9

Thomas Mulcair and the envelope

What was the NDP leader offered in 1994?


 

In the wake of a report from La Presse about Thomas Mulcair’s statements to police about a meeting with former Laval mayor Gilles Vaillancourt, the NDP released a statement from Mr. Mulcair this morning.

In early 2011, I met with the police in order to help in their investigation.

I gave to them my account of a meeting I had with Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt dating back to 1994.

As is indicated, I effectively and immediately ended the meeting with Mr. Vaillancourt.

This matter is currently before the courts and I will therefore avoid further comment.

The Conservatives followed that with a statement from Peter Van Loan.

The Canadian Press summarizes.

A statement from House Leader Peter Van Loan accused Mulcair of remaining silent about corruption for two decades. It also accused him of lying during a 2010 press conference, when he said he had never been offered a bribe during his time in Quebec politics…

It’s unclear whether Mulcair was in fact lying on Nov. 16, 2010, when a journalist asked at an Ottawa press conference whether he had ever been offered cash envelopes by Vaillancourt and he said: “No.” The report in La Presse said Mulcair told police he’d actually left the 1994 meeting without opening, or accepting, a white envelope and did not know for sure that there was cash inside.


 

Thomas Mulcair and the envelope

  1. “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

    So Mulcair is a clueless moron OR a liar and a facilitator of two decades of corruption. Which guy do we want to be Prime Minister?

    • Well, since we already have a bit of both, why limit our
      choice to those two ?

  2. Would never trust Mulcair. He has always struck me as dishonest and I will not vote for him.

    • You live in Outremont?

  3. I suppose the question has to be put to Mulcair. But I can hardly think of anyone less fit to throw the first stone.

    • Maybe Tory Clement. It’s a close call. :)

  4. It also accused him of lying
    Isn’t that grounds for a lawsuit? I thought MPs had parliamentary immunity when making accusations in the house (although calling someone a “liar” is not allowed in the house). If Van Loan accused Mulcair of lying outside the house, wouldn’t that lead to a defamation lawsuit?

    • “If Van Loan accused Mulcair of lying outside the house, wouldn’t that lead to a defamation lawsuit?” — Only if what Van Loan was accusing him of was false. If Mulcair wasn’t lying, then he should sue. If he doesn’t sue, it’s most likely that he was in fact lying.

    • If Van Loan accused Mulcair of lying outside the house, wouldn’t that lead to a defamation lawsuit?

      ****

      The shortest way to put it is: not always.

Sign in to comment.