then decided that it wasn't worth the hassle.

----

Let me repeat, when the Liberals give this sobre second thought, they'll realize that pursuing this makes no sense. It is not in their interest. The last thing the federal Liberals want now is six months of political debate preoccupied with questions of envelopes of cash payments to politicians. Harper and Layton would be the big winners if this were to happen. You'll notice that Dion has been silent, with good reason.

The Conservatives have dealt with their demons. The Liberals have not.

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives have dealt with their demons. The Liberals have not.

Afraid that isn't so. The idea that foreign sources may have helped Mulroney get to where he is right now indicates there are demons yet to be dealt with.

[Michael Bluth]

You have clearly never seen a political scandal. Ever hear of Watergate or Teapot Dome? I suggest you read or see Wilde's "An Ideal Husband".

Fergawdsakes, Mulroney bought the furniture to furnish 24 Sussex (because Mila didn't like government-issue). They weren't antiques. They were his furniture. When Mulroney left 24 Sussex, he wanted to sell them to the government but then decided that it wasn't worth the hassle.

----

Let me repeat, when the Liberals give this sobre second thought, they'll realize that pursuing this makes no sense. It is not in their interest. The last thing the federal Liberals want now is six months of political debate preoccupied with questions of envelopes of cash payments to politicians. Harper and Layton would be the big winners if this were to happen. You'll notice that Dion has been silent, with good reason.

The Conservatives have dealt with their demons. The Liberals have not.

Look how little the Liberals accomplished during Adscam. Partly due to Paulie's dithering, but due in large part to the energy expended on Gomery.

Yes, the Conservatives have dealt with their demons. The Liberals clearly have not. The Liberals are acting like a funhouse mirror version of the Republicans. The countries self-believed governing party you were sent into exile for a big, nasty scandal. (Republicans - Watergate, Liberals - Adscam). So at the next opportunity they trump up charges to investigate the other guy. (Republicans - let's drag the country through months and months of hearings and impeachment proceedings because Bill Clinton got a hummer from an intern. Liberals - are starting down the path to the dark side, but I guess they'll pull back from the abyss.)

The Republicans 'won' the White House in 2000 in a roundabout way thanks to the relentless investigations of Bill Clinton. Because of these investigations Al Gore ran away from Clinton's legacy. Universally seen as poor strategy, and the cause of Gore's 'loss' in 2000.

Unfortunately for the Liberals Stephen Harper is a lot shrewder than Al Gore.

[Carinthia]

Mulroney tried to sell his furniture to the National Capital Commission when he left Sussex. It was reported at the time that it appeared that some of that furniture may have been antiquities that belonged to Sussex Drive. Nobody will ever know for sure now, but I believe Schreiber knew what he was talking about on that score.

[margrace]

Mulroney gives me the creeps when I see him on my screen, that horrible smile ek.

[Keepitsimple]

There's an elephant in the room that no one talks about.....and that is why Stevie Cameron was on such a vendetta, why she was undercover for the RCMP, and why the CBC/Fifth Estate continued to keep the story alive. Many of the posters on this site know very well how vindictive Chretien and his PMO could be. Shawinigate and the well-documented Chretien/PMO/RCMP vendetta against Francois Beaudoin is a prime example of the Liberal mentality of the day. A full inquiry may very well begin to establish that Chetien or his PMO instructed the RCMP to "dig up as much dirt as possible on Mulroney" and for the CBC to give it full play. That's exactly the type of thing that one would expect of that PMO - back then - we saw their relentless pursuit of poor Mr. Beaudoin. The committee hearings, so far, have uncovered how little was actually known about the workings of Airbus commissions - and it all came pretty well from one source - Stevie Cameron and her ally - the CBC - who for heavens sake, we all know was and to a large degree, still is, a Liberal bastion. Mulroney may be a bit of an Irish rogue but the incessant negativity/criminality hammered home by the CBC and the Fifth Estate over the past 15 years has poisoned any impartial view of these hearings for many of the Mulroney-haters.

[trex]

There's an elephant in the room that no one talks about.....and that is why Stevie Cameron was on such a vendetta, why she was undercover for the RCMP, and why the CBC/Fifth Estate continued to keep the story alive. Many of the posters on this site know very well how vindictive Chretien and his PMO could be. Shawinigate and the well-documented Chretien/PMO/RCMP vendetta against Francois Beaudoin is a prime example of the Liberal mentality of the day. A full inquiry may very well begin to establish that Chetien or his PMO instructed the RCMP to "dig up as much dirt as possible on Mulroney" and for the CBC to give it full play. That's exactly the type of thing that one would expect of that PMO - back then - we saw their relentless pursuit of poor Mr. Beaudoin. The committee hearings, so far, have uncovered how little was actually known about the workings of Airbus commissions - and it all came pretty well from one source - Stevie Cameron and her ally - the CBC - who for heavens sake, we all know was and to a large degree, still is, a Liberal bastion. Mulroney may be a bit of an Irish rogue but the incessant negativity/criminality hammered home by the CBC and the Fifth Estate over the past 15 years has poisoned any impartial view of these hearings for many of the Mulroney-haters.

