Maclean’s archives: Brian Mulroney is back

Brian Mulroney is out of political purgatory and only too happy to tell Canadians (and Stephen Harper) what real leadership is about

Fred Lum/CP

His large, impressive head swims into view, as he makes his unhurried way through the luncheon crowd assembling outside the hall of a Fredericton conference centre. That jaw line, which once seemed cut from granite, now looks more moulded from clay. Even with its edges softened by age, though, you would know the profile anywhere. His silver-grey hair is immaculate. The rich hue and perfect drape of his blue suit set him apart—no offence to the menswear purveyors of the New Brunswick capital—from the local businessmen and provincial politicians pressing in to shake his hand, share an old campaign anecdote, and maybe pose for a photo. But what really triggers the memories, good and bad, is his voice. Its bass notes don’t so much cut through as rumble beneath the conversational din. The plummy laugh penetrates to every corner.

And Brian Mulroney has been laughing a lot lately. His one-day, mid-November visit to Fredericton—where he delivered a speech at the lunch, met privately with the provincial government’s cabinet, and spoke to students at St. Thomas University before a reception at its Brian Mulroney Hall—was typical of his extraordinary 2012. At 73, Mulroney spent the year being feted on the 25th anniversary of his Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, consulted on Quebec by the Prime Minister, who once shunned him, and even being called “a classy individual” by Justin Trudeau. Can it really be less than three years since Justice Jeffrey J. Oliphant’s commission of inquiry found that Mulroney behaved “inappropriately” in taking envelopes containing hundreds of thousands in secret cash payments from a certain German-Canadian arms lobbyist?

The notorious Karlheinz Schreiber’s name was scarcely whispered around Mulroney’s many high-profile public appearances in 2012. As well, Stephen Harper’s 2007 edict to Conservative MPs and senators that they must avoid contaminating contact with the embattled former prime minister—Mulroney’s loyalists called it a “fatwa”—has long since lapsed. There was Harper’s own sit-down with Mulroney last spring. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty made a point last fall of telling the media he’d be seeing him. Foreign Minister John Baird, according to a spokesman, consults with him “from time to time.” Asked in an interview if this official embrace comes as a relief after what some called, in the dark days of the Oliphant inquiry, his “excommunication,” Mulroney laughs a slow, low, emphatic “ha, ha, ha.” “How,” he asks, “can you excommunicate from a party a former leader who had the greatest victories since John A. Macdonald, its founder?”

Nobody at the Fredericton Champions of Education Luncheon is inclined to deny him the glory of his two majority election wins. Mulroney is on hand to deliver the keynote in honour of his old friend and ally James Ross. A New Brunswick businessman and philanthropist, Ross was among the early supporters of Mulroney’s bid to become Conservative leader and prime minister. Later, he was one of eight so-called “GST senators” Mulroney appointed in 1990, exploiting a never-before-used prime-ministerial power to expand the upper chamber, in order to pass the Goods and Services Tax. Mulroney lauds Ross in his signature extravagant style. “I view him as one of nature’s gentlemen,” he says, “whose contribution to New Brunswick and Canada, to the well-being of our great nation, has few parallels.”

That’s how he holds forth. The nation is ever great. Its challenges are always momentous. The men and women he admires are unfailingly magnificent. The burden of leadership—a frequent theme—is unrelentingly heavy. The reward for hoisting it, however, is nothing less than history’s blessing. But he always sets up the serious stuff with self-deprecating jokes. In an era when the bar for political rhetoric in Canada is set drearily low, his retro combination of schtick and grandiloquence catches many crowds by surprise.

In Fredericton, they howl at his warm-up yarn about of how, during his winning 1983 run for the Tory leadership, with Jim Ross driving him around New Brunswick in a camper van, he’d take his pants off between stops to save the crease, and once forgot to put them back on before stepping out to meet a throng of Tories—most of them elderly ladies, naturally. But moments later he’s unspooling weighty quotes on the nature of leadership from the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Zhou Enlai and D’Arcy McGee. “Time,” Mulroney concludes, “is the ally of leaders who place the defence of principle ahead of the pursuit of popularity.”

