'I will leave it to others to assess the full impact of these events' - Macleans.ca
 

‘I will leave it to others to assess the full impact of these events’


 

Brian Mulroney releases a statement in response to the Oliphant report.

“While I have not yet had an opportunity to review Commissioner Oliphant’s final report, I have been briefed on its contents.

I was satisfied, but not surprised, to learn that the Commissioner has concluded that I did not, as Prime Minister, apply pressure to or attempt to influence my ministers or other government officials with respect to the promotion or approval of the Bear Head Project. The evidence presented during the inquiry demonstrated that the allegations made against me to that effect were completely false.

I was also pleased that the Commissioner confirmed that no agreement with Mr. Schreiber was reached while I was Prime Minister of Canada and, moreover, that the agreement reached after I left office was exclusively international in scope. To that end, I understand that the Commissioner was satisfied that I did nothing domestically to promote Thyssen or its objectives after I left office.

I genuinely regret that my conduct after I left office gave rise to suspicions about the propriety of my personal business affairs as a private citizen. I will leave it to others to assess the full impact of these events. For now, I am merely grateful that this unfortunate chapter is over and that my family and I can move forward with our lives.”


 

‘I will leave it to others to assess the full impact of these events’

  1. For now, I am merely grateful that this unfortunate chapter is over and that my family and I can move forward with our lives.

    Well, sure, after leaving the tab of your lawsuit and your lawyers for taxpayers to pick up. Thanks!

    • The same was done for Paul Martin and Jean Chretien during the Gomery inquiry, wasn't it?

  2. "And the cover, I liked the cover too …"

  3. So, do Canadian taxpayers' get back that 2 million dollar settlement that we gave Mulroney? Yeah, didn't think so.

    • for what it's worth, he donated it to charity.

      • What charity?

        The award was for his court and public relations costs. Are you saying he paid those out of his own pocket?

        • His court case was against the government for libel for stating he was engaged in criminal conduct related to the purchase of Airbus aircraft by Air Canada. There has never been a shred of evidence that he took any part in Air Canada's decision to buy the A320, and the Oliphant report does not indicate any other wrong-doing while PM. Although the government might have fought harder if it knew of his links to Schreiber post-office, his claim that he was libelled is still a valid one. The government accused him of criminal conduct, they had no such prood, and he was entitled, at a minimum, to have his costs paid for. I don't see any reason for him to re-pay anything at this point.

          • 1. No the court case was baed on an RCMP request for asssistance to the Swiss Authorities seeking access to bank accounts for the "investigation and criminal prosecution based on alleged breaches of the law by Brian Martin Mulroney and/or Frank Moores." How else are police going to catch criminals if they aren't allowed to investigate allegations?

            2. After establishing the source of funds for Schreiber's activities came from Airbus in his report Oiphant goes on to say: "Despite the difficulties I have with Mr. Schreiber's testimony, I am prepared to accept Mr. Schreiber's testimony that the money he paid to Mr. Mulroney came from the Britan account."

            The RCMP had good reason to approach the Swiss authorities and were essentially pulled off the case by the combined influence of a rich former PM and his influential lawyers and PR firm. That's a far cry from the justice an ordinary Canadian ever received from the Canadian government.

          • 1. No the court case was based on an RCMP request for asssistance to the Swiss Authorities seeking access to bank accounts for the "investigation and criminal prosecution based on alleged breaches of the law by Brian Martin Mulroney and/or Frank Moores." How else are police going to catch criminals if they aren't allowed to investigate allegations?

            2. After establishing the source of funds for Schreiber's activities came from Airbus in his report Oiphant goes on to say: "Despite the difficulties I have with Mr. Schreiber's testimony, I am prepared to accept Mr. Schreiber's testimony that the money he paid to Mr. Mulroney came from the Britan account."

            The RCMP had good reason to approach the Swiss authorities and were essentially pulled off the case by the combined influence of a rich former PM and his influential lawyers and PR firm. That's a far cry from the justice an ordinary Canadian ever received from the Canadian government.

          • No, they had no reason to defame Mr. Mulroney and nothing since then has indicated he was ever, to the slightest degree, involved in breaches of the law, and, in particular, despite years of digging by the RCMP, CBC and anyone with a grudge against him, no evidence at all that there he had any involvement at all in the decision to purchase the A320. There is, in fact, no evidence that anyone, anywhere in Canada, did anything illegal in that transaction – it simply seems to have been a sensible commercial decision by Air Canada to buy one of the two possible airplanes on offer. And Boeing surely had salesmen as active at lobbying at the time as Mr. Scheiber. Anyway, the statements about Mr. Mulroney were libellous and baseless. He should clearly have been more fortchoming in his discovery, but that would likely have prolonged the case, not changed its outcome.

          • but that would likely have prolonged the case, not changed its outcome.

            Well, now, that's an altogether novel defence of the plaintiff, that I doubt would have eluded most of us for, like, ever. He was sparing us the cost of a lengthy trial by witholding information that the lawyers and judges likely would have wanted to poke their noses in further for no reason whatsoever. Wow. Hey, Thanks, Brian!

