"Proceed in this manner"
The Chair: Good morning, gentlemen. Mr. Mulroney, I expect that you will recall the rules, procedures, and traditions of the House of Commons. In particular, you will recall the general expectation that witnesses appearing before the committees testify in a truthful and complete manner. We could proceed on this understanding; or alternatively, would you feel more comfortable being formally sworn in by the clerk of the committee? Right Honourable Brian Mulroney (P.C., As an Individual): Proceed in this manner. The Chair: Thank you.The closer you look at this Mulroney business, the crazier his story seems. I've taken a first stab at unwrapping it. But several loose ends remain.... For instance:
Mulroney says that, contrary to Schreiber's testimony, the two men never discussed doing business together until their August 1993 meeting at a hotel near Mirabel airport, where Schreiber, after a few preliminary pleasantries about suing the government of Canada, suddenly produced $75,000 in cash and offered him employment.
The money, as we now know, came from the Britan account Schreiber maintained in a Swiss bank, stocked the previous month with $500,000 out of the millions in secret commissions he received, most of it from the sale of Airbus planes to Air Canada. Bank records show that Schreiber withdrew $100,000 on July 27.
If we believe the former prime minister, then, Schreiber deposited the money into the Britan account, withdrew the cash, and brought it all the way across the Atlantic with him (are you allowed to bring that much cash into Canada?), just on the off chance that Mulroney might be willing to work for him -- that is, before they had ever discussed it. It's possible. But is it probable?
Anyway. Mulroney's deputy prime minister is among those who are finding it hard to suppress their doubts about his testimony. Which raises this question: Why wasn't Mulroney sworn in? The chairman had the option of requiring him to do so, and Mulroney had the option of agreeing to, but neither chose to exercise their respective options. Inside the Queensway's incomparable Lady K walks us through the implications. Upshot: Mulroney faces much less severe penalties if he's found to have lied to the committee than Schreiber would.
12/18/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
14 Comments
Andrew:
This is shoddy reporting and you know it.
- Erik Nielson has written a book condemning Brian Mulroney. He's never liked him and never will.
- After himself chairing the committee to recommend virtually every Mulroney appointment, he attacks Mulroney in his book for patronage.
- What Neilson forgets to mention is that before he left, he lobbied Mulroney for plum jobs in the Senate, DFAIT and the UN, finally accepting an appointment to the Transport Agency.
- Mulroney and a number of his cabinet ministers are on record as saying they can't stand Erik Nielson.
- Ergo, representing Nielson as some sort of honest broker or judge to determine the validity of Mulroney's testimony is entirely dishonest.
- The Globe was dishonest by failing to mention that Nielson has an axe to grind. I'd suggest you're not much better by failing to qualify these facts.
Brian,
I gather what you are really saying is that when someone is so blatantly partisan or has demonstrated a long history of being biased or going way over the top, one should discount their opinions, or simply ignore them completely.
Case in point.
I am dead dog tired of Mulroneygate. I suspect most voters are too. Please God, make it stop....
Derek,
Glad to see that you're back on your meds. I was getting worried for awhile there when you were drawing direct correlations between the CBC planting questions and the chalk river reactor. As someone else has already noted, the antenna on your tin-foil hat is in overdrive.
I'm not calling into question Erik Neilson's point of view or his rights to share them.
The disingenuous and sinister part is that the Globe and Mail portrayed Nielson as an honest broker former Mulroney cabinet minister but failed to mention that he's been a lifelong opponent with an axe to grind since he was fired from Cabinet in 1986.
Its public knowledge that Mulroney and Nielson hate each other. It would have been just as newsworthy if the Globe ran a story highlighting that Stevie Cameron figured Mulroney was lying.
Brian,
There is a comment section at the bottom of the G&M article that you find offensive. Go rant there if you haven't already. Spare us here.
The comment that made you fly off the handle this time: "Mulroney's deputy prime minister is among those who are finding it hard to suppress their doubts about his testimony."
WOW! More evidence of your and Anonymous' media conspiracy theories...keep at it. You're gaining credibility.
This is really shady reporting. Why not write for the INQUIRER OF STAR?
Lately all we get is negative reporting by you and the msn.
HOW ABOUT SOME TRUTH - IT WILL MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER!
Andrew,You are becoming more and more a Torstar reporter by the day.
... Keep up the good work, Andrew.
... Ignore the clowns who are more concerned about you, than Mulroney.
It makes me truly LOL to read these anonymous posts. When AC, more than any other commentator, raises legitimate detailed questions, and the best criticism people can come up with is either a) I'm tired of this story, nothing to see, move along or b) AC's a Liberal stooge! AC's a Liberal stooge! ... then you know he's hitting Tory partisans where it hurts.
Why is it sooooooo painfully difficult for people to be proud Tories, even proud of Mulroney's legislative accomplishments while PM, and also see that he's a pretty sleazy character who almost certainly has been up to illegal shennanigans. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Keep up the good work AC.
Looks like the blogging Tories and their internet trolling confederates are teeing up Andrew for a thorough swift-boating. Stay the course AC! My faith is constant in thee!
"If we believe the former prime minister, then, Schreiber deposited the money into the Britan account, withdrew the cash, and brought it all the way across the Atlantic with him (are you allowed to bring that much cash into Canada?) ..."
• If the German government is correct in its counts of forgery, bribery, tax evasion and whatever else against Schreiber
• and if the general consensus is that Schreiber is indeed as untrustworthy as he has been portrayed by all and sundry
• why would someone like AC now wonder whether Schreiber would be so scrupulous as to NOT bring that amount of money into Canada, be it legally or not?
And as far as the swearing in is concerned, my eagle eyes spied Schreiber's hand NOT on top of the Bible as is customary, but he grabbed the spine side of the book ...
I mean, since we're really picking at all the entrails, I thought I'd add mine - picking, not entrails. ;-)
The $300K was known about for several years now, even when the Liberals were in government. It is Irwin Cotler's signature on the deportation order. I think the previous Liberal government probably had it right, that Schreiber should be shipped to Germany without the need for further inquiry.
Mulroney has be appropriately publicly disgraced (again), and it will/still be impossible for him to rehabilitate himself.
It is unlikely a $50 million dollar public inquiry will be able to discern any deeper truth. We know Mulroney accepted money from Schreiber, and we know took the Canadian taxpayer for another $2 million to pay his mouthpieces. That is the essential truth that Canadians have to know.
Why throw good money after bad, and have Schreiber continue to make a farce of our judicial system and government?
Even though I would dearly love to see us get to the bottom of this mess I have to echo 'wheat's' sentiment - 50 mill to - maybe -find it out seems to be a bit too much to pay. I would much rather it be spent on fresher stuff - La grande mer auberge and the HRDC.
AC,
Your double standards are breathtaking.
Mulroney didn't swear in!!!!!!!!! Justice denied!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Mulroney, even though our mandate is to examine the settlement of your lawsuit, I want to ask you about a completely unrelated matter because it is in the political interest of the Liberal Party to inquire about wireless spectrum and how it relates to the current government.
AC: Coo, coo, coo.