It depends on what the meaning of the words "bank account" is
The 1996 Mulroney, for example, was greatly indignant at the suggestion that he had a Swiss bank account. Over and over he repeated:
I don't have a bank account in Switzerland. I don't have a bank account in any foreign country in the world. I never have.Well, that's what he said. What he meant, of course, was "I don't have a bank account in any foreign country in the world, except for a safety deposit box in New York, where I keep $75,000 in cash."...
The 1996 Mulroney was equally outraged that the RCMP, before approaching the Swiss authorities, had not first interviewed him. Had they done so, he said, he would have given them his full cooperation, in a way that would have put their concerns to rest. Over and over, he repeated: he would have answered all their questions, opened his books, given them everything they needed.
Would you like to examine my documents? Would you like to examine my bank accounts?At the time, Mulroney would have known, though his listeners did not, not only that he had been paid a large sum of cash by Karlheinz Schreiber, but that neither his bank accounts nor his tax returns showed it. By his own admission, he had never deposited the money in any account (or not the kind that keeps records -- see above), nor did he report the money on his taxes until 1999.I had to file my income tax returns like everybody else. He could have had my income tax returns.
Anything that you need from me, from bank accounts to ... to tax returns to whatever, I will give everything I have.
The letter of request was to gain access to Schreiber's Swiss bank accounts. The money Mulroney was paid was drawn from one of those accounts. Had the police accepted Mulroney's offer of "cooperation," they would have known nothing of this.
All this, on top of his well-known -- and spectacular -- evasions with regard to his relationship with Schreiber. "We would have a cup of coffee, I think, once or twice... I think I had one in the Queen Elizabeth hotel with him... I had never had any dealings with him."
What is perhaps less well known is this exchange, at the very end of the first day, in which Mulroney describes that "cup of coffee" at the Queen Elizabeth.
Q. But the.., so I... perhaps I misunderstood. When you talked about having coffee with Mr. Schreiber at the Queen Elizabeth, it was in the period subsequent to November nineteen ninety-five (1995)?Emphasis added. That was it. Not: And then he pulled out an envelope stuffed with $75,000 in cash and handed it to me. Not: This was in December 1993, the second of three such meetings in which Schreiber handed over envelopes full of cash to me. Not: But why am I talking about Lalonde? Schreiber hired me to represent the same project overseas.A. No. No, it was after I left office in nineteen ninety-three (1993), and that's when he told me, as I indicated to you, that, that he was dismayed that my Government had not allowed him to proceed with his desire to build this Thyssen Project. And that's when he told me that he had hired Marc Lalonde to represent him, because he figured that Mr. Lalonde could prevail upon Mr. Chrétien and the Government to have this done in the East end of Montreal. Which, by the way, had they been able to do it, I... I... I thought it was a good project, and so I wouldn't have been critical of anything.
He told me he hired Mr. Lalonde to do that, he told me he was contemplating legal action against my Government, that he had hired a prominent law firm in Ottawa, I think Ian Scott's law firm, very distinguished lawyer, to take action against the, the bureaucrats in my Government who, he alleged, had frustrated the fact that he was never able to get a deal through. This deal. That was the kind of conversation we had.
Q. M'hm.
A. He expressed the hope that Mr. Lalonde would be successful in persuading the new Liberal Government to agree to conditions that would enable him to proceed with the project. That was it.
Clintonian is hardly the word.
12/20/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
61 Comments
"Clintonian is hardly the word."
The proper adjective is "Clintonesque" not "Clintonian" as all of us "Clintonistas" know.
You're right Andrew, Clintonian is hardly the word. The difference being that Clinton was asked a direct question about specific circumstances and he lied.
On the other hand, Mulroney was being asked questions about his relationship with Schreiber relative to the governments allegations that he took 5 million in kickbacks for the sale of Airbus planes.
Mulroney told the truth. If Mulroney were Clinton, you'd be asking him not only if he had sexual relations with that woman, but to name all the people he's every had sexual relations with in and out of office, what particular acts were performed, when they were performed and how they were performed.
Yes Brian - AC wants Mulroney to go back in time and answer questions he wasn't asked. If you haven't noticed, his website is starting to look an awful lot like the Money, Truth and Spin site over at the CBC. Its also noteworthy that after hours of digging, Coyne can't find a single reference where Mulroney actually lied. Not a single one. As a result, he's stuck in the gutter with Harvey Cashore and prefers sharing with us his innuendos and half-truths.
AC,
This mission you're on is starting to seem personal. Enough. No one under 45 gives a rat's behind.
Coyne...time to move on, these spittle spraying rants are starting to look Cameronian...or should that be Cameronesque.
Merry Christmas to all.
I have to agree with the others who suggest that you give up the ghost on this one AC. You and Chantal Hebert are the only reasons I even bother watching the CBC because usually the two of you are good a focusing on what is really important. I have now read both of Kaplan's books, watched Mulroney testify and followed the story. This story just does not have legs. Please turn back to current events.
... Well Andrew, it must be so comforting to know that the above commentators are So concerned with how you spend your time... they must genuinely care about you.
On the contrary, keep this up. It's important that someone notes all the lies for posterity.
For those posting and reading AC's work who do not like what he's doing, consider it a primer for the lengthy public hearings - conducted under oath - that are likely to be announced in the New Year.
Reading the shut'er down comments of the first few posters made me chuckle as I thought of Rick Salutin's column today. He writes:
I have heard the drumbeat of calls to halt the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry before it starts. Think of Mike Duffy as CTV's little drummer boy, who receives inspiration from a higher source:
Don't, they told me,
(barupabumbum)
Don't hold that inquiry,
(barupabumbum)
There's nothing new, you see.
(barupabumbum)
Aided on air by Elf Ian Macdonald, Mulroney acolyte Bob Fife and Lloyd, who often begins a report with something like, Well, Craig, why are they still beating that dead horse?"