            And Mike R assures us the information, had it not been witheld inappropriately under oath when specific queries were directed at the witness, would not in any way have altered the result of the legal dispute between the parties. That's a double-phew! A time-saving shortcut to the inevitable result! Remind me to try that if ever I must testify under oath. These aren't the droids you're looking for… He can go about his business… Move along…

          • And comments like that are why I keep looking forward to your stuff.. even if I almost violently disagree on most of the others. Thanks.

          • So you're saying that elected officials who hang around with shady characters maintaining Swiss bribery accounts shouldn't be investigated becasuse that would be defamation? Again, I ask, how are the police supposed to investigate when they have a suspicion, it turns out a very reasonable one in this instance?

      • From Biran Mulroney's testimony at committee:

        "On October 6, 1997 the later former Chief Justice Alan B. Gold of the Quebec Superior Court, acting as special arbitrator, ordered the Government of Canada to pay $2.1 million in legal fees and other costs. This entire amount went straight to my lawyers and advisors. Contrary to the allegations of some, I never received a cent."

        Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/p

        • "Yup. Not a penny. Or nickel. Not a dime, quarter, loonie or twonie. Nope. No sir. It wasn't in fives or tens or twenties…"

          Can you imagine? My lawyers insisted on writing a cheque

      • Gee… I hope he got a receipt for tax purposes

  4. This is a historical incident and should be studied for what it can teach us but it is not relevant to the governance of our country today. It is a stain on Mr Mulroney's reputation. He deserves it. Now, let's move on.

    • Ahem, as to the wilful concealment of relevant testimony when questioned under oath during the civil trial…?

      No. Let us NOT yet move on.

      • I do not dispute that this is a terrible stain on Mulroney's reputation, but no prosecutor is going to pursue a case that cannot be won. Let's not waste more taxpayer money. I'm just being practical.

        • Wow. You mean I can get away with testimony so blatantly self-servingly evasive (that a retired judge describes it as they-won't-let-me-call-it-perjury) in a trial process that awards me over two million? What a country!

  5. ‘I will leave it to others to assess the full impact of these events'

    Wonderful. Who's got the 4-1-1 for the RCMP?

    • Let's just be thankful that it's the RCMP that decides, and not 24/7 Mulroney bashers — as it should be in a democracy.

      • Let us be thankful, indeed, that decisions on criminal conduct are left to the RCMP, although the Crown prosecutors may have a legitimate role to play, as well. But anyone has a right to assess the non-criminal aspect of "these events."

        And may I congratulate you on a lucid statement that, in almost an hour, has not mutated one bit. Very refreshing.

        • There you go again. Why do you have to make these accusations against me? I don't change my statements mid-argument. I don't run away from debates, like you did. But thanks for being unable to stick to the topic at hand — not!

          Oh, and you're the one who referenced the RCMP, thus presumably assessing the criminal aspects of "these events". I mean, why else cite the police, right?

          Suggestion: Stop being cute, start sticking to facts. That's all. Take it or leave it. Make things easy or hard.

          • I wasn't accusing. I was congratulating. Not one for compliments, it seems.

          • Not only did you accuse me of changing statements mid-argument, now you're lying about it. Hey, that's the way to build up your eroding credibility. Then you have the call to accuse others like Mulroney of making "false statements" and committing "perjury." Super. Keep it up.

          • Oh, so now you're BACK to making the false accusation. Which is it, pal? Keep digging.

          • I wasn't accusing. I was referring. Not one for helpful references, it seems.

          • Did you take tips from Mulroney on how to deflect and obfuscate? Or from today's Liberal party on how to make accusation after accusation without moral courage? But you go on lashing out, ya hear? It's quite fun watching this.

          • Of course you will. Lord forbid that you specify the false accusations you make against others. I guess moral character is something you preach about, but don't live out. Coward.

            I'll also note that the thread this character is linking to has him leaving in anger without justifying his accusations against others, too.

            Unbelievable.

          • To summarize for those who do not wish to jump to the link, and to help out any slow-learner participants who cannot recall the context already: DF requests evidence of additional permanent stains on BM's reputation. MYL provides Oliphant's finding of misleading & evasive testimony at the civil trial: Mr. Mulroney's answer to Mr. Sheppard's question failed to disclose appropriately the facts of which Mr. Mulroney was well aware, when such disclosure was clearly called for. But because Oliphant failed to use "perjury," a term he was not allowed to use, that's enough for DF to smirk that there is no new stain on BM's reputation. No, really, if you don't believe MYL you will have to jump over to the link. MYL makes note that DF's goalposts keep moving, and DF recoils in (mock?) horror at the accusation.

            Continued…

          • Yes, that is what I requested, and you never provided it. Then you left, and now you come back to make these incendiary accusations yet again.

            What is it? Is no one allowed to disagree with your hatred of political opponents? This is how you try to build credibility in making accusations against others is it?

