Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

Riverwind · November 13, 2007

Mulroney's income tax file is presumably somewhere in a box in a secure warehouse of the Canada Revenue Agency. I'm going to assume that the Minister (Gordon O'Connor) has access to it.
Then again, David Anderson - minister of National Revenue from 1993-96 under Chretien - presumably also had access to it.

Actually, I would be shocked if any of those people had access to Mulroney's returns because that would violate the CRA privacy policies.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/agency/fairness/tbrbill-e.html

3. You have the right to privacy and confidentiality.
You can expect us to protect the confidentiality of the information that you provide. Your information will be used only for purposes allowed by law. Only those persons who are authorized by law and who require the information to administer programs and legislation have the right to access your personal and financial information.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Riverwind

capricorn · November 13, 2007

I don't think anything. I am referencing last week's Globe and Mail articles that said civil servants were preparing briefs on Airbus and Shreiber and that they were not being read. These civil servants felt compelled to back themselves up by saying their briefs were not being read.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...07?hub=Politics

That's fine. But there is a difference between refusing to read briefs and neglecting to read said briefs.

jdobbin · November 13, 2007

That's fine. But there is a difference between refusing to read briefs and neglecting to read said briefs.

Except for this quote here:

"A decision has been made to the effect that this note will not be distributed to the minister's office.''

jdobbin · November 13, 2007

Mulroney has now indicated he wants a full public inquiry. This is the second time he has asked for one. Harper should let him have it.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Brian Mulroney wants the government to bypass the step of an independent review of allegations he faces so that Prime Minister Stephen Harper can immediately call a full-blown public inquiry into the matter.
Mulroney told The Canadian Press through a spokesman that is the only way for the issue that has dogged him for years to be put to rest.

Harper announced Friday that he would appoint a neutral adviser to review allegations in an affidavit by Karlheinz Schreiber that include a claim that while Mulroney was still in office, the two struck a deal for the former prime minister to be paid $300,000 after he left public life.

Mulroney said he will meet with the adviser but he will come to that meeting with a message.

"I have come to the conclusion that in order to finally put this matter to rest and expose all the facts and the role played by all the people involved, from public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to police authorities, as well as journalists, the only solution is for the government to launch a full-fledged public commission of inquiry,'' he said in a statement.

old_bold&cold · November 13, 2007

I warned everyone that they would not like what an inquirey into Mulroney will again finally end up doing. This whole thing was designed to get the government to keep Schrieber from being extraditied, and it looks like it now may work, or it will come to a crashing end this week if extreadition goes ahead for this Friday, as scheduled.

This will give Mulroney a chance to redeem himself in the public eyes and that is not somethignhe could ever do anymore with an inquirey into this happening again. I rally do not think much political hay will be made by Dion in this for two reasons, first off he just does not have the ability to do this and secondly he can not make it so he has no choice but to call an election that all the Liberal party know they will get killed over.

But all this aside Harper will get the credit for finally having a public inquirey, and if as I said Muroney clears all this up, Harper will also get a boost from that, but if Muroney falls, he can say he still was the one who had this inquirey. When it was known about these money's long agao when the Liberal were in power and they did nothing about this back then. So it will get really interesting but for Harper, if he does give Mulroney his request of a public inquirey, which he most likely will, there is no down side to it for him.

capricorn · November 13, 2007

Except for this quote here:

Bureaucrats at justice were informed: "A decision has been made to the effect that this note will not be distributed to the minister's office.''

That decision may have been made by a senior bureaucrat and passed down to more junior bureaucrats. That quote does not shed light on who gave the order, senior staff or politician.

August1991 · November 13, 2007

Actually, I would be shocked if any of those people had access to Mulroney's returns because that would violate the CRA privacy policies.

If the Minister can't see the file, then who can? Only the Deputy Minister?

I think the real problem arises from the fact that Mulroney's income tax statement can't be used in a criminal bribery trial. OTOH, the issue now seems to be tax evasion. Specifically, did Mulroney voluntarily declare the $300,000 payments before or after he had knowledge of a possible investigation?

The G & M argues that Mulroney would have known about an investigation around December 1995. Hence, he could not have used the voluntary declaration programme after that date.

----

Depending on the timeframe, I think that it's fair to say that the Liberals knew about Mulroney's payments (and tax declarations) during the RCMP investigation and subsequent libel case. This evidence could not of course be used against Mulroney. This is not abnormal. CSIS, for example, has alot of information that cannot be presented in public or even less in a court of law. Politics is primarily a game of information.

But all this aside Harper will get the credit for finally having a public inquirey, and if as I said Muroney clears all this up, Harper will also get a boost from that, but if Muroney falls, he can say he still was the one who had this inquirey.

I tend to agree. Harper often seems to place himself where, regardless of the outcome, Harper wins. He did that with the Liberal leadership convention and the Quebec election - to give two examples.

In this case however, Harper would also be doing possibly the right thing.