To whom could he possibly be alluding? Mulroney feints at excluding himself from these reflections, saying it takes 50 or even 100 years to sort out the truly brave leaders from the timorous second-raters. But then he slides quickly into unabashed boasting about how, as prime minister from 1984 to 1993, he stoutly ignored opinion polls between elections, ordering his cabinet never to consider the government’s popularity in making their decisions. “Political capital is meant, not to be hoarded, but to be spent in great causes for our nation,” he says. “Now, no one can say I didn’t spend mine.”

It’s hard to argue with that claim. Mulroney paid heavily for his most audacious moves, whether pushing through tax reform and the hated GST, negotiating and running for re-election in 1988 on the Canada-U.S. trade deal, or trying, and failing miserably, to reform the Constitution with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. This track record, along with his old-school showmanship, propelled his 2012 tour, putting his big, smiling face behind podiums and in front of standing ovations in, among other cities, Calgary, Toronto and Ottawa.

Mulroney revivalism is also cleverly promoted by a tenacious coterie of loyalists, who sometimes refer to him, among themselves, as “MBM,” for Martin Brian Mulroney. Key among them is Robin Sears, a former national director of the NDP, now a communications and policy consultant with Ottawa-based Earnscliffe Strategy Group, who handles the media around his public events. Another stalwart, L. Ian MacDonald, who was Mulroney’s main speechwriter during much of his heyday in the 1980s, tirelessly buffs his old boss’s image. As editor of Inside Policy, a journal launched last fall, MacDonald published a laudatory free-trade anniversary package in the inaugural issue, with a vintage shot of Mulroney (alongside Ronald Reagan) beaming on the cover.

But Mulroney’s acolytes wouldn’t get far without something compelling to peddle. Jonathan Malloy, chairman of the political science department at Carleton University in Ottawa, says renewed interest in Mulroney stems largely in the way his bravura manner, and the policy record welded to it, contrasts with his current successor at 24 Sussex Drive. “Mulroney is a mirror image of Harper in so many ways,” Malloy says. “If Harper wants big change—and I think he does—it’s done in that incremental, quiet, understated way. Mulroney was all about big vision and hyperbole.”

For his own part, Mulroney doesn’t explicitly spell out that contrast. But he is delighted in an interview to briskly check off his government’s accomplishments—free trade, tax reform, the Canada-U.S. acid rain treaty, joining the Organization of American States, imposing stiffer sanctions against apartheid South Africa, and he can go on if permitted. “I look at it,” he says, “with all the imperfections in mind and say, this was not incrementalism.”

New Brunswick is a good place to get reacquainted with the Mulroney aura. Although he was born in little Baie-Comeau, Que., his parents sent him at 14 to Chatham, N.B., to attend the private St. Thomas High School. He cultivated lasting links to the province, just as he did to Nova Scotia, where he later attended St. Francis Xavier University. As a result, Maritime Tories tend to greet him as the next thing to a local boy made good. So warm is the mood at the Fredericton luncheon that a reporter’s questions about Mulroney’s scandals meet with scowls.

His old friend Ross prefers to chat about the good fights, like passing the GST against stiff Liberal opposition. “Brian was very stoic,” he remembers, “in his determination to do what was right.” Pressed on how he felt later about the Schreiber revelations, Ross winces, and then reaches for a cross-border parallel. “Think of Bill Clinton,” he says. “He went through a down time and he’s one of the most respected politicians right now.” Those envelopes of cash, though. “It was troubling,” Ross concedes. “But he had so many great qualities. That’s how I approach it. None of us are perfect.”

Mulroney’s old pals aren’t alone in weighing his record in that generous way. At St. Thomas U, a red-brick liberal arts campus, students waiting for his late-afternoon talk seem barely aware of any ambivalence surrounding the reputation of the most famous graduate of the old Catholic high school that was their university’s precursor. Many are studying with political science professor Tom Bateman, who sees Mulroney’s Schreiber entanglement as a footnote. “That’s not the most important thing that attaches to him as a person,” Bateman says. “It’s the policy.”

Mulroney arrives late after his closed meeting with the provincial Tory cabinet. When he gets rolling, after his customary ice-breaker jokes, the lofty tone of his set-piece lunch text—all those quotations from eminent figures—is gone. A more relaxed Mulroney slides naturally, perhaps unintentionally, into a theme few visiting politicians would explore in front of a group of bright-eyed undergraduates—the deep satisfactions of wielding unencumbered power.