This made me think of more seasonal bonhommie at 24 Sussex as told by L. Ian MacDonald in a recent column:
There was a third luminary in the house, CTV news anchor Lloyd Robertson, who had taken over the front hall just by standing there with the network's Ottawa bureau chief, Bob Fife. Robertson has become Canada's Walter Cronkite, everyone's favourite uncle. There isn't a nicer person in our business.
Then a nice thing happened. Harper posed in front of the family Christmas tree with Robertson, Fife, Craig Oliver and the entire CTV bureau, including producers known as "the girls."
Which made me wonder. Where was the real bonhomme, and why wasn't he mentioned? Maybe dressed up as Santa or the drummer boy as Salutin suggests, or was he getting the inside scoop from the RCMP officer dressed as the pastry chef?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Mulroney admitted that he took money from Schreiber. That is the essential and only fact that most Canadians needed and wanted to know. Everything else is trivia. Why make it more complicated than it has to be?
Mulroney will never be able to look an ordinary Canadian in the eye again.
Why should the Canadian taxpayer have to pay Mulroney's spinners millions more (again) in legal fees for a public inquiry where they will try to obscure the importance of the singlular essential truth that Mulroney took money from Schreiber.
If Brian had received payment for the Airbus he wouldn't be living in Westmount - Park Ave or Park Lane perhaps.
The last anonymous comment is lame on the face of it, but how do we know he doesn't have a residence on Park Ave? He had a safety deposit box down there that we have only just learned about...
Derek is the only person outside rabble.ca who gives a flying fu@# about what Rick Salutin has to say.
... Perhaps, the only reason that the Conservatives have lost ground in the recent polls is that Mr. Harper has failed to clearly separate himself from Mulroney.
... There must be a thorough inquiry, and Mr. Harper must clearly, publicly announce that, if convicted, Mr. Mulroney will be prosecuted To The Full Extent Of The Law.
... If Mr. Harper does not take immediate, public action, he will remain wrongly tainted by the dishonest, crooked actions of another.
If truth be told, I enjoy good satire, irrespective of its source.
Realively speaking, Josh-ing is quite pedestrian, even if you could live up to your namesake.
... An aside, Andrew...
... Reading Don Martin's loutish, ignorant smear of Mr. Harper, on the front page of the Post today, made me somewhat sympathise with why you would want nothing more to do with such a paper.
... I love the Post, but who would print such trash?
Don Martin is a snivelling coward.
After Paul Martin's Director of Communications Scott Reid said "Alberta can blow me", Don Martin came to his defense and denied that Reid said it. Later we found out that he did say it in Don Martin's company.
The Libs blew it again, Coyne should've been feeding them the questions "to ask".
Maybe some of these allegations would have come to light earlier had there been a biography of Mulroney's years in powers written by somebody. As Daifallah insightfully points out no one has written a biography of the guy (Sawatzky's book doesn't count since it ends when Mulroney takes power).
Does it not strike you folks as odd that a Prime Minister of a G-8 country who ruled for 8 years hasn't had a biography written about him in his years in power? It sure strikes me as odd. There's definitely a hell of a story there, not to mention a buck or two to be made, so where is the book on Mulroney?
"Reading Don Martin's loutish, ignorant smear of Mr. Harper"
I think its time to bring back National Gorilla Suit Day.
Thank you for keeping this issue alive and pointing out the stinking flies in Mulroney's ointment.
With the public "ho-hum" reaction that is advertised so broadly, one would think that those of us who are bothered by Schreiber's greasing the skids in Canada too, as well as Mulroney's mendacity, had fallen through the looking glass.
Please keep pushing for a full public inquiry. This is not just about what happened prior to 1993 and during 1993 but also what happened in 1994, 1996 and from 2003 to last week. Hardly "old history". I strongly believe that we have to keep all our politicians accountable in order to maintain a healthy democracy. This is the important issue.
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'bank account' is"
Okay, what's your definition then? Mine's pretty simple. And I don't even resort to reference to the FDIC (U.S.) or the Bank Act. But money in my wallet is not in a bank account. Money I've got invested in various stocks, bonds, and the like, through various investment houses, are not in a bank account. Money I may have given or loaned to family or friends is not in any bank account of mine.
If anyone were to ask me about my bank accounts, I'm not going to describe things that aren't in a bank account. Would you?
Clintonesque? No. Answering a direct question with simple English following the simple meaning of words is not Clintonesque. It seems that twisting the meaning of simple words (e.g. "bank account") is the mode being employed by others in this matter.
... Perhaps, the real mystery in all this is, why are people like L. Ian MacDonald and company going to such completely absurd lengths to attempt to cover all this up...?
... For certain, it is not out of allegiance to Mulroney... no one cares about him anymore (except to see him punished to the full extent of the law, if convicted of any criminal acts).
... And, this is not an attempt to protect the Conservative party. This issue will come and go, and be merely a temporary bump in the polls.
... So, what's really going on?
This horse is so dead it's starting to stink.
None of this is about finding out if Mulroney did anything wrong, but rather, all about trying to smear Harper's government. Enough already. Move on.
Keep up the good work, Andrew.
PS This has nothing to do with Harper.
Has Mulroney been intentionally leaving the impression that that he had nothing to do with this....sure he has.
Is that a good thing....no it isnt
Is it hard to muster much of an interest when there really is no hard evidence....sure
Do continued questions run the risk of looking like a vendetta....yes it does.
There is limited time, money and interest to look at this. If there is something there it had better be found soon. I appreciate all people's curiosity but honestly if there is no hard evidence then it ceases to be fair.
Honestly, I am concerned that the State thorugh the police force and punlically funded broadcaster would spend so much effort and have so little to show. Step back and ask if this is the way a citizen, any citizen should be treated.
It really is time is ticking and there need to be results. Find some results and I am all for prosecuting. Without them this is not right....Lets see the the an investigation of something where there likely still is evidence....the Quebec gofl course and apparent improper pressure done by the PMO on the police force...more troubling.