            And the funny thing is, you left in anger in that thread. You couldn't sustain your smears then. You can't now. Just this desperate defence after the fact.

            Again, you're a coward and a liar, yet have the gall to attack me, Mulroney, and others.

          • …continued.

            MYL still wonders whether DF is adopoting these bizarre postures for, well, let's call a spade a spade, for compensation, an observation not yet denied specifically by DF. Though MYL is more than ready to take DF at his word, if offered, that he has come up with this argumentative strategy all on his own, MYL is not sure that such an assertion would cast DF in as favourable a light as if DF was truly hired for this effort.

            Go ahead, read the thread and see for yourself.

          • OH MY GOD!

            After all this time of hurling one unjustified accusation after another against people, you NOW accuse my of being PAID – without evidence or compelling argumentation?

            This is something else.

            You need to do this. You need to smear opponents. You can't beat them in debate. Instead, you use knee-jerk cowardice and lies.

            You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Instead, you're probably very proud, which explains a lot – especially your inability to sustain even one outrageous accusation against people who dare disagree with you politically.

            Who's your hero? Fidel Castro? My God.

            Like I said. Keep it up. You sustain one lie with even more. Bravo, dude!

            I don't need them. You do.

          • Actually, NOW is a strong term. So is accusation. I wondered aloud about it six hours ago. I merely reiterated the wonder NOW. And the suggestion remains "not yet denied specifically." But, as already stated, I remain willing to take you at your word, if offered, that you have come up with this argumentative strategy all on your own, not for hire.

            Take all night, if you need to. I am off to bed.

          • You are a lowlife coward. You have no basis upon which to make these accusations, yet you make them anyway. That's because it's who you are. You'd much rather lash out at perceived political enemies than engage in argumentation with facts or reason.

            For the record, I'm not paid to do this. Yet what do you care? That won't stop the smears or the lies from you. But thanks for believing that I'm good enough to be paid, loser.

          • For the record, I'm not paid to do this.

            Fine. As stated before, I am happy to take you at your word. So we are both unpaid interested observers, only one of whom rephrases questions when he doesn't like the answers to his first questions, as he continues his quest to massage the reputation of the indefensible.

            Good day, sir.

          • Why do you have to outright lie about people with whom you have political disagreement? Why do you have to make things up, then have the gall to accuse Mulroney as such? Why are you so quick to shred any little credibility you have in maintaining sustained argumentation?

            What is it that makes you do these things? Ideology? Hate? Low character? What?

  6. Here's what bothers me most. We have in Brian Mulroney possibly the best, most useful PM Canada had during my lifetime (Pearson at birth, follow the timeline as you please).

    Free Trade: Canada can compete on a level playing field, and trade brings prosperity. And Canada agreed in a single-issue election on this point. We were led by a leader who convinced us to join in on this project, and we were ably led to make the right choice.

    GST: The absolutely stupid manufactuerer's tax was replaced by a much more fair and widely based consumption tax that finally helped slay the deficit and went a long ways to chipping away at the debt. So much that the party the promised to scrap da tax did no such thing upon its election.

    Acid rain: Treaty with the USA to reduce their NOx and SOx emissions that were eating away at fresh water bodies in both countries.

    Apartheid: Principled stand within and outside the Commonwealth because, well, because of the principle of the thing.

    • There are no doubt some other achievements (and undoubtedly some will come along with setbacks, like some defence minister seen at a German strip club or some other minister overheard on a flight mentioning that someone or other would be (whatever the term in that era was for) thrown under the bus, and a military jet service contract that ought by rights to have gone to Winnipeg I think instead of Quebec). But the above was off the top of my head.

      But by any measure that list above is an impressive list of achievements that can be placed on our national Thank-You Card for Mr. Mulroney.

      It is a great shame for the man, for his family, and for our country, that he has allowed his legacy to be so incredibly sullied by this seedy conduct. My admiration for Mr. Mulroney makes me all the more ill that he engaged in this sort of thing, and it makes me wonder if there is a closet full of other skeletons somewhere. I did not want to have to think that way about him.

      • I'm with you on this. Mulroney is a bizarre character, really. In terms of pure policy administration, he was a fine PM, even if you don't agree with all or most of his policies. Compared to the current PM, Mulroney looks positively visionary, original and courageous as a policy maker and implementer. And his central policies were so controversial that, in that respect, I admire him much more than Chretien — because Chretien didn't really do anything terribly visionary or controversial. And the most unpopular thing done under Chretien — the budget cuts — were really primarily worn by Paul Martin.

        • But as the years have gone by, I've come to realize that Mulroney obviously has some serious character flaws. Just from a pure empathy point of view, I've found it painful to listen to his evasions, equivocations etc. I think the lawyer in Mulroney still thinks he can outwit and out-strategize people with respect to this stuff, but it's way beyond that point. I feel sad for Mulroney's family and those who have supported and stood by him over the years. We all would have been so much better off if he'd just faced the music, come clean and quit being so ridiculously evasive about this stuff.