He starts by noting that Donald Savoie, the University of Moncton public administration professor, has written that a Canadian prime minister with a House majority has fewer checks on his power than the leader of any comparable Western democracy. “The prime minister,” Mulroney concurs, “has unfettered power.” Far from hinting there might be anything wrong with that, he regales the students with stories about getting his way, highlighting episodes that might appeal to idealistic youth. He tells them how, when he realized Nelson Mandela’s plight was being ignored, he used the Commonwealth’s clout to put the then-imprisoned anti-apartheid leader’s cause “back on the front burner.” He moves on to how, when he was anxious to secure a Canada-U.S. treaty to combat acid rain, he leveraged his personal bond with then-president Reagan to overcome resistance in Washington.

Which brings him to a broader point: any Canadian prime minister must not only nurture the U.S. president’s friendship, he must let the world know about it. “Look,” he explains, “one of the main instruments of your strength is if you’re perceived as having influence in the Oval Office.” He illustrates this with another story, one from the very last day of negotiations on the Canada-U.S. trade deal in 1987. James Baker, the U.S. treasury secretary who was heading the American bargaining team, called him to say talks had stalled. Mulroney replied that he would have to phone his friend Reagan at Camp David then. “You mention that,” he says, grinning roguishly, “I want to tell you, the Americans, they’re transfixed.” (So are the St. Thomas students.) Baker got the deal finalized, needless to say, within the hour.

And that, kids, is why you gotta cultivate your connections. But one last point. Without mentioning Harper by name, Mulroney caps his reminiscing on U.S. relations by observing that Canada, in his opinion, these days lacks the inside-Washington credibility that ultimately secured his trade deal. “You try to get that agreement down there now,” he says, “you wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting that done!”

Mulroney connects better in person than on a TV screen, where his already outsized qualities can be unflatteringly magnified. “He stands at the centre of a room and commands it,” says economics professor Tom Velk, chairman of the North American studies programs at McGill University in Montreal. “Everybody goes there, even if they don’t like him. He’s like the Pope, laying on hands.” Mulroney’s voice vibrating at low frequencies on the phone is, if anything, even more potent. He’s famous for his calls to not only friends, but also political adversaries, especially when they’re going through tough times. A close confidant says he remains today as assiduous about placing those calls as ever.

Coping with Mulroney’s unignorable presence has never been a simple task for Harper. After all, the Reform party, in which Harper first rose to prominence, was born largely as a western populist revolt against the man. Yet by the time Harper was leading Reform’s successor party, the Canadian Alliance, making peace with Progressive Conservatives still devoted to Mulroney was his top priority. Thus, in his first speech in the House as Alliance leader in 2002, Harper tactically praised Mulroney, extending an olive branch. The following year, Mulroney threw his considerable weight behind merger talks that led Harper and then-Tory leader Peter MacKay, son of Mulroney’s old cabinet minister Elmer MacKay, to unite the right under a new Conservative banner. Mulroney went on to advise Harper privately on how to win power in 2006.

It all fell apart the next year. In the course of fighting extradition to Germany, Schreiber disclosed details of his former ties to Mulroney—including the cash payments. While Mulroney denied any wrongdoing, he admitted to taking envelopes stuffed with $225,000 at two meetings, saying Schreiber hired him to line up support abroad for a possible UN purchase of German armoured vehicles. Harper outlawed caucus contact with Mulroney and appointed Oliphant to probe the mess. The former judge’s 2010 report would call Mulroney’s dealings with Schreiber “inappropriate,” and conclude “both wanted to conceal the fact that the transactions had occurred between them.”

But Carleton’s Malloy says Oliphant’s findings only confirmed, to Mulroney’s enemies, what they had long suspected, while leaving his allies room to stand by him. “It came down to one word,” he says. “Mulroney’s behaviour wasn’t illegal, it was ‘inappropriate.’ ” Not so damning as to preclude another comeback. And Malloy counts at least three previous major rebounds. Mulroney had bounced back from losing the 1976 Tory leadership to Joe Clark by beating him in the 1983 rematch. He sank deep in the polls before the 1988 election, then surged late to win that epic campaign over Canada-U.S. free trade. He was implicated in a Schreiber-related scandal in 1997, then won a lawsuit against the federal government that seemed to vindicate him.