Edited November 13, 2007 by August1991

trex · November 13, 2007

I was curious as to whether Murloney lied during his former ordeal with the airbus scandal. It only took a minute to find this out-

Mulroney testified under oath that he "never had any dealings" with Schreiber, knew him only "peripherally" and they had a cup of coffee "once or twice." According to the February 2006 CBC story : "In 1999, a spokesman for Mulroney denied any money was exchanged. But in 2003, Mulroney indirectly acknowledged he did receive money from Schreiber but as payment for his help in promoting Schreiber's pasta business." In his 2004 book A Secret Trial, former law professor William Kaplan describes Mulroney's testimony as evasive, incomplete and misleading --but concludes that it did not rise to the level of perjury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulrone...hreiber__affair

------

I did not look elsewhere for other sources to back up these claims. But if you put two and two together it does make sense... Yes I do recall that he denied having any dealings with Schreiber before, thats why I was surprised to hear him now admitting that he did accept $300K.

He seems to think that since he's paid his taxes, all should be well, but I tend to think not... If the above information is correct Mr. Mulroney may have at least committed perjury.

Edited November 13, 2007 by trex

jdobbin · November 13, 2007

Bureaucrats at justice were informed: "A decision has been made to the effect that this note will not be distributed to the minister's office.''
That decision may have been made by a senior bureaucrat and passed down to more junior bureaucrats. That quote does not shed light on who gave the order, senior staff or politician.

Somebody was blocking things. Probably why junior civil servants kept noting that they made these briefs so they would not be blamed later on.

Visionseeker · November 13, 2007

That's fine. But there is a difference between refusing to read briefs and neglecting to read said briefs.

Indeed.

One is called willful negligence while the other is simple, negligence. Seems to me like a classic case of avoiding the problem in the hopes that it goes away.

Riverwind · November 13, 2007

If the Minister can't see the file, then who can? Only the Deputy Minister?

Only people who need to see it to process it or to determine eligibility for a program. Fishing for dirt would not qualify.

Visionseeker · November 13, 2007

Somebody was blocking things. Probably why junior civil servants kept noting that they made these briefs so they would not be blamed later on.

Junior civil servants don't decide on their own to write briefs to avoid blame. Rather, senior civil servants order such briefs for that purpose.

It may be that the highest ranks of the CS are doing the shielding from the political class, or ranks just below are shielding from the higher ups, either way, we have a Justice Department that is preoccupied with fear.

Sounds like our neighbours to the south, doesn’t it?

August1991 · November 13, 2007

I did not look elsewhere for other sources to back up these claims. But if you put two and two together it does make sense... Yes I do recall that he denied having any dealings with Schreiber before, thats why I was surprised to hear him now admitting that he did accept $300K.
He seems to think that since he's paid his taxes, all should be well, but I tend to think not... If the above information is correct Mr. Mulroney may have at least committed perjury.

Trex, these recent allegations of the CBC/G&M are entirely new. Until last week, no one suspected that Mulroney received the payments in 1993/94 and hence that he would have committed perjury. It was also not known that Mulroney declared and paid tax on these payments after the taxation year. To do this, Mulroney used a special programme.

To date, we have not heard Mulroney's response to these recent allegations.

BTW, perjury is hard to prove.

Only people who need to see it to process it or to determine eligibility for a program. Fishing for dirt would not qualify.

In practice, it doesn't quite work as you imply. Files get pulled for all kinds of reasons. It's understood of course that the information may not be used for anything than information. In any case, the issue here seems to be tax evasion for which the file information would be germane.

----

As to the second question about Harper and Schreiber's letter: "What did Harper know and when did he know it?"

This seems strange. Schreiber claims that he sent his letter by private courier. It is hard to believe that the letter sat in the PMO or PCO for several months without anyone acknowledging it. Did Schreiber receive a response? What did the response say?

Correspondence is a serious matter in the PMO and this would not have gone unnoticed.

Edited November 13, 2007 by August1991

jdobbin · November 13, 2007

As to the second question about Harper and Schreiber's letter: "What did Harper know and when did he know it?"
This seems strange. Schreiber claims that he sent his letter by private courier. It is hard to believe that the letter sat in the PMO or PCO for several months without anyone acknowledging it. Did Schreiber receive a response? What did the response say?

Correspondence is a serious matter in the PMO and this would not have gone unnoticed.

Shreiber claims that someone signed for it and that he has the signature. I don't know if that is Harper or not. He might not be able to sign things for security reasons but that means that someone high up read the message and didn't brief the PM on it.

capricorn · November 13, 2007

Indeed.
One is called willful negligence while the other is simple, negligence. Seems to me like a classic case of avoiding the problem in the hopes that it goes away.

Splitting hairs? You bet. It is a fine point that is nevertheless important in the litigation of such cases. We'll leave that to the forthcoming probe of the Mulroney/Schreiber affair mounted by Harper. Or if Mulroney gets his way, the full public enquiry.

capricorn · November 13, 2007

It may be that the highest ranks of the CS are doing the shielding from the political class, or ranks just below are shielding from the higher ups, either way, we have a Justice Department that is preoccupied with fear.

In the vernacular, it's called protecting your ass.

Riverwind · November 13, 2007

As to the second question about Harper and Schreiber's letter: "What did Harper know and when did he know it?"

