Critics claim Mulroney should pay back libel settlement

I doubt that Mulroney will ever pay back the money. He has always been devious and crooked and no doubt happy to enjoy his settlement money. Of course he will also continue to maintain with a very wounded tone that he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The Liberal government was wrong to pay off Mulroney in the first place. They should have let the issue go to court.

The Oliphant inquiry was very narrow in its focus so a lot of the important questions remain not only unanswered but unexamined. This is from the Star.

Pay back libel settlement, critics tell Mulroney

Richard J. Brennan



OTTAWA—A chorus of voices is demanding former prime minister Brian Mulroney pay back the $2-million libel settlement he was awarded in 1997 in light of an inquiry that says he was less than forthright while testifying under oath.

“I think this money was acquired effectively through false pretenses, and Canadians feel it’s wrong,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff told reporters Tuesday.

“I think Mr. Mulroney’s let Canadians down, and I think (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper as a close friend, apparently confidante, should tell Mr. Mulroney to give the money back,” Ignatieff said.

Others say Mulroney should pay back the money with interest.

In his report on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair released Monday, Justice Jeffrey Oliphant said Mulroney had an obligation to tell the truth about his business dealings with German-Canadian arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber, who gave him three envelopes stuffed with at least $225,000 cash for lobbying work that was never done.

“Mr. Mulroney was well aware when such disclosure was clearly called for,” Oliphant said.

When pressed during question period about whether the government is prepared to go after Mulroney for the money, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson was vague.

“The report is now with the appropriate authorities who will study it. And the government will respond to any recommendations in this area in due course,” said Nicholson.

While Oliphant’s extensive report does recommend ways this kind of conflict of interest can be avoided??, it does not specifically direct the government to seek to retrieve the money from the former prime minister.

“Of course Mr. Mulroney should have to pay back the money. It’s very clear from what emerged in that report that that’s what he should do, the legal fees as well,” NDP Leader Jack Layton told reporters, referring to the $1.8 million Canadians had to pay for Mulroney’s legal fees in the libel suit.

Layton and Ignatieff agreed moral suasion should be tried first. If that doesn’t work, then they say legal action should be investigated.

Former diplomat casts doubt on Mulroney testimony

One hardly needs a diplomat to cast doubt on Mulroney's testimony. From the get go Mulroney's explanations of why he received the bulging envelopes of cash from Schreiber sound like a huge Irish spin machine made up by an aging leprechaun to guard his pot of gold. Now it seems Mulroney has managed to extract even more money from those of us watching the show from the sidelines. We are paying his legal bills instead of getting money back from the other legal sideshow that garnered Mulroney millions because he did not reveal relevant material about his relationship to Schreiber.

Former diplomat casts doubt on Mulroney's testimony TheStar.com - Canada - Former diplomat casts doubt on Mulroney's testimony