Mulroney says he never doubted he would return again after the Oliphant inquiry. “Was it pleasant? No. But was it in any way going to be fatal or lethal? Absolutely not,” he says. He continues to cast taking money from Schreiber as a lapse in judgment rather than an ethical failure. “If I had my life to live over again, certainly, Mr. Schreiber, now that we know exactly who he was and what he was up to, would never darken my door.” As for Harper’s decision to make him persona non grata, Mulroney says, “I just took it as a fact that Schreiber was smart in the sense that he tied Harper into it.”

Mulroney’s banishment was never formally rescinded; it eased over the years to the point where it’s obviously no longer in force. The appointment of Nigel Wright as Harper’s chief of staff in 2010 helped. Back in 1984, Wright worked as a junior aide in Mulroney’s Prime Minister’s Office while on leave from the University of Toronto law school—a heady formative experience. He went on to become a deal maker at the investment firm Onex Corp., and a Tory backroom player in Toronto. Along the way, Wright forged a close friendship with another young Onex executive, Anthony Munk, son of Barrick Gold Corp. founder and chairman Peter Munk. Mulroney happens to sit on Barrick’s board and be an old friend of the senior Munk.

By 2012, Mulroney was fully welcome again in the corridors of power. After he spoke last spring at the Foreign Affairs department’s headquarters in Ottawa on the 21st anniversary of his Canada-U.S. acid rain treaty, Baird hosted him at a private supper. When the Public Policy Forum gathered the five living former PMs for a testimonial dinner in Toronto last May, Mulroney stole the show with lines like, “I’d love to be prime minister again—the truth is, I miss the adulation.” His old haunt, Montreal’s iconic Ritz-Carleton, trumpeted his attendance, along with the likes of Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene of Monaco, at the hotel’s 100th anniversary bash; Mila Mulroney wore gold satin.

Mulroney’s posse often did their part, sometimes discreetly. When the University of Toronto’s prestigious Munk School of Global Affairs hosted a symposium on the Canada-U.S. trade accord’s milestone last fall—held the same day as a glittery tribute dinner to Mulroney at the nearby Royal Ontario Museum—the school referred media questions on the organizing of the event to none other than L. Ian MacDonald. When Mulroney spoke at Ottawa’s iconic Chateau Laurier last June at a pharmaceutical industry dinner, the key behind-the-scenes organizer was Bill Pristanski, an Ottawa public affairs consultant who served as Mulroney’s executive assistant for four years in the 1980s.

That Ottawa speech, marking the 25th anniversary of the Mulroney government’s landmark reform of drug patent protections, had the atmosphere of a triumphant homecoming. Some MPs and Tory aides in the room—those elected or hired long after Mulroney’s era—were seeing him in full flight for the first time. For others, seasoned partisans, veteran journalists and long-serving bureaucrats, it was like old times. Taking the podium to a prolonged standing ovation, he played out the funny stories like a fly fisherman patiently reeling in the catch. A well-worn one about Chubby Power, the legendary Quebec Liberal fixer of old. A newer one, making light of indignities he suffered when he was gravely ill with pancreatitis in 2005. The room convulsed at the punch lines.

Then he switched gears, using the drug-patent anniversary to go deep on the importance of innovation in a modern economy. Today’s Tories nodded as he told of how, back in the day, Liberals fought him on extending patent protections. “The opposition was, and this will surprise you,” he said, “highly emotional and bitterly partisan.” But he also slipped in a sharp criticism of the Conservative government for allowing other countries to move ahead with better intellectual property protections, and chastised the drug industry for failing to do enough to turn research into new business. He urged ambition and risk-taking.

When the applause finally died down, a rookie Conservative MP and a young Tory strategist at one table agreed they’d seen nothing like it from the politicians now running Ottawa. Mulroney is fully aware of how he went over. “There were a whole flock of Conservative MPs there, and they were blown away,” he says, scoffing: “They’re used to what passes in Ottawa now for oratory and humour.”

Those experiencing his sunny showmanship for the first time, though, might have trouble imagining how dark he was capable of turning in times past. But it was in the same Chateau Laurier—in very different days, just before he exited politics as a deeply unpopular figure in 1993—that Mulroney delivered a 65-minute diatribe, mainly against those who had scuttled his Meech Lake constitutional gambit, especially Pierre Trudeau. His litany of resentment that day was so sulphurous that few who were in the room will forget it.

that other Mulroney, the one preoccupied with settling accounts, isn’t entirely gone. In another major speech, delivered in Calgary last Oct. 23, he aired his grievance against a different old nemesis. Preston Manning’s Reform party rose under the famous slogan “the West wants in,” and decimated the Tories across Western Canada in the 1993 election. With Mulroney gone, the insurgency wiped out one-half of his vaunted Quebec-West coalition (the Bloc Québécois simultaneously erased the other). “The West was already in,” Mulroney griped in Calgary, Reform’s capital, “and had been since the day our government took office.”