As I said, find EVIDENCE, and then prosecute. Without it, then drop it. Appoint the special prosecutor, offer the deal to Schrieber (if nothing appears true within 4 months deport him)
Andrew you appeared more sanguine about this 5 years ago....you wanted answers from Mulroney and the media about why the story was dropped. This has now turned into a barely hidden conviction that Mr Mulroney has done something. Someting has changed. So once again, here is the issue, if you have the proof lay it out......without proof it just looks ugly. You have a limited time to take your shot, I would say 4 months.
While I think many if not all of those encouraging AC on this site to persist in digging deeper into this issue are doing so with the motive/desire to see BM brought to account for his actions, I have to differ with Mr. Spector's "PS This has nothing to do with Harper." comment somewhat.
For the LP, the NDP and apparently, the anti-Harper elements within the CBC, this committee's investigation is ALL about Harper and foiling the CP's chance at getting a majority mandate. I doubt that the LP/NDP would have pursued creating the committee and then endorsed having a full enquiry unless it damaged the political fortunes of PM Harper.
Stephen,
You are one of the more regular posters here on this issue, as am I, so it has been interesting to see how your position, as have others, has shifted over time.
Initially you were calling for a full public inquiry going back to the 1988 period. Now, after four appearances by Schreiber, and one by Mulroney, you appear to be backing away from your initial position considerably.
I personally have found the testimony before the Committee to be interesting, but not at all conclusive. True, positions by the two protagonists have been established, but they have hardly been properly tested through cross examination.
And we have seen no Swiss bank account evidence introduced yet, with the benefit of an effective examination or cross examination.
Yes, the RCMP and various journalists have had a go at some of this info, but as far as I understand, none with the full cooperation of Schreiber or others to explain the transactions and the accounts. So, an inquiry may be beneficial in reviewing this evidence aided by forensic accountants and skilled lawyers.
If anything, AC has been pointing out how a skilled lawyer like Mulroney can use the ambiguity of language under oath or otherwise to not fully answer questions. I don't know - is a safe deposit account in a bank, a bank account? Maybe not. And will there be records of said account recently revealed? If it's more than seven years ago - there will be no records, based upon Mulroney's earlier claim that he destroyed all of his expense account records when he settled his late tax filing on the $225k/$300k. Lawyers would know this.
I think it's premature to reach any conclusions on this or related matters based simply upon what has happened so far before Committee, and the spins by the various political parties and some MSM.
The more one looks into the Mulroney testimony from the 90s versus what he claimed at the committee panel the more it becomes obvious that Mulroney has been playing major word games at the absolute minimum designed to mislead if not outright lying altogether. The inquiry is needed to examine the relationship between Schreiber and Mulroney from the outset, all the way through his government, and into the libel lawsuit Mulroney launched and the Libs settled in the 90s and whether that was an attempt to obstruct justice by making any investigation of Mulroney and Schreiber/Airbus (one cannot separate Schreiber from Airbus, they are inextricably linked and investigating one forces investigating the other) too risky given how lawsuit happy Mulroney showed himself to be at the first hint (50 million dollars to repair the reputation of a man that left office only three years earlier with the nickname Lyin' Brian, come on) and how that impacted the contracting practices of the Mulroney government including GCI. If this also touches on Liberal malfeasance in all of this (a la Marc Lalonde which some/many Mulroney defenders love to mention) that is fine with me, as of all the governments I have seen Mulroney's was clearly the most corrupt, both at the time and in retrospect.
Keep up the focus AC, those that claim this is all old news and too boring to be bothered with are presenting the same excuses for any investigating into older scandals that some would rather stayed buried. What they have not done is show why your questions about the various testimonies and the fact that the sole evidence to support Mulroney's Parliamentary testimony was his word (as he somehow destroys all the docs which would clear his name, this despite knowing Schreiber is now a bad guy and that this could come back again down the road, I find that impossible to buy into, especially from someone that is a lawyer by training/profession), while Schreiber's testimony did have some documentary evidence supporting it, as questionable as some may find that documentary evidence to be. It is still more than Mulroney has been able to provide to lend credibility to his latest explanation as to what the money was for wand why he took it.
The more this gets looked into the more something really stinky/foul is coming from it, and that alone IMHO makes the inquiry necessary.
I guess if you look at it from a certain point of view, Mulroney told the truth, but it was not exactly the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was it?
I always liked Mulroney, but I have to say all of this is pretty dismaying. These are not the words and actions of a truthful person.
Derek,
I think I was supportive of an inquiry because all seemed to want it but more importantly because I thought maybe it would clear the air.
After watching schreiber and mulroney it doesnt look like there is anything new. Hence my personal desire for an inquiry has diminished. To point out that Mulroney plays with words is hardly news and hardly the reason for an inquiry.
I am curious where the $20 mill went, I dont think it went to Mr Mulroney, but maybe it did. Right now I dont see how this will resolve itself without something concrete. You need to make the stark choice apparent to schriber, talk and give us something ruthful or you will die in a German jail.
AC's pointing out Mulroney has been slippery. DUH! I dont see the news value. There is no smoking gun, that he had a Safety deposit box and that this that fact is oh so CONVENIENT is hardly news.....any banking records are long destroyed from that time....
I had hoped for either more absolution or more reason to look deeper. I see neither.
My comments about 4 months are more to the reality of the situation. As well as a genuine desire to not see any citizen have regular colonoscopies done by the government and the media. It isnt right without evidence and we all know it.....especially AC, unless all of his libertarianism has left him. Mr Mulroney may be guilty of some as yet unproven crime....doing a star chamber on him without proof is wrong.
The ethics committee was a disappointing joke. No second tries it is just ill ocnsidered, under resources and quite frankly the participants are underpowered ethically themselves. Mr Szabo should have a real hard look in the mirror to ask himself if he really was being a proper chair.