May 21, 2009 Richard J. BrennanOttawa Bureau
OTTAWA – A former Canadian ambassador to China today cast doubt on Brian Mulroney's claim he raised the issue of UN peacekeeping armoured vehicles with Chinese officials during a visit there in 1993.
Fred Bild told an inquiry probing business dealings between Mulroney and former arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber that if the former prime minister had talked about something as sensitive as military matters in any way Bild would have "most likely" heard back from the Chinese.
"Even if it were just at a tentative level ... it would have come back (to him) because they (the Chinese) would have wanted more information," Bild said, especially given that a former prime minister was making the pitch.
Bild told inquiry commissioner Justice Jeffrey Oliphant he heard "nothing whatever" about Mulroney's overtures and added "I am convinced" he would have gotten wind of it.
Mulroney has offered that trip in October 1993 as an example where he represented Karlheinz Schreiber's business interests in German-designed light armoured vehicles, for which Mulroney was paid $225,000 in cash.
Mulroney testified earlier that given he received no directions from Schreiber on promoting the sale of vehicles made by Thyssen AG of Germany internationally, he came up with his own "concept" to discuss with the five members of the United Nations security council, which includes China, the idea of the UN buying these vehicles.
Besides, China, Mulroney said he raised the matter with France, Russia and the United States. Schreiber says he paid Mulroney $300,000 to lobby on behalf of a project to have German-designed military vehicles built in Canada and insists Mulroney did nothing for the money.
Bild testified that back in 1993 China's bilateral relations were still in their infancy, especially on military co-operation.
He said for one thing a former prime minister with Mulroney's experience should have consulted Canada's Foreign Affairs department and the Canadian Embassy in China before raising something as sensitive as the export of a military vehicle.
Bild said he would have well remembered if Mulroney had mentioned anything about approaching the Chinese government on military vehicles "because all kind of lights would have gone off at the embassy ... it's something none of us would have forgotten."
Bild said the subject would have created a precedence in Canada's relations with China "and therefore it would have made waves and we would have heard about it."
"There is no legal requirement to clear it with us, but it would have caused immense surprise because that topic, no matter how you approach it ... is essentially a government to government topic, the government is going to have to get involved no matter how private it is."
He explained that back then "China was still persona non grata on the level of anything to do with military or military equipment. We did not talk to them about it."
The inquiry also heard the tax provision that allowed Mulroney to be taxed on just half the $225,000 he received from Schreiber was closed last year.
Canada Revenue Agency official Christiane Sauvé said it was simply a matter of routine back in 2000 when Mulroney voluntarily declared the cash payments to be given a 50 per cent reduction in taxable income.
"It allows them to avoid all the penalties that could apply against an income as well as criminal suits that could form," she said in explaining the advantage of taxpayers voluntarily coming forward.
Sauvé said the agency was happy to be getting money it may not have learned about.
She said the agency almost always granted a discount of 50 per cent when was it was impossible to determine the nature or the source of the money.
"We no longer have that 50 per cent policy," Sauvé said.
Yesterday, it was discovered that Mulroney, after six days of testimony, left taxpayers on the hook for $2 million in legal fees.
The $2 million bill, which comes on top of the estimated $14 million cost to taxpayers of the Oliphant inquiry, falls under a federal government policy that provides for the payment of former office holders' legal costs.
It had been assumed that Mulroney was paying his own lawyers' fees because he did not apply to Oliphant for financial assistance.

Deal lets Schreiber Stay

This is good news. I wonder if the press will have a birthday party for Schreiber this month when he turns 74. He has created quite a bit of news for them. They should show their appreciation and it would be good for a photo session. Maybe they could put a hacksaw blade in his cake if he is still in jail.
Anyway we know now that the inquiry will go ahead and that Schreiber can be here to testify. Until now it was not entirely clear that the inquiry would go ahead or that Schreiber could stay here to testify. This is from the Star.


Deal lets Schreiber stay
TheStar.com - Canada - Deal lets Schreiber stay

Possible extradition put on hold so he can remain in Canada for inquiry into dealings with Mulroney

March 06, 2008
Les Whittington
Ottawa bureau

Ottawa–The federal government has agreed to allow Karlheinz Schreiber to stay in Canada, putting on hold his possible extradition to Germany, so he can testify at a public inquiry into his dealings with Brian Mulroney.

The latest twist in Schreiber's eight-year fight to avoid being shipped back to Germany to face charges of bribery, fraud and tax evasion came in an agreement between Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and Schreiber's lawyer.

"Subject to any change in circumstances, Mr. Schreiber will not be surrendered until he has testified before the inquiry," Nicholson writes.

The Supreme Court of Canada is to rule today on whether to hear an appeal of a 2004 extradition order against Schreiber. If the decision were to go against the businessman, Schreiber would have been subject to immediate removal from Canada had his lawyer, Edward Greenspan, not reached the agreement with Nicholson.

The accommodation cements the government's intention to hold the public inquiry into Schreiber's financial links with Mulroney, a murky saga that for years has spawned allegations of questionable dealings.

Those dealings were also recently the subject of a probe by the House of Commons ethics committee, before which both Schreiber and Mulroney testified.

"What they are saying is that there will be an inquiry," said Liberal MP Robert Thibault (West Nova.)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised last year to create a full-scale commission of inquiry into the financial links between the German-Canadian businessman and the former Progressive Conservative prime minister.

The decision came after Mulroney demanded public hearings when his dealings with Schreiber hit the headlines in the fall.