He pointed to his pro-Western policies, like free trade and privatizing Petro-Canada, and to the powerful Albertans in his cabinet, including heavyweights Don Mazankowski and Joe Clark. The speech sparked another round of bitter argument, mostly in Alberta, about what Reform really stood for, and whether Mulroney had a point.

The spat served as a reminder that Harper presides over a party still divided to the marrow between Conservatives who cleave to Manning’s populism and Tories who retain a taste for Mulroney’s elite deal-making. Offered a chance to credit Reform in some respect, Mulroney deadpans his bottom line on Manning’s contribution: “He elected Jean Chrétien three times.” He observes that Harper has little time for the social-conservative issues that many Reformers once felt strongly on, like abortion and capital punishment. “They’re not even allowed to talk about that anymore,” he says. More broadly, Mulroney rejects the proposition that the restored Conservative brand is a hybrid of his PCs and Manning’s Reformers, describing the new party as “pretty much the Progressive Conservatives.”

Manning remains Mulroney’s antithesis—the insistent, keening voice set against the insinuating, dulcet one. Asked in an interview about Mulroney’s claim to have fully represented the West all along—especially by passing free trade, a traditional Prairie-farmer demand—Manning shoots back. “His conversion on free trade, in the Western view, was fairly late in the day and had nothing to do with the Western demands,” Manning says. “It was the Montreal crowd that got together and pushed him into it.”

In any case, Manning adds, Mulroney’s failure to shrink the federal deficit by cutting spending cost him any chance of being seen as a true conservative in the West. “The fiscal part,” he says, “was probably our biggest thing.”

Another big thing was a difference in political style. Mulroney’s power was always rooted in his ability to win and hold the loyalty of those he dealt with directly, whether foreign heads of state or backbench MPs. Manning also commanded considerable personal loyalty, but as a genuine populist, he relied more on persuading rank-and-file Reformers and the party’s core voters, mainly in the West, that he listened to them and so spoke for them. “Mulroney would say we just wanted to take a vote, and whatever they wanted, give it to them,” Manning says. “My argument is, no, you come up with your best judgment and try to carry the majority. You don’t just assume they can’t understand it, or you can bluff them into supporting it, or just go ahead and hope they don’t notice.”

Even now, Mulroney and Manning represent a glaring contrast in operating methods. At his Calgary-based Manning Centre for Building Democracy, Manning aims to influence and train the next generation of Conservative politicians. He talks of going “upstream” to find and mould aspiring local pols who might eventually rise to provincial or federal prominence. From his Montreal office as a senior partner at the international law firm Norton Rose, Mulroney travels the world—in recent weeks to Madrid, London and Saudi Arabia. Earlier this month, he’s in Paris to give a speech at a convention. When he’s in Canada, he isn’t teaching beginners.

Last spring, the Prime Minister sought him out for advice on the shifting Quebec political landscape. Harper’s Conservatives hold just five seats in Mulroney’s home province and one-time electoral stronghold. When the two spoke privately at a Montreal hotel, the separatist Parti Québécois’s return to power in Quebec City, which came about in the fall provincial election, was a looming worry. “I can’t relate any of that conversation,” Mulroney says. “But generally speaking there’s no reason why a federalist party, be it the Conservatives or the NDP, can’t hive off a huge part of the Quebec vote.”

The Liberals, too, might soon be a factor in Quebec again. Mulroney has said those who underestimate Justin Trudeau, the front-runner for the third-place party’s leadership, “do so at their peril.” Trudeau responded that he was “flattered” by that assessment, adding, “I think it was a very nice thing to say by a very classy individual.” Such comments from non-Tories are perhaps even more remarkable than the rehabilitation of Mulroney’s status among his own flock. When Baird hosted that private dinner for Mulroney last spring, the select guest list included, along with Conservatives and public servants, the Liberals’ Bob Rae and the Greens’ Elizabeth May. Mulroney says he was gratified to see them both.