I dont see the benefit, without evidence. Let me say again that if there is evidence of wrongdoing then prove it and convict. But this poltical act of shaming Mr Mulroney, while possibly deserved, is beneath many people.
Harper was correct when he said lets live in this century. And I think that there are more recent scandals that deserve the colonoscopy. I was pleased to hear that the RCMP is still moving on Adscam. That has proof.
All we can take out of this so far is Mr Mulroney parses his words and people are willing to believ bad things about him. YAWN.....tell me something I dont know.
Prove it, whatever the IT is. Which is ultimatelu the real problem. WHat is the IT that we are looking for? I personally would like AC to state a little clearer why any of this matters, and spare the ethical duty arguments. I want to know are we still wasting time on this because we think MBM took money for exercising influence in Airbus, becasue right now there is ZERO and I mean ZERO proof of that. OR are we chasing something else.
As I said, without any hard evidence then this really is a problem. And I will state my ethical argument. Is it right for the state and its structures, the broadcaster, the police, parliament to so hound a citizen because they feel uncomfortable and wont be satisfied till they find SOMETHING, ANYTHING wrong.
I will say agian, if he did something wrong then prosecute. But you dont have forever, find the mechanism and resolve it. Spector indicates Special Prosecutor and offer a deal to Schreiber, I am inclined to agree if that yileds info or his extradition, either result is fine with me.
Focus the effort and generate a conclusion.
Geez AC you are the editor of a major newsmagazine with lots of resources. If you cant come up with SOMETHING in the couple of months there likely isnt anything to come up with.
In other words SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT.
Stephen,
I don't mean to be argumentative, but perhaps there is more to be gained from a public inquiry, at one time agreed to be necessary by all major players, than simply further resolving the details of the more recent transactions between Mulroney and Schreiber.
If there was a close analogy (only due to the circumstances of the inquiry and time frame - nothing at all to do with the actual subject matter) one might argue it would be the Air India Inquiry.
Two people were found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in 2005 in the Supreme Court of BC of the 1985 plot to blow up Air India flight 182. This belated criminal trial was complicated by the passage of time, and the death of some key individuals.
Nevertheless,(and perhaps because of the not guilty results) Bob Rae undertook an investigation to determine if an inquiry was required, and an inquiry was launched by John Major in 2006.
I haven't followed this inquiry closely, but it seems to have been beneficial in highlighting internal difficulties with the ability of RCMP/CSIS in undertaking such investigations, partly leading or contributing to changes currently being considered (perhaps a major overhaul of the RCMP). And there certainly was testimony from individuals who came forward that would not have been publicly known if not for the public inquiry.
Also, I would certainly have expected Major's inquiry to have looked into the activities of the two acquitted individuals (this is not double jeopardy), and would not have considered this to be unfair or unreasonable.
As far as the continuation of an inquiry into Schreiber and the activities surrounding him, I'm happy to accept the recommendation of Dr. Johnston on Jan 11th. He has access to much more info than has been made available publicly through the gov'ts files and previous investigations. I can see arguments from both sides of this issue.
However, inasmuch as he may read media commentary, perhaps highlighting inconsistencies in current and past testimony of key (but in no way the only) participants is beneficial - in either direction in making a final recommendation.
Derek,
My comments were not directed at you but the situation.
Re the comparison to Air India...well an inquiry was clearly required. There was definition and most importantly a clear crime. It isnt clear here that a crime has been committed. That is one of the issues, other than the Airbus contract wasnt supposed to pay commissions and it did.
Now why that hasnt been investigated is beyond me. My frustration is the about the lack of focus and the ever changing nature of the accusations. Which strike me now as purely political. Ahh, I cant get MBM on Airbus now it is Thyssen money, was there GST paid, did he declare it coming over the border, any one of a number of silly charges that smack of a Get Mulroney campaign. I will adopt an AC stance here and ask at what point do you say it isnt right, regardless of how much fun it might be.
My comments were more directed at those who just want to get MBM...well you wont get him by being unfocussed, unless you have a drift net of an inquiry. Which is neither justified nor desirable at least not without something clearer than the equivalent of a "who farted" question. Thats were we are right now, something smells and nobody knows why or where it came from.
As I said the committee was a joke, and quite frankly turned me off. Scherieber was supposed to deliver the goods and he didnt, he twisted the committee, the liberals and the NDP prostrated themselves in front of him. Mulroney was right, Schrieber got waht he wanted and nobody else did. .....So if he has nothing to say then what is there to investigate? He should speak or begone. And if he was gone, what else is there to investigate?
Our host was a little more neutral before but now I think he is disgusted by the lack of straight answers. I share the sentiment but I am left with a big so what, and I have become increasingly concerned about the desire to throw out proper rules of evidence and procedure to "get Mulroney".
You dont have to like MBM to think this process is and is becoming unfair. Does MBM "owe" an explaination....sure I would love to hear one that left no doubt. But failing that..... unless you have hard evidence this is a dead issue, no different than the grassy knoll or whether Sirhan Sirhan was a Manchurian Candidate.
If people know things they had better speak up, including journalists and former Chiefs of Staff...because the clock is ticking and this is apparently an important issue. I will say again, if there is something to get MBM on then it better come out in the next 8 to 16 weeks. If not then leave him alone to history and worry about more recent or current issues.
I was 17 when Clark got 68% or whatever, and I am now 44. The Airbus's I have flown on have been in service since I was about 28. If after all of this investigation we cant prove something was wrong then there are one of two possibilities
1) There was nothing ever there, and we should ask ourselves why we want to crucify MBM. Why the pitchforks and torches? Thats worth an inquiry
2) There was something there and we should ask ourselves why our police force and media are so freaking incompetent and incurious. Then you can have an inquiry about that.
So Derek, I dont disagree with you I just am more demanding of a justification now. I too want the air cleared, but right now I guess I am not sure what the air needs to be cleared of.