But Mulroney has flip-flopped recently, saying a full-scale public inquiry was no longer necessary – a move that had some MPs wondering if Harper might somehow try to avoid establishing one.

Nicholson's deal with Schreiber should put an end to that speculation. But it's still not clear when the inquiry will start because University of Waterloo president David Johnston – asked by Harper to set the terms of the investigation – is holding off until he sees the final report on the ethics committee's probe. Liberal MP Paul Szabo, the committee chair, indicated that the committee report is unlikely to be available until early April.

Schreiber, who turns 74 this month, surrendered at the Toronto West Detention Centre yesterday.


With files from Tracey Tyler

Salutin: All I want for Xmas is my Inquiry.

Well as Salutin shows Harper's elves in the media are spreading the word to Santa Johnston that Harper does not want an inquiry. So unless Johnston thinks that Harper has been naughty and Salutin's been nice, Salutin will get no inquiry for Xmas. Every right winger knows Salutin is not nice!

All I want for Christmas is my inquiry
>by Rick Salutin
December 21, 2007
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?

“The case for a public inquiry has melted away,” wrote Margaret Wente. There's nothing new, said Chantal Hébert.

But here's Karlheinz Schreiber: “The story is the payback for money to help someone come to power.” Replete with details: How Franz Josef Strauss dispatched him from Germany to seed right-wingers around the world and eject fakes such as Joe Clark. And where they plotted: the Ritz! They sat around, “And everybody got something,” once Brian took power. Not just contracts but free trade and the rest. We still live with the results. This isn't worth inquiring into? Watergate was just a piddling break-in.

They say “there is nothing to link Mr. Mulroney to the Airbus bribes.” But that may get the sequence wrong. What if Airbus wasn't what the Mulroney crew were owed something for? What if Airbus was what they owed to the Straussians who hoisted them into power? I'm just inquiring.

It's true a poll says 52 per cent of people “would rather avoid” an inquiry. But people seem to follow along with interest and draw conclusions, for example, Karlheinz is three times more credible than Brian M. Maybe they should poll on whether people would like an inquiry better if they didn't have to put up with hours more of Brian Mulroney humping the mike on the witness stand.

Think of it as an unprecedented chance for alternate education in how the world works. Most people who've worked for someone else, endured a mean teacher or suffered other abuses of power aren't shocked by the Schreiber tale. They know those at the top are often there because they had money to start with or offered loyal service to those who did. Then why bother with an inquiry? Because it's a relief to get confirmation of your sense of reality in the face of denial by the respectable sources. This kind of gap was a running theme of the Mulroney years. He marshalled massive elite and media backing for Meech Lake or Charlottetown. Then the people of the country shot him down and eventually destroyed his whole party. Maybe the inquiry should continue accumulating evidence till the authorities stop insisting there's nothing to see.

I'm no big fan of public inquiries. Sometimes the magic works, as in the O'Connor hearings into the water in Walkerton, Ont., and into the Arar debacle; and sometimes it doesn't, as in the Gomery exercise in judicial ego. But I'd at least like to see Brian Mulroney show up “with bells on,” as he promised before he turned against an inquiry, so I'll know what that phrase means.

This spellbinding exposé, with or without an inquiry, would not have happened without (a) the CBC and (b) minority government. It is inconceivable that a private network would have continued the story after the government caved in 1995 and gave $2.1-million to Brian Mulroney. I find it astounding that the CBC didn't quit. Harvey Cashore, the producer who's been on it for over a decade, says that moment was his lowest; he was subject to scorn, mockery and a personal sense of humiliation. He says he told his boss he wanted to drop the subject. His boss asked him to take the weekend to think about it. He went home in that gloomy mood, then looked at his two boys and wondered how he could live with them and himself if he abandoned a story he felt had far more in it. He returned Monday and went back to work.

Thanks for the gift, Harvey. Merry Christmas to you, your kids and everyone.

Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin's column appears every Friday.