His true believers nod that everything is working out as they knew it must. Author Bob Plamondon, a key chronicler of contemporary Conservatism in books like Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics, credits “the passage of time” with taking the sting out of what he impatiently dismisses as the overhyped “Karlheinz Schreiber mess” and with healing the rift caused by what he calls “the Preston Manning vanity party.” “The good is enduring,” Plamondon says of Mulroney’s policies on trade, taxation and more. “The things that caused him some measure of unpopularity are not enduring.”

The undergrads at St. Thomas University, though, don’t seem much attuned to that enduring policy legacy. They respond to his personality. When a student ventures a question touching on current politics, Mulroney pretends for a moment to be taken aback. “I’m a statesman,” he says in feigned protest, “I’m no longer a politician—a grubby politician.” Of course he laughs heartily as he says it. The young audience is laughing with him. Like every crowd he comes before, they’ve intuited from the moment of being enveloped by his voice that Brian Mulroney, even now, is more a politician than any other they are likely ever to encounter.




Browse

Maclean’s archives: Brian Mulroney is back

  1. Like Paul Martin another old fool who should stay retired

    • Harper’s going to be an old fool one day…the fool part he’s already got well in hand.

        • I’m not an NDPer but you keep on believing that if it makes you feel better. He is a formidable opponent, for both Harper and whoever leads the libs next.

          • Sorry I live in the West after his uneducated rants about the TARsands Mulcair is King Fool

  2. Normally politicians caught taking bribes are so disgraced they flee media attention.

    No doubt, Harper’s Conservative party has left moderate conservatives out in the cold. But I think Mulroney’s conservatism was only moderated by the times. Fact is, he is on the board of Quebecor Media that owns Sun Media, which espouses hard-right conservatism and intolerance. Although he hides behind the scenes, he’s in league with Ezra Levant and all the other Teabagger fanatics.

  3. Mulroney is a Liberal in a blue suit.

    Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin have all been in the pocket of Power Corp. and the Desmerais family.

    • The company is controlled by Paul Desmarais, Sr.. Paul Desmarais, Jr. is one of thirty members of the North American Competitiveness Council, a group whose advice directs the policies of Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Additionally, the company has long been a close ally of the Liberal Party of Canada,
      although former or current members of other Canadian political parties
      have also worked for Power Corp. A brief summary of the connections
      between Power Corp. and those with political power in Canada is below.

      Former Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, was hired in the 1960s to work for Paul Desmarais, Sr. by Maurice Strong. Martin became President of Canada Steamship Lines,
      a subsidiary of Power Corp., and in 1981 Desmarais sold the company to
      Martin and a partner. Martin went on to make his personal fortune as an
      owner of CSL.

      Former Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien sat on the board of Power Corp. subsidiary Consolidated Bathurst in the late 1980s before he became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Chrétien’s daughter France is married to the son of Paul Desmarais, Sr., André. Also Chrétien’s chief of staff Eddie Goldenberg worked in the past for Power Corp.

      Former Prime Minister of Canada, the late Pierre Trudeau,
      served in the mid-1990s on Power Corp.’s international advisory board.
      Trudeau’s assistant Ted Johnson also worked for Power Corp. During the
      Trudeau administration Michael Pitfield
      held a variety of positions in government but during his time in the
      private sector he was at one time a Vice-Chairman of Power Corp. and is
      currently listed as a Director Emeritus.

      Former Prime Minister of Canada Brian Mulroney
      also has a relationship with Power Corporation. Mulroney’s friend Ian
      MacDonald described Desmarais as “Mulroney’s mentor in the business
      world,” and it is believed that Mulroney has done legal work for Power
      Corp. since the end of his term as Prime Minister. Additionally, former
      Mulroney Minister of Transport Don Mazankowski is currently Power Corp.’s company director.

      Former Premiers of Ontario William Davis and John Robarts of the Progressive Conservatives have both sat on Power Corp.’s national advisory board. John Rae, the brother of former NDP Premier Bob Rae, currently serves as Power Corp.’s Executive Vice President.

      Former Premier of Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson, Jr. worked for Power Corp. from 1973 to 1981 and in the last three years of this term was a Vice-President in the company.

      Former member of the Liberal Party of Canada Maurice Strong became President of Power Corp. by his mid-thirties. He had a role in the creation of the Canadian International Development Agency and in 1976 he was appointed to run Petro-Canada. He later worked for the United Nations.