If anyone knows anything would they please speak up! Anyone? Anyone?
That's what I was afraid of, nobody will speak or nobody KNOWS anything...........but they SUSPECT everything.
Well, hopefully whatever recommendation is made Jan 11th, it comes with a justification that is released to the public in its entirety.
Scotian:
"...as of all the governments I have seen Mulroney's was clearly the most corrupt, both at the time and in retrospect."
You can't be serious. Jean Chretien's was easily an equal, and probably a much worse, more widespread corrupt regime. HRDC any one? How about Adscam, the gun registry, native affairs, 'my entitlements are my entitlements" and on and on.
GT:
Quite serious, as I am talking about corrupt practices in terms of contracting, not just taxpayer dollar theft as is the case in the examples you provided. Also, I don't remember Chrétien’s government having as many ministers under criminal investigation as Mulroney's, so I stand by what I said. Granted, if I were to name a second place finisher that likely would be Chrétien’s government, so I am not all that far off of where you are, I just don't think Chrétien’s was as corrupt as Mulroney’s, which is not to say I didn't think it was corruption free. I have yet to see any government I would consider corruption free regardless of the party forming the government.
BTW, the gun registry does not count as corruption, incompetence and inefficiency yes, corruption no. I also have never seen the itemization of the so called billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC supported by any source other than those with partisan axes to grind so I tend to discount that one too. Adscam was a true scandal and corruption no question, but it was at most in the tens of millions and nowhere near the billions of contracting dollars awarded by the Mulroney government under questionable circumstances. As to the native affairs aspect I honestly don't know what you mean by that one so I won't address it and as for being entitled to one's entitlements, when you take a crown corporation that is bleeding red ink everywhere and turn it into a solid revenue generator, been honest in presenting expenses and then lambasted for that honesty and have things like the infamous chewing gum expense used to "prove" how corrupt you are and then upon serious examination it proves otherwise and you were slimed for partisan reasons only you might feel "entitled to your entitlements" too. That line has been used repeatedly by CPCers to claim how corrupt the Libbys were yet upon hard examination it was only a great sound bite and not a great reflection of reality.
I've got news for you GT, all governments are corrupt, I accept that as a fact of human existence. The standard I use is how well the corruption is contained, how good the government being provided is along with the corruption that exists, and how well it is dealt with when exposed. By that standard Mulroney is clearly the worst offender, Chrétien would be my second pick, but Mulroney is still number one when it comes to being a corrupt political leader/Prime Minister to date.
In his last day of testimony, Schreiber suggested that his questionable contracting practices of the 80's and 90's still exists today in Canada.
Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber:
When you look at all the projects, how they were put together and how they happened, you know they didn't drop from heaven. If there is no project and if there is no agreement, there is no money. So the whole thing with Bear Head had to be in the agreement. The next thing would have been the project. Do you know what the project was? It was an event of $360 billion--
Mr. David Tilson:
Okay.
Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber:
--the replacement of the M-113.
The Airbus was a beginning. When Bob Coates was the Minister of Defence he came out with 4,000 armoured cars. Do you know how much that is? It's $3 billion. Do you know what the procurement is today at DND and where Fred Doucet is again in nine projects to lobbyists?
Mr. David Tilson:
I'm asking the questions. You're making the statements.
Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber:
Yes, but I'm just telling you that is what it is, and today it's the same as it was then, more or less with the same people to fight for big money.
Later, he told Mrs. Carole Lavallée about the contracting process for big ticket items:
Ma'am, it's a fight for money. It is a world you are not in, and it is tough for you to understand.
As it turns out, in a moment of insomnia earlier today, I was listening to CBC Overnight which had a BBC World Service Documentary (23:00) on corruption, bribes and special deals in the U.S. concerning military procurement of aircraft etc.
The first portion dealt with the suicide of one individual unjustly (according to friends) accused of corruption - then some actual cases ending in conviction, one a procurement officer doing side deals for employment with Boeing, another a boondoggle trip to Hawaii for a congressman by a defence contractor.
Interesting listen - although not directly related to Airbus, Thyysen etc., but similar issues.
So here is where I agree with you. I suspect these practices still happen. However we havent even uncovered the template yet.
Problem is that even schrieber wont lay out the template either because 1) Nothing bad happened or 2) because he needs to hold back for an offer of a deal.
Offer the deal to put scenario 2) to rest. Then an inquiry can focus on all practices assuming schreiber can layout the template. Which will take you through Chretien and Martin.
I truely believe that the Mulroney thing is a red herring. Unlike Chavez or Putin I dont think a Western leader needs to enrich himself directly...But it makes sense to ensure that thiose around you get some cake so they stay loyal and keep you in power.
Doucet's name keeps coming up. But sadly the ooposition are blinded by goinf after the hard target. Schreiber has no loyalty to Doucet, and likely some enimity. But once again get some focus and go after it.
If people can't lay out some clearer evidece then as it stands right now, there is nothing worth chasing. Calling all former chiefs of staff, including current senators, and crusading journalists.....if you know anything you had better state it. If not then forever hold your piece because the window will close very shortly, and likely never to be reopened.
I would rate the Mulroney affair at about a 2 out of 10 as far as scandals go.
It was a piddling amount of money; Adscam for example was about 40X more.
It didn't involve public funds, and I am certainly not naive enough to believe this sort of influence didn't happen all the time.
There was no misuse of authority, no one’s home was stormed by the RCMP in the middle of the night and no one lost their jobs for refusing to honor bad loans.
Mulroney didn't own a private corporation that received funding from this and end up selling the company to one of his kids for a dollar.
He didn't bilk thousands of private donations for some catastrophic act of god in the third world and run all over India pitching his buddy’s water desalination systems only to have 90% of the funds disappear.
He didn't promise to close all the tax loopholes that the fatcats had been using to extract their funds from the country without paying taxes and leave two glaring loopholes that just happened to be used by his own private company.