Harper: Public has tuned out Schreiber affair

Well now David Johnston can write his report given that he knows what he is supposed to recommend. We also know that if the economy slows down Harper will just blame it on his overly aggressive emission controls. Of course he hopes this will force him ,due to overwhelming public pressure, to be easier on polluters or so he hopes.
On the issue of a public inquiry Harper is acting like a Liberal. He sniffs the public mood and then acts on the basis of that.


Thursday, December 20, 2007

Public has tuned out Schreiber affair: Harper
Harper will still defer to independent investigator on need for inquiry

Don Martin, National Post
Published: Thursday, December 20, 2007

Ashley Fraser/CanWest News Service
OTTAWA -- Stephen Harper has personal reservations about the need for a public inquiry into allegations against former prime minister Brian Mulroney, a controversy he says has been tuned out by the public yet risks becoming a distraction to Parliament.

But the Prime Minister reluctantly pledged to unleash a full probe into Mr. Mulroney's private business deals if that's the recommendation of independent investigator David Johnston.

And far from hurting the Conservatives, Mr. Harper insists the sordid cash-for-contacts allegation leveled against Mr. Mulroney by former lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber may actually be helping his government.

"On many levels I don't like the whole thing," the Prime Minister said in an interview with National Post. "But that said, I don't think it's hurt the government. I think the opposite. By focussing on a scandal of so long ago, the Official Opposition has actually underscored the fact they have no scandal to talk about today."

Recent polls back up Mr. Harper's contention that Canadians profess little interest in the Mulroney/Schreiber saga, but also show the orgy of name-calling is nonetheless undermining Conservative support. A recent poll by Harris-Decima shows the government's popularity falling six points this month to slip two points behind the Liberals, with 32% of voter support.

Mr. Harper appointed Mr. Johnston last month to recommend terms for an inquiry into claims the retired prime minister was paid $300,000 in three cash installments to promote a military project in Nova Scotia his cabinet had already killed while in office.

Mr. Schreiber alleges a verbal arrangement was struck while Mr. Mulroney was still prime minister and hinted at a link between Mr. Mulroney and payments related to Air Canada's purchase of Airbus aircraft in 1988.

A parliamentary committee has already heard testimony from Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney and will reconvene in the late January to interview an expanded witness list. Mr. Mulroney acknowledges accepting cash from Mr. Schreiber but vigorously denies all the related allegations.

Mr. Johnston is due to report back by Jan. 11, which could include a suggestion the government back away from a full inquiry in lieu of a less expansive examination of the facts.

"I anticipate he'll come back and give me his overall best judgment on how he thinks the government should proceed - and the government is almost inevitably going to take that advice," Mr. Harper says.

While he hinted at a perference for alternatives to the inquiry, "it's difficult if not impossible for me at that point to set myself up as the person who could adjudicate on this matter. I don't think the public thinks I can and I don't feel comfortable doing it myself."

Mr. Harper vows the investigation won't interfere with his agenda for 2008.

"I can tell you that as kind of fascinating as a little drama this thing is . . . we have been amazed about little the public cares about this," he said.

"More importantly from our standpoint, I'm going to govern in the 21st Century. This stuff is so old, 15-20 years old, that however we end up dealing with it, the government itself is not going to get sidetracked. This is not what people care about by any means or even remotely in the government of Canada in 2007."

On public policy, Mr. Harper has a sobering message for Canadians, warning that Canada's long bout of economic prosperity may be heading for a U.S. hangover.

The Prime Minister warned Canadians to brace for a "challenging year" ahead as a global economic slowdown looms and the federal government's climate-change rules kick in.

"The Canadian economy's fundamentals are very strong. That said, we are an open-trading economy in a world where there is increasing economic uncertainty, in the United States economy in particular, but [also] some other parts of the globe. We are not immune to that."

Canadians could also feel the pinch from federal regulations forcing industry to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions, he warned in a separate interview with CanWest News.

"The reason no government has done this before - federal, provincial or municipal - is there is no way to do this without imposing costs on our economy in the short term. That's why all previous governments have talked a great game and shied away from it."

Ironically, Mr. Harper feels his environmental protection rules may soon be rated too stringent by a rebellious private sector. "I think the talk will start to turn to where we're maybe doing too much, but it has to be done, and that's the path we're on."