      • Trolling for wiki again?

        • When you’re right-you’re right. Certainly beats your response.

          • It’s tripe and you would know that if you took the time to dig but a little deeper.

          • The left don’t know which end of the shovel is the pointy end.

          • The right think shovel is something you underpay some other poor bastard to do for you.

    • Mulroney is on the board of Quebecor Media which owns Sun Media (Sun TV “News”, Sun tabloids, etc.) The Manning Center For “Democracy” praised the Sun Media for spreading conservatism in Canada. So claiming Mulroney is a Liberal is absurd. (But no doubt the Liberals have moved to the right-of-center where Mulroney was when he was in government.)

      It’s interesting to note how hard-core cons express their disdain for apparent moderate conservatives…

      • PC, red tory…..that’s Lyin’ Brian.

        Liberals moved right of center?

        That is laughable.

        • The impression hard-right conservatives have of the political spectrum is laughable.

          • Those on the left of the political spectrum are delusional at best.

  4. It’s a little ironic that at the very time when we’re shunning Lance Armstrong for cheating and, especially, lying, here is MacLeans praising Brian Mulroney. That’s the way it is, isn’t it? Really, all you really need is your own newspaper (or one in which you have some influence) and the history our students read fifty years from now won’t be even close to the truth. Then again, the actual truth is what makes good books. So there you go.

    • Don’t shoot the messenger. This is nothing more than good reporting – it isn’t necessarily in BM’s corner at all.

      • I agree. It is a wonderful article and I read it very carefully. Incidentally, I have always shouted Mulroney’s praises, but, since the brown envelope scene, well, I find my praises are met with spit and vinegar from the coffee crowd. I’m delighted to see him back, giving advice and speaking to audiences throughout the country and the world. It’s just a wonderful way to spend one’s senior years, I think.

  5. …I miss the adulation…

    Says Brian. What he will seemingly never get is that that many Canadians of his time don’t miss the adulation, the self regard, the preening and the endless self promotion; the slippery spin, the revisionism that is as much a part of him as that velvet voice. By the end of his term most people i knew were sick to death of the man’s inexhaustible self regard and need for public love.
    I wouldn’t deny him his day in the sun myself – he has largely earned it. But it’s pretty obvious how little self awareness there is present in a room full of his admirers. “The good is enduring” says Plamondon…perhaps that’s true ; it is true of pretty much anyone, but if he thinks the part of the public who pay attention are entirely bought off by all that blarney to the point they have erased the image of those brown envelopes, and all those lies and the obfuscation that accompanied his public defense, they are much mistaken.[ imho] Those public enquiries/lawsuits didn’t exonerate him. In fact there are still questions left open and unanswered about the veracity of his testimony before them to this day. But that’s BM, the whole package – politician to the very last drop. You can admire the man’s performance, give him a nod for his big heartened approach to policy [infinitly preferable to Harper's narrow, crabbed, ungenerous political personae] Give him his due, but never forgot the man’s # one priority is always to promote # one, Brian Mulroney.

  6. Brown paper bags full of cash changing hands in hotel rooms.

    American style lobbying basically began in Canada under Mulroney and his buddy Frank Moores.

    Cental canadian elites trying to rehabilitate one of their scumbags again.

    Je m’souviens.

    • When you refer to Malroney as a “scumbag” please remember that’s one of his good points.

  7. Mulroney was an excellent PM, and I’d vote for him again in a second. He did what was right for the country, not what was popular. That’s what a leader does.

    • You’re kidding, right?

      • I rarely, if ever kid. Cons have no sense of humour so I don’t bother.

        • Here goes EmilyOne trolling again.Looking for attention the same as Mulroney always has. Two buds cut from the same cloth – missing something that needs to be fulfilled by attention from others whether negative of positive – but almost always negative attention.

          Remember, Mulroney was and still is THE MOST HATED PRIME MINISTER IN CANADA’S HISTORY. His arrogance, self-entitlement and theft overshine any positive contributions he gave Canadians.

          Well Troll, you got me to respond. I hope this partially fills some of that need for attention.

          And I’m not kidding either.

          • I’m sorry to hear that you think you’re a troll, but I suppose you know yourself best.