He didn't turn the Great Lakes into a personal dump for his shipping company.
He didn't allow one of the largest liquor companies to leave Canada without paying a single dime of taxes, or even figure out why they didn't have to pay anything.
He didn't blow a wad of money on strippers, pizza, beer and popcorn or take thousands of dollars in donations from children.
He didn't payout hundreds of millions of dollars for a useless Access database gun registry, or three useless databases or funnel millions through DND contractors.
He didn't send stock tips out to his buddies causing chaos and a giant wealth transfer in a single day.
So the only thing that is notable about the Mulroney "scandal" is that it is the only thing that the other guys didn't do.
And that gives them all the power in the world to let an about to be deported about to be convicted criminal start up a He said/He said witch hunt that has tied up Parliament for the past two months, so that "they" can try to smear the current Prime Minister with a private transaction that happened 15 years ago in a government three times removed, in a different party.
Only in Canada eh? The level of self interest from all sides of this is appalling.
"piddling amount of money"
Yes 300,000 is small potatoes, but was/is it just the tip of a 20 MM$ iceberg? And if it is part of the Airbus graft, then the entire purchase of 34 planes - hundreds of millions of dollars were in play.
I'm sure Boeing doesn't think it is 'piddling' as it opened the door for Airbus into the NA market by giving the planes the blessing of a large, well-respected, long-time Boeing client - Air Canada. How much was that worth to Airbus?
Gord,
You are correct that is the question. But your mention of Boeing adds one more log to the fire.
Why hasnt Boeing said anything and why havent they been leaking all of the industry scuttlebutt around...once again, maybe there is no story to tell.
We have a working thoery, where is the proof? As I said it may exist but as it stands today there no proof. I await the info that leads to the evidence. As each day passes it becomes more likely there is no story
I await the direction from Dr Johnston and pronouncements from intrepid investigative journalists and the police.
(crickets chirp)
Stephen:
My guess is that Boeing understands the value of keeping one's powder dry. Also, wasn't de Havilland Dash/Challenger bought by Boeing around that time and then later sold to Bombardier?
I found this interesting comment on Wiki's DASH 8 entry: "In 1988, Boeing bought the company in a bid to improve production at DHC's Downsview Airport plants, as well as better position themselves to compete for a new Air Canada order for large intercontinental airliners. Air Canada was a Crown corporation at the time, and both Boeing and Airbus were competing heavily via political channels for the contract. It was eventually won by Airbus, who received an order for 34 A330 and A340 aircraft in a highly controversial move. The allegations of bribery are today known as the Airbus affair. Following their failure in the competition, Boeing immediately put de Havilland Canada up for sale. The company was eventually purchased by Bombardier in 1992."
Giorgio Pelossi has apparently offered to come to Canada to testify.
Will he be invited?
I caught part of the UBC "At Issue" panel the other evening. I guess we won't expect to see your New Year's prognostications fronting the next issue of Macleans.
To the extent that Affairbus(*) is a proxy for peeling the covers off of the alleged culture of corruption of years gone by - and questioning to what extent that culture may still exist - useful questions may well be posed.
But there are at least two difficulties here: first, the implicit suggestion is that Gomery, which studied aspects of alleged corruption over a period of time much more recent than Affairbus, didn't get the job done (presumably because his mandate was too narrow). Second, that the current inquiries are much too narrow to achieve any such broader goals: nobody seems overly curious in the broader context of alleged corrupt practices of the day, for example, about Mr. Schreiber's associations with members of the Liberal Party and why, as I understand it, one such member came to the aid of KHS.
If we want to study allegations of possible corruption from 20 years ago, let's at least be inclusive in the exercise. Both in breadth (all parties), and in length (all timeframes, including a broadening of Gomery).
(*)Yes, I know it's not the official, democratically selected and autocratically endorsed term. But I still like it.
This site, and your columns, Andrew, are beginning to look like a personal vendetta against a prime minister who hasn't been in power for ages.
You're about to lose all credibility, Andrew. Be careful.
I admire AC's stand on ethics, especially in a world linking ethics to loosers.Consciousness is something you have to work on daily. If you let go, you become depraved without even noticing it. I read a comment questionning the efficienty of the justice system in Canada, and it is just to remember all the money, time and energy put in that exercice, compare it to the result: it doesn't prevent crime, solve any inequality or punish anybody.
AC wrote in a column about Jean Chrétien (February 2005):
The Gomery inquiry is our last chance to get at the moral rot that has taken hold of Ottawa over the last three decades. Indeed, as the inquiry wears on, that is more and more becoming the issue: not so much the misappropriation of public funds, as serious as it was, but the apparent inability of our system of government to hold anyone to account.
It seems history repeats itself.
gb,
I agree AC has an admirable focus on the ethical. Not accepting the, thats just the way its done line.
However, one also needs to generate evidence when you move into legal proceedings. As I have said before, we are at the stage of "Who farted". Something smells, nobody knows who did it, where it came from or why. Until you can generate some proof, other than a sense that something smells then you really dont have much.
That DOESNT mean dont look into it, but it means you had bette find evidence quickly or it just goes away. Calls for inquiries etc are ridiculous without some evidence that something bad has happened.
Right now all we have evidence of is a $300,000 withdrawl by Mr Schrieber and an acknowledgement of $225,000 acceptance by Mr Mulroney. And both parties say it was for services in the future.
You may not like it, you may not believe it.....but right now after all of the investigating that is ALL we know.
We have hints, allegations about Frank Moores, troubling ones...hints allegations about Air Canada board of Directors, troubling ones and some hnts and allegations about MBM, troubling ones. But no proof.
Lots of chattering by the chattering classes. If someone knows anything valuable would they please speak up...journalists (including AC), ex Chiefs of Staff (Spector, Senator Segal)
If nobody has anything of value to say in the next 8 weeks then this thing is done. But perhaps someone will have the courage to speak and have the proof to back it up, at least part of the story to generate energy to move an inquiry or special prosecutor forward.