What horse-hockey. Do you have any evidence to back these outlandish claims, or is this just sheer fantasy?

[Michael Bluth]

What horse-hockey. Do you have any evidence to back these outlandish claims, or is this just sheer fantasy?

Well trex, since the question of Stevie Cameron's vendetta is an outlandish claim in your world I will point out that her objectivity on this story has been called into question numerous times.

Perhaps most publicly, and thoroughly, by former University of Ottawa law school professor William Kaplan in his book, A Secret Trial: Brian Mulroney, Stevie Cameron, and the Public Trust. If you are actually interested in this evidence you can go to Kaplan's Web site. link

There's an elephant in the room that no one talks about.....and that is why Stevie Cameron was on such a vendetta, why she was undercover for the RCMP, and why the CBC/Fifth Estate continued to keep the story alive.

[jdobbin]

So what does Mulroney's former deputy think?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Brian Mulroney's former deputy says his ex-boss's testimony about his relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber is hard to believe, in part because he took so long to speak out.

Erik Nielsen, the tough-minded former Yukon MP who was Mr. Mulroney's deputy prime minister for two years in the 1980s, also said yesterday that the public has already concluded that Mr. Mulroney used his influence to back Mr. Schreiber's projects.

Asked how Canadians felt about the testimony, he said: "I think there was a phrase that attached to Brian years ago where he was known as Lyin' Brian, and for my own part, I believe that they're both in the same boat - Schreiber and Mulroney."

Asked if he bought Mr. Mulroney's testimony, Mr. Nielsen said "no" before chuckling and adding. "I know Brian."

Mr. Mulroney told a parliamentary committee this week that he accepted $225,000 in $1,000 bills from Mr. Schreiber in three separate payments in 1993 and 1994.

He said he earned the money acting as a consultant in pitching light-armoured trucks to international heads of state. Mr. Schreiber has said the amounts totalled $300,000.

Mr. Nielsen, who watched the proceedings on television, said the former prime minister's delay in telling Canadians about the payments has made it difficult to believe him.

"The answer to that question is another question that could be added to [Liberal MP Ken] Dryden's, 'why did you wait so long? Why?' You know, it's not the reaction of a person who was clear of everything."

Mr. Nielsen said his impression of Mr. Mulroney's performance was that it raised more questions than it answered. He added that Mr. Mulroney was able to change the flow of the questioning towards Mr. Schreiber.

Neilson and other cabinet ministers are having difficulty understanding the cash in envelopes with no contracts, no expense sheets and no bank records.

[Keepitsimple]

So what does Mulroney's former deputy think?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Neilson and other cabinet ministers are having difficulty understanding the cash in envelopes with no contracts, no expense sheets and no bank records.

Regardless of my other posts - I too have a problem with the cash.......it's stupid and I can't see a reason for it. I've called him a rogue because I do think he's a bit of a slippery character. But here's what's bugged me. His buddies Frank Moores and Gerry Oulette set up GCI - Global Consulting International - a perfectly legal lobbying firm. We know that GCI collected some commissions from Airbus - millions - I'd guess 5 or 6 million - and legally so. Allegations have been made that somehow, Mulroney would get some of that after he left office. If that was true, I'd hazard a guess that it would be well over a million. But my real point is - if all that is true - and that's what all his detractors are saying - then why would he be taking relative pittances in envelopes from Schreiber. He would more correctly be getting the money in envelopes from GCI and nobody would be the wiser. That's why I don't think he got anything out of GCI/Airbus....and whatever he did for the $225,000 Schreiber is completely separate - shady, but separate. He paid tax 6 years later - shady, but it's paid. His guilt as far as I'm concerned is that as a PM or former PM, one must never be perceived as doing something shady or crooked.

[jdobbin]

Regardless of my other posts - I too have a problem with the cash.......it's stupid and I can't see a reason for it. I've called him a rogue because I do think he's a bit of a slippery character. But here's what's bugged me. His buddies Frank Moores and Gerry Oulette set up GCI - Global Consulting International - a perfectly legal lobbying firm. We know that GCI collected some commissions from Airbus - millions - I'd guess 5 or 6 million - and legally so. Allegations have been made that somehow, Mulroney would get some of that after he left office. If that was true, I'd hazard a guess that it would be well over a million. But my real point is - if all that is true - and that's what all his detractors are saying - then why would he be taking relative pittances in envelopes from Schreiber. He would more correctly be getting the money in envelopes from GCI and nobody would be the wiser. That's why I don't think he got anything out of GCI/Airbus....and whatever he did for the $225,000 Schreiber is completely separate - shady, but separate. He paid tax 6 years later - shady, but it's paid. His guilt as far as I'm concerned is that as a PM or former PM, one must never be perceived as doing something shady or crooked.

Some forensic accountants are saying that they would numerous questions for Mulroney on the money. I don't know that we will get a straight answer unless we let actual lawyers and accountants look at all this.

There is some question of whether Mulroney paid GST on the income. That alone could be a crime. Not to mention Quebec taxes.

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/stor...323&k=94033

Did Brian Mulroney remit 7% GST on the $300,000 fees in cash he got a few years ago from arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber?