In a year in which he dared the opposition to "fish or cut bait" and support his government or force an election, the Prime Minister says he's experiencing a serious bout of déja vu as opposition parties once again talk of triggering a non-confidence vote.

"This idea that every couple of months you pop your head out of a hole, look around and declare that two weeks from now you're going to bring the government down and then, three weeks later, say 'I don't think I ever said that and I meant three more months from now we're going to bring your government down'. I don't know how you do this over and over again," he said, shaking his head.

The Prime Minister insists he sees no need to induce an election ahead of his fixed date in October 2009 to improve his current minority government mandate.

"This is the remarkable disconnect. We have a Parliament that appears from day to day in question period [to be] almost entirely dysfunctional, but is actually getting more done than a couple of majority governments ahead of us."

National Post, with a file from Andrew Mayeda, CanWest News Service

Copyright © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.

NDP calls for full inquiry into Mulroney affair

This is from the CTV. Interesting that Harper received info on the allegations seven months ago. It would probably have actually made things easier for Harper if he had granted an inquiry now. The opposition will not let go until he does anyway. We will be treated to a useless counterpoint of opposition complaints and Harper replying that they should wait for the third party report. Without the Fifth Estate report and Schreiber recent affidavits nothing would have happened.
Schreiber is probably the big winner so far as he will no doubt not be deported to Germany!


NDP calls for full inquiry into Mulroney affair
Updated Sat. Nov. 10 2007 4:24 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

NDP Leader Jack Layton wants a full public inquiry into the allegations surrounding former prime minister Brian Mulroney and controversial businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

Late Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced he would appoint an independent third party to review dealings between Mulroney and Schreiber.

"An independent third party is not going to be able to have the power of subpoena, he's not going to be able to drill down and get the truth," Layton told CTV Newsnet on Saturday.

"And right now, the allegations are swirling around in such a devastating way that it's affecting peoples' faith in our democratic system."

Harper said at Friday's news conference that members of the government shouldn't have any dealings with Mulroney until after the investigation is complete.

The latest developments came after Schreiber filed a court affidavit that implicated Mulroney in inappropriate business dealings while he was prime minister.

Mulroney, the Progressive Conservative prime minister of Canada between 1984 and 1993, said he would co-operate with any inquiry. He has denied any wrongdoing in the relationship between himself and Schreiber, a German-Canadian businessman whose extradition is being sought by the German government.

However, critics accuse Mulroney of not providing a full explanation of how he came to accept $300,000 in three cash payments from Schreiber, with the first payment of $100,000 coming mere weeks after he left the prime minister's office.

Harper said Friday the independent party will look into the seriousness of Schreiber's allegations.

Stalling?

Some critics have characterized Harper's call for an investigation as a delaying tactic. When new information about the two men's dealings was initially reported a week ago, Harper rejected calling an inquiry.

Harper said Friday that he was prompted to act because the latest allegations involve Mulroney's time as prime minister.

Layton said he thinks Harper is stalling.

"It's only a partial step and it really slows down the process of getting to the bottom of the matter," he said.

"Does anyone doubt that this independent third party ... that he's going to say, 'you better bring in a judge?'" Layton asked.

"I don't think so. That's why we might as well get on with it now."

Layton noted it took full inquiries to get to resolve the Maher Arar case and resolve issues related to the Air India investigation.

"The truth doesn't come out easily sometimes on these matters," he said.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion called Friday for an inquiry.

He said the affidavit leaves questions about when the prime minister and his cabinet may have become aware of the allegations, and why a Justice Canada investigation was stopped when Harper took office.

Liberal MP Mark Holland also criticized the prime minister for stalling, saying Harper's office received information on the "explosive" allegations seven months ago.

"It is beyond belief, one would have to completely suspend imagination, to think that this information wouldn't have been passed on to the prime minister when it is so significant," Holland said.

"This raises some very significant questions about what the prime minister knew and when he knew it," Holland said.

Holland went on to say that allowing the Harper government to appoint an investigator "isn't enough" because of Mulroney's close ties to Harper and the Conservative party.

"We need an independent judicial review; we need something that goes further. This is something that touches the highest office in the land," Holland said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------