If nobody has any proof, why should there be any action. Threads have been pulled and they lead nowhere. We have been discussing and investigating this for 10 years. If you cant make the quarry jump after beating the bushes for this long you are left with the distinct possibility there is nothing there or you are looking at the wrong thing.
We know there was very very bad stuff going on under Adscam, but nobody is in jail. I would think the warmer body would be more a more productive investigation if we were to try to convict people to show others that "they cant get away with it"
Would someone please provide evidence! And if not then would someone please put the body back in the ground.
Well said Stephen.
IMHO, the real reason this is going on is because the Liberals are pretty much broke and have no money to advertise. This is the only way they can get on TV.
AC is doing something right...I never paid half as much attention to him before.
Stephen,
You continue to beat the drums demanding "proof" or "evidence" within the next eight weeks, or else this thing (whatever form it might take) should be dropped.
You state:
However, one also needs to generate evidence when you move into legal proceedings. As I have said before, we are at the stage of "Who farted". Something smells, nobody knows who did it, where it came from or why. Until you can generate some proof, other than a sense that something smells then you really dont have much.
That DOESNT mean dont look into it, but it means you had bette find evidence quickly or it just goes away. Calls for inquiries etc are ridiculous without some evidence that something bad has happened.
I think part of the problem might be that perhaps you consider an inquiry as a prosecution of some sort, or "legal proceedings".
Inquiries cannot find criminal fault or wrongdoing. But they do have powers that are not available to the RCMP.
For example, an inquiry head has the power of subpoena to force evidence to be produced (the RCMP would need to either obtain a search warrant before a judge based upon reasonable grounds) and they can compel witnesses to appear and testify (the subject of a criminal investigation cannot be compelled to speak to the police nor testify in his/her own trial).
So, the evidence that may be produced in an inquiry may be much more substantive than may be produced in an RCMP investigation.
Furthermore, some witnesses who may not have been as forthcoming in freely providing evidence in a criminal investigation, may welcome being compelled to testify under oath in an inquiry, subject to charges of perjury for false testimony.
So, perhaps your argument is a bit of a Catch 22 - undertake an inquiry to further obtain evidence, but no inquiry unless you produce further evidence.
Well it has only been 10 years, millions spent at the CBC and the RCMP and lord knows how many other news orgs.
Honestly derek do you think there has been anything new produced that demands an inquiry.
I am up for one, dont get me wrong, IF there is some hook to hang the hat on. To date, nothing. Either Schrieber cuts a deal that lays out what he will prove or back to the Land of Chocolate he goes. He either knows and can prove something or he doesnt and cant.
This is true of others. An inquiry IS a legal proceeding. The speakers warrant was a legal proceeding, it just happens to not follow any of the rules of law that have been honed and cherished since such a blunt instrument was used in the 1600's.
It has been 10 years. We went through the circus with the committee...I am more for the special prosecutor to go and do the digging to see if there is anything. After that what really is the point of this, honestly.
8 weeks is arbitrary, but if someone knwos something, and they havent spoken yet then why wouldnt they speak in the next 8 weeks, where exactly is the line when no evidence is put forward that puts this away.
I am not trying to cover for MBM....but show me that he has done something wrong rather than show me he hasnt doen something right. That isnt how our system works, nor should it.
The may all be thieves, but one's reputation is shredded and the other likely will be in jail in Germany. Given that there has yet to be proof provided this seems a fair result for those who have bloodlust.
I just think this is all out of propostion and focussed in the wrong place. If there were 20,000,0000 in commissions spread out there then thats what the commission should be about. Right now its about Brian Mulroney.....Schrieber knows what he did with the money, the government is in hammer position to cut a deal. Do it! If there is nothing there then KHS will spend his days in a German prison uniform.
The self righteousness of many is too hard to take when there is no proof. You may not like MBM but he is a citizen, and citizens have rights and protections versus their governments. Sorry, this is one huge precedent and I am more than a little disappointed that even our quasi libertarian host hasnt raised even a finger of concern recently for this process.
I can only conclude it is because he has him convicted. If that is so he knows something the rest of us dont, along with Spector.
Please speak, you accuse others of being wiley and amoral. Is is moral to hold back and only shoot from the bushes. Isnt this what Secret Agent Stevie said she would do? If you have evidence against MBM put it out there.
I will say again, with what we know today, there is no evidence to go further, at best a special prosecutor to take one last look. But until someone else puts forward credible evidence, this is going the same place it went for 10 years.
Change the focus, change the method or drop it completely. The real target is the 10 million in commissions. Focus on that and you have my attention. Trying to nail MBM to a cross is waste of time and has so far appeared unseemly.
The focus on MBM at this time is a direct result of the choice of witnesses by the Ethics Committee. It was driven by the concern that KHS would not be available otherwise, so he went first, and Mulroney second.
I consider the Committee hearings a political sideshow, and its weaknesses and shortcomings in getting at the "facts" are acknowledged by most participants and observers.
Contrast the Comittee's approach (order of witnesses) with this account in today's G&M of the Goudge Inquiry (looking into the activities of Ontario failed pathologist Charles Smith).
The evidence obtained through testimony to date has led the inquiry in a certain direction, painting a picture of how Dr. Smith was allowed to conduct his activities over many years through inaction by others, etc.
And Smith is not even scheduled to appear until "late next month".
Arguably, an Inquiry into the Airbus Affair should have been undertaken 10 years ago and could have possibly put many of these issues to rest then.
The scope/breadth of the inquiry rests with the Jan 11th recommendation - so I would suggest that if a full inquiry is recommended, the Ethics Committee hearings will fade in interest and importance, and if no inquiry is recommended, the same thing will happen (they will be considered a political sideshow).
Maybe the real milestone is less than two weeks away.
