Mulroney owes us some answers
Judge Then also presided over hearings some years ago related to the abortive fraud trial of Eurocopter Canada Ltd., one of the many, many proceedings involving Karlheinz Schreiber -- international arms merchant, admitted dispenser of schmiergelder and occasional business partner, as we later learned, of Brian Mulroney, famously the subject of Ms. Cameron’s investigations as a journalist and author. The charges against Eurocopter were eventually dismissed. But the questions swirling around Ms Cameron, Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney remained.
Of Ms Cameron’s activities, at least, we need be in doubt no longer. If the judge declined to rule on whether she was, in fact or in law, a confidential informant for the RCMP, he did find that the RCMP superintendent who told the court she was had “acted in good faith” -- meaning not only that he honestly held this belief, but that it was reasonable for him to do so. Ms Cameron, who has always publicly denied that she was ever a confidential informant, is entitled to cling to the legal thread the judge has left her. But the reasonable person is entitled to draw the same conclusions as the good superintendent.
Ms Cameron appears to believe that although she agreed, in a meeting with RCMP officers in the spring of 1995, to provide them with information on condition that her identity be kept secret; that although she invoked this status two years later to keep her name out of an Alberta court case (involving Mr. Schreiber’s lawsuit against the Attorney General of Canada), and again in refusing to testify in an internal disciplinary proceeding against Staff Sgt. Fraser Fiegenwald, her RCMP “handler” (Judge Then’s word), and again in the Eurocopter matter; that although her lawyer, in a letter to Crown prosecutors, had explicitly referred to her as a “confidential informant”; that although she had personally demanded the excision of several pages from a 101-page packet of documents she had provided the police, on the grounds that they might reveal her identity -- in short, that although she had informed confidentially, she was not a confidential informant.
The basis for this belief seems to be, as she has written, that “I never had a contract, never was paid, never had a coded number” on the RCMP’s files. That, and the fact that she had agreed to waive her demand for confidentiality in the event that Mr. Mulroney ever faced prosecution. But as Judge Then observes, “the mere declaration in advance of the circumstance in which Ms Cameron would waive her privilege does not in principle negate” that a privilege existed.
The best that can be said for Ms Cameron, then, is that she is in denial. She has done her own credibility, by her strenuous public disavowals, a great deal of harm, but more important is the potential harm her too-cozy relationship with the Mounties may have done to journalism, and to other journalists. As she herself has written, “I believe journalists should never cross that line,” and for good reason: by doing so, she exposed not only herself but other journalists to the suspicion that the information they gather might be shared with the police. People will tell reporters things they would never tell the cops. That trust can only be weakened after this.
So Ms Cameron’s reputation is shot. What of Mr. Mulroney’s? If his long-time antagonist has been discredited, does that mean he has been vindicated? Not a bit. It was partly as a result of those same Eurocopter hearings that evidence came to light of Mr. Mulroney’s dealings, shortly after he had stepped down as Prime Minister, with Mr. Schreiber -- namely, that he had accepted a total of $300,000 from Mr. Schreiber, in cash, in a series of hotel-room meetings.
That Mr. Mulroney had taken money, after leaving office, from the very man he was accused of taking bribes from while in office, in the Airbus affair, was a shocking revelation -- particularly since Mr. Mulroney had stated under oath in his famous 1995 libel suit against the government of Canada that he “had never had any dealings” with Mr. Schreiber, short of meeting him once or twice for coffee. Whether Mr. Mulroney deliberately misled the court is an open question, but it is a certainty that the government of Canada, had it known of the Schreiber payments, would never have agreed to settle with him, or to pay him $2-million in compensation.
Mr. Mulroney does not deny -- now -- that he took Mr. Schreiber's cash. And he insists that the money was declared, and taxes paid. But he has an obligation -- to the public, to the office he once held, to his own reputation -- to explain himself further, including what he did for the money, and when he declared it.
At the very least, he should give us back our $2-million.
7/11/2007