            However you might want to look up the meaning of that word.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

            For some reason you think someone commenting on a Comment board is ‘looking for attention’. You know…anonymously….or so no one knows who it is….does that make sense to you? LOL

            Or do you think that accusing a Canadian of ‘looking for attention’ will shock and upset them? Are we supposed to keep our heads down, and be quiet? When did such a belief become part of OUR culture??

            Maybe commenters are just commenting….you know….the way they’re invited to do? It boosts the magazine after all. Gets advertisers and the like.

            No, Mulroney may be disliked by you….but he isn’t by others, and he isn’t the ‘most hated’. Don’t be absurd. What about Trudeau, or RB Bennett?

            In fact what about any PM we’ve had, while they’re in office…..once they out of office we look back on them with nostalgia.

            Given what we currently have, Canadians would happily re-elect Mulroney, Trudeau, Chretien, Campbell…..

            So stop wasting your life ‘hating’ PMs….or other commenters for that matter….surely you can find something more useful and positive to do with your life.

  8. How appropriate that Karlheinz Schreiber was set free. He is now awaiting retrial for a conviction of tax evasion because apart from other procedural reasons Germany’s highest court felt he should have been charged in Canada rather than Germany. I don’t imagine Mr. Harper will push for Schreiber to be returned to Canada. So it is probably safe for Macleans to start singing the praises for Mulroney.

  9. Please, I don’t want to read about him, nor even see him. What hubris, what dillusion.

  10. And Mila will be looking like Joan Rivers pretty soon. Sort of familiar, but too stretched and nipped. Whom are you kidding?

  11. what he wants to sell boeing dreamliners to air canada there a sale this week 50 for the price of 1 but they can t fly but he nows were air bus is

  12. I still recall very well the Mulroney trip across the world that he and Mila took on the taxpayer bill as he left office. He and his wife were and still are crooks.

  13. He’s only here because he heard there was an airplane deal in the works and needs to replenish his envelope….

  14. That’s not a photo of a human being, it’s an old washed up coffin with scratching noises coming from the inside of it.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if a 150 pound Rottweiller bounded up and carted this bozo off by the earlobes. Why not, it would make a nice treat for the dog after a long day of whiffing poodles rear ends.

    Nevertheless I’m tired of looking at him and the fact of him sniffing around trying to influence that jackass John Baird is enough to make me sick

    Begone ye filthy thing and take a few of those Trudeaus with you.

  15. Please bear with me if puke.

  16. What real leadership is all about??? what?. Please stay retired…. to your bed. Most canadians were happy to see your “real leadership” vanished like a fart in the wind. I’m conseravative and Brian..no one need a lesson in leadership from you…..even Thomas Mulcair.

  17. Do us all a favour Brian. Crawl back into your hole and this time take your annoying son with you.

  18. Yes Mulroney was crooked but out of bad can come some good.
    His decimation of the Progressive Conservative Party led to the birth of the Conservative Party and good government in Canada over the past several years.
    Canada is now economically strong in the world of today and the Liberal party has been pared down to ineffectiveness by their own hand.

  19. I really can’t bring myself to even read this entire article, re: Brian Mul-ruin-y. Does this man think all Canadians have had frontal lobotomies? Sorry, I for one have a long memory when it comes to his politics. The LAST thing we need is any advise from him. Send him back to the good old USofA, where they’ve done a real good job of ignoring him, and we should take notes from them.

  20. Mulroney came to StFX University to speak last semester to speak and he had the same effect! The students loved him.

  21. It’s cringingly vain for
    Mulroney to suggest that he could get between President Ronald Reagan and James
    Baker—his first Chief of Staff, his National Campaign Manager, and his
    brilliant Treasury Secretary—on any issue of importance to the United States.
    Reagan and the US Senate made a deal with Canada because it served America’s
    interests. Period.

    And please don’t be intimidated
    by the idea that what a “legend” did nearly a generation ago can’t be
    repeated—even improved on—now.

    There wasn’t a snowball’s
    logic to Brian Mulroney’s entire record of economic accomplishment.

    The man was considered a
    political junky and ruthless cynic when he was elected in 1985. His economic
    pronouncements appeared ghosted; he talked mostly about business-like
    government and never endorsed free trade with the US. Smart public servants in
    Ottawa never imagined that he had the discipline or courage to reform Canada’s
    sales tax regime, let alone negotiate a comprehensive free trade deal with the
    US government. You can read more at les-horswill.blogspot.ca

Sign in to comment.