Derek,
Correct me if I am wrong, always a possibility, but the Goudge inquiry is established after there has been demonstrable evidence that something has gone wrong.
The inquiry was to establish how it went wrong. By the by it has exceeded its mandate and is looking into a case by case reconstruction. Though it appears justifiable in that the reconstruction allows examination of how things went wrong.
My point is we havent reached the stage where something is demonstrably wrong. Gomery came after the auditor general demonstarted something was wrong. In this case nothing has been been demonstrated to be incorrect, fishy, smelly and greasy, but there is no hook for the hat.
Special prosecutor can do that, then you have an inquiry after the Spec prosecutor says there is a problem...assuming they do.
Without that then you have the equivalent of the McCarthy hearings. Fishing expeditions looking to prove something to justify its existence.
So my crie de couer is that if someone knows anything relevant they should say it now, now being a relative term. If not then the issue is gone.
Spector has said he has said all he knows to the RCMP....well that went nowhere. Cashore and McIntyre have looked at this thing for 10 years, and even they are saying the issue is the 20 million or 10 million depending on who you believe. But there is NO PROOF yet. Airbus isnt talking, boeing isnt talking or if either are neither says anything.
Spector got it right...offer a deal to KHS to speak or go back to Germany. If no info then he can even have First Class on Luftunsa...this is a waste of time, energy and effort as it stands right now.
Find the hook for the hat. Complaining about whether MBM is playing with words over dafety deposit boxes etc is a waste of time. If thats all you have to complain about in life it really isnt that bad. There is either something bigger to this or there isnt....Find the big fish or move on.
Stephen: ".offer a deal to KHS to speak or go back to Germany."
Isn't that what has occurred but, he's given us nothing? He has asked the Ethics Committe to see if they can find anything. If this isn't what occurred, I must have missed something, and I apologize.
It seems to me that KHS is simply asking the Committee to keep fishing in the same lake that many others have been fishing in for 10 years without a catch.
IMHO, even a Special Fisher (Prosecutor) won't be doing much more.
Isn't it time to just agree that some will forever hate BM and believe he is dishonest, and others disagree with that position, so that we can move on to more relevant issues?
Perhaps those that can't let go of this "story" should write a book about it and let it go at that. After all, hasn't this just become about writing history and setting BM's legacy? I think it is.
Seriously AC, I thought you knew the difference between a bank account and a safety deposit box.
75k, pfft.
I don't give a flying fig about Mulroney, I like your blogging and alot of your commentary, but you really are getting a little hysterical about this whole Mulroney/Schreiber thing. Regardless of how bad it smells, it is time to move on and stop frittering away your hard earned, and fine, reputation.
Sounds like Dr Johnstone has delivered a reasonable reccomendation. A focussed inquiry....good clear the air or answer some questions. I can support that.
He recognized that the other things have been investigated to death and nothing was found. Thank you, no evidence on previous looks therefore no need to look YET AGAIN.
The time is approaching of, speak now or forever hold your peace. If someone knows something then they had better say it because last call is going out.
So AC, you claim to know nothing, but are agitating as if you do, Norman Spectoor, same thing, you have claimed to have said all but if you know more you had better speak, KHS....well better to start slim down before you go to Germany where they will feed you beer, chocolate and sausages.....unless you have some hard evidence to put forward.....
This is as it should be. There has to be some evidence, not proof, evidence of wrongdoing before you engage in far reaching investigations. I have said many times, if people have that evidence then bring it forward. If not then the issue is gone.
If there is wrongdoing, then we also need to look at how and why it has remained buried for so long.
If there is nothing then maybe there needs to be some introspection on the part of some about why Mr Mulroney was so exceptional that it required the abandonment of normal rules of evidence and law. Why was the persecution and attempted prosecution so necessary.
This whole process should leave all concerned with shame, no matter the outcome. There are no winners out of this and there have been ethical lapses on the part of all players, MBM, his journalist and corproate supporters, the media who have pre convicted him (host included recently) the politicians who engaged in McCarthy like tactics (do you really want Speakers Warrants to be commonplace?) the fumbling by the Harper government worried more about their reputations than the truth.
Shameful, I hope it never happens again, and should there be reason to investigate a former PM that it be done in more dignified and fulsome manner.
Now lets see what the focussed inquiry comes up with. My suspicion, it will be derided as too narrow and will be one of the most underreported inquiries ever.
P.S. And if Mr Mulroney is cleared, I still want to know how much money the CBC has spent the last 10 years chasing ghosts.
nicepost
I look forward to buying Macleans...sounds like your mag might have dug up something.
I have always wondered why Boeing was so quiet. And given their closeness to the US govenrment I couldnt believe there wasnt an opinion on this.
I hope there is evidence in the article and not just a repeat of allegation. If you have finally found the thread that unravels the sweater congratulations.....if not....well lets hope you woldnt publish only allegation.
Of course my next question is why did it take 20 years to find this thing....and when will the investigation on La Grand Mere begin?
1) Read the Macleans piece. Hmmm, lots of allegations....but not a bombshell since there seems nobody who can corroberate it. Lots of bathwater drinking here, confirmation is only coming from people who are saying they heard the same rumours. No evidence let alone proof yet.
But thanks for finding that. I was wondering why they were so quiet.
read Curveball for a good exposition of how a rumour becomes "proven" and leads to bad consequences all because imporper intelligence and investigation is not done. Just keep it in mind
2) Well if Spectors column is properly translated we now have a new allegation, cash being delivered to 24 Sussex....thats a new one.
Once again the time is now for those who KNOW ANYTHING to speak. Without it this will fizzle, which if there really is nothing there is what shoudl happen. However if there is something, the time is getting late....time to speak.
An interesting perspective from the infamous Mr Mathias
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/01/24/philip-mathias-the-mobbing-of-brian-mulroney.aspx#comments
I certainly agree with his sentiment on the process. Glad I am not alone.