Assume the worst. The PMO got the letter, showed it to Harper and he decided that it was hearsay. He recognized that it was a politically sensitive issue and decided that his time would be better spent on more important issues. End of story.

I don't see what the big issue is here. There was no 'coverup' because the source of information (Schieber) was free to tell his tale to whoever would listen. So what if the PMO sat on the information?

jdobbin · November 13, 2007

Assume the worst. The PMO got the letter, showed it to Harper and he decided that it was hearsay. He recognized that it was a politically sensitive issue and decided that his time would be better spent on more important issues. End of story.
I don't see what the big issue is here. There was no 'coverup' because the source of information (Schieber) was free to tell his tale to whoever would listen. So what if the PMO sat on the information?

Perception. The Tories have already collapsed on Shreiber news. This is a story they will have a tough time managing because they can't control the direction of a potential inquiry.

A week is a lifetime in politics. I suppose they should count their lucky stars that they didn't get this affidavit in the middle of an election over the budget. All that good news could have gone up in a puff of smoke.

Riverwind · November 13, 2007

Perception. The Tories have already collapsed on Shreiber news.

IOW - you agree there is no substance to this issue. It is simply something that the opposition thinks it can use to score political points. I did not think much of Dion's 'poverty plan' but it at least addressed a relevant problem...

jdobbin · November 13, 2007

IOW - you agree there is no substance to this issue. It is simply something that the opposition thinks it can use to score political points. I did not think much of Dion's 'poverty plan' but it at least addressed a relevant problem...

I have no idea if there is substance to Shreiber's claim. However, unlike many Tory supporters, I believed there was a lot of unresolved questions regarding the $300,000 and when it was paid and when it was claimed.

I think the RCMP should have been informed because I believed that if Mulroney was paid $2 million and had kept the Shreiber payment a secret that it raised serious issues of why and how this could have happened.

Harper should have referred this to the RCMP so that he could put as much distance as he could from Shreiber's mailings. He could have at least say that he responded. Instead, He faces the charge that he had this information for several months and didn't do anything. Worse, he went on to say Friday that the affidavit was new information.

Riverwind · November 13, 2007

Harper should have referred this to the RCMP so that he could put as much distance as he could from Shreiber's mailings. He could have at least say that he responded. Instead, He faces the charge that he had this information for several months and didn't do anything. Worse, he went on to say Friday that the affidavit was new information.

So what? I don't see why you think this is a issue of substance even if you don't accept that it was reasonable and prudent to ignore unproven allegations from a jailbird fighting extradition. The information that went to the PMO was public information and the PMO was under no obligation to do anything with it.

capricorn · November 13, 2007

There seems to be a lot confusion about the letter that Harper may or may not have been aware of dated seven months ago. Here is quote from an article in the Globe released late Tuesday:

In March of this year, Mr. Schreiber, who is in a legal battle with Mr. Mulroney and fighting extradition to Germany, wrote to Mr. Harper and mentioned the allegation. He received no reply.

A spokesman for the Privy Council Office, Myriam Masabki, said on Sunday that the PCO decided that Mr. Schreiber's March letter did not require a reply "as the bulk of this … contained letters to Mr. Mulroney and the subject matter was part of a private lawsuit which was before the courts and did not involve the federal government."

Ms. Masabki said that PCO officials routinely handle correspondence on government issues and forward political matters to the Prime Minister's Office.

However, the 35 people in the PCO's executive correspondence services unit not only route letters for replies, they also route copies.

Under Mr. Harper's two Liberal predecessors, letters to the prime minister were routinely copied to the PMO by officials using a checklist that includes a box for "info copies" to be sent there about "personal and political" matters.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...112.wharper1112

If my interpretation of the facts as reported in this article are correct, then it is acknowledged that the PM was indeed unaware of the March letter from Schreiber. That would explain why Schreiber did not receive a reply.

capricorn · November 13, 2007

Sorry, that should read an article released late Monday. I'm getting ahead of myself. :lol:

jdobbin · November 13, 2007

So what? I don't see why you think this is a issue of substance even if you don't accept that it was reasonable and prudent to ignore unproven allegations from a jailbird fighting extradition. The information that went to the PMO was public information and the PMO was under no obligation to do anything with it.

I don't think it is acceptable to ignore allegations that touch on the PM's office. That's why I think it should have been referred.

Edited November 13, 2007 by jdobbin

Leafless · November 13, 2007

I have no idea if there is substance to Shreiber's claim. However, unlike many Tory supporters, I believed there was a lot of unresolved questions regarding the $300,000 and when it was paid and when it was claimed.
I think the RCMP should have been informed because I believed that if Mulroney was paid $2 million and had kept the Shreiber payment a secret that it raised serious issues of why and how this could have happened.

Harper should have referred this to the RCMP so that he could put as much distance as he could from Shreiber's mailings. He could have at least say that he responded. Instead, He faces the charge that he had this information for several months and didn't do anything. Worse, he went on to say Friday that the affidavit was new information.

Relax jdobbin!

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney wants the government to call a public inquiry into allegations he improperly accepted money from German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber while still in office.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11