And how about the 7.95% in Quebec sales taxes?

Mulroney has admitted taking three $100,000 cash payments and Schreiber said it was fees. GST on $300,000 would have totalled $21,000 (at 7%) and if the Quebec sales tax applied, the total due was $44,850.

Or did Mulroney, who admitted to being late in declaring the money as income, fail to pay his beloved GST or Quebec's portion?

Mulroney brought in the GST in January, 1991. The GST rules are that taxes are charged the customer (in this case, Schreiber) and are collected and remitted by the seller (Mulroney). And any kind of fees-- consulting, lobbying, public relations or legal--are taxable.

The Quebec sales tax may not apply, so Parliamentarians should ask Mulroney when he testifies today where he was resident when he took the payment. This is important be-cause Quebec also collects 7.95% sales taxes on fees but Ontario does not.

[capricorn]

So what does Mulroney's former deputy think?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Neilson and other cabinet ministers are having difficulty understanding the cash in envelopes with no contracts, no expense sheets and no bank records.

Neilson has a personal axe to grind. As Deputy Prime Minister, he mishandled the Sinclair Stevens conflict of interest scandal and Mulroney removed him from cabinet. Criticizing Mulroney is one way he can get back at him.

His habit of stonewalling questions had the effect of prolonging the shelf life of political scandals in Parliament, and thus hurt the government's reputation. This became most apparent during the Sinclair Stevens conflict-of-interest scandal, in which Mulroney was out of Parliament for two weeks while the opposition barraged Nielsen with questions. Shortly after Mulroney returned, Nielsen and Sinclair were both forced to resign from cabinet in June 1986.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Nielsen

In reading the media stories on Mulroney's performance, it's apparent the evaluations by journalists are all over the map.

Where did you see criticism of Mulroney's testimony from cabinet ministers? I can't find any reporting anywhere.

[runningdog]

Neilson and other cabinet ministers are having difficulty understanding the cash in envelopes with no contracts, no expense sheets and no bank records

...as any SANE person would have difficulty.

[August1991]

There is some question of whether Mulroney paid GST on the income. That alone could be a crime. Not to mention Quebec taxes.

GST and PST don't apply for international services. (Quebec's sales tax is harmonized on the GST.)

Presumably, when Mulroney paid the federal income tax he also paid Quebec income tax.

Edited December 15, 2007 by August1991

[capricorn]

It's also an ideal opportunity to settle old scores. Politics at its best.

[jdobbin]

Neilson has a personal axe to grind. As Deputy Prime Minister, he mishandled the Sinclair Stevens conflict of interest scandal and Mulroney removed him from cabinet. Criticizing Mulroney is one way he can get back at him.

In reading the media stories on Mulroney's performance, it's apparent the evaluations by journalists are all over the map.

Where did you see criticism of Mulroney's testimony from cabinet ministers? I can't find any reporting anywhere.

I suppose all what Neilson says is a vendetta.

As far as other cabinet ministers of the day are saying:

Other former cabinet ministers who served under Mr. Mulroney came to the former prime minister's defence. But even they said Mr. Mulroney should have revealed the payments before he did.

"When you've got something unpleasant you have to 'fess up to, it's always best to do as quick as you can and get it over with," said John Crosbie, a former minister of justice.

Mr. Crosbie added, however, that the general voting public doesn't believe that Mr. Mulroney did anything improper and that his place in history would not be negatively affected.

Pat Carney, a senior member of Mr. Mulroney's cabinet who recently announced her intention to retire from the Senate, offered some belated advice to the former PM.

"My take on it is that for 11 or 12 years, I ran a consulting company, and I learned how to do it," she said on a television panel. "Maybe I should give Mr. Mulroney some lessons, because you do not take cash in envelopes in hotel rooms.

"You have a contract. The contract spells out what you're going to do, who is going to do it, what you're going to be paid, when you deliver it. It's a business document. He apparently was doing this as a consulting job, and I just want to say, 'Brian, that's not the way to do it. You're going to get yourself into trouble.' It's not, probably, illegal."

Former Tory house leader Harvie Andre said that, although in hindsight Mr. Mulroney might have come clean sooner, he probably concluded that the issue would blow over as many such difficulties have for other politicians.

That's quite a few ministers who are considered loyal to Mulroney who are saying what he did was dumb. Most back off on saying he did something illegal. I think I would leave that up to forensic accountants, lawyers and Revenue Canada. The issue of the GST seems to have caught Mulroney flatfooted in testimony. That, by itself, is illegal.

Edited December 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

GST and PST don't apply for international services. (Quebec's sales tax is harmonized on the GST.)

Presumably, when Mulroney paid the federal income tax he also paid Quebec income tax.

You have to declare the service first and then apply for reimbursement by showing an invoice.

Mulroney was saying he had no paperwork. Where was the invoice?

Edited December 15, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

It's also an ideal opportunity to settle old scores. Politics at its best.

No one forced Mulroney to take the money in cash with no paperwork. His only hope is to attack the credibility of Shreiber and pray that forensic accountants don't go through both their records page by page.

Edited December 15, 2007 by jdobbin