Brian Mulroney Media Room

Allan Rock: “That’s why an apology was given”

 Email To Friend |  Print |02/06/10

The following is a conclusion of the Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, found on page 29 of the report

Airbus Libel Case Settlement

The Opposition insisted that as part of our study we examine the Airbus Libel case settlement between Mr. Mulroney and the former Liberal Government. As Allan Rock, Minister of Justice at the time of the settlement testified before us, the now public information about the business relationship between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber, while it could have impacted the terms of the settlement, did not change the essential reason for the decision to settle.

Mr. Rock testified, “The advice I had from the department, with which I agreed, was that the gist of the reason we apologized to Mr. Mulroney was the language used in the letter of request, and if you read that language, you’ll see it was conclusory. It asserts as a matter of fact that there was criminal activity. That’s why an apology was given.” Further, he testified, “…regarding who is responsible for the $2.1 million, the government acknowledged that the letter should not have been sent in that language. It was the language used that was the essential harm here, and it was for that reason we apologized and agreed to pay
costs.”

Given that a decade-long RCMP investigation into the Airbus purchase which proceeded well past the date of the libel settlement found no evidence of criminal wrong-doing, and given the lack of any new evidence before our Committee, it must be concluded that the settlement reached with Mr. Mulroney was appropriate.

Mathias:Oliphant findings won’t sate the scandal-lust of Mulroney haters

 Email To Friend |  Print |02/06/10

The following was published in the June 2, 2010 edition of The National Post

The witch hunt against the 18th prime minister of Canada — the “Airbus affair” — is over (perhaps). And the people who tried for a quarter of a century to find Brian Mulroney guilty of heinous corruption have failed. Meanwhile, this wild goose chase has cost $30-million of public money and consumed huge quantities of political oxygen, often suffocating more vital matters.

Airbus has been probed by the RCMP (twice), by the CBC (for 15 years), by the House of Commons Ethics Committee and by the $16-million Justice Jeffrey Oliphant Commission. At times, Mulroney’s treatment has descended into a public degradation ritual. But all this rage and spending has produced little more than Oliphant’s finding that Mulroney’s conduct was “inappropriate” for a former prime minister. When the dust settles, historians will call the Airbus affair, “The Mouse that Roared.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT THE NATIONAL POST

Brian Mulroney’s Speech: 25th Anniversary of the New Government

 Email To Friend |  Print |23/09/09

Il y a 25 ans aujourd’hui, j`étais assermenté comme 18ième Premier Ministre du Canada, à l`issue d`une élection historique.

Cette victoire avait été rendue possible grâce au travail acharné de tous ceux qui sont réunis ici ce soir, de même que de milliers d’autres à travers le pays— ces collègues et amis à qui je transmets en votre nom un message de gratitude et de loyauté indéfectible.

I convey to you all my enduring gratitude for your support, loyalty and friendship. You made it possible. You made it happen and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Only 22 people in the 142 year history of this magnificent country have held the title of Prime Minister. To have been elected and re-elected to the position with majority governments is a rare privilege and high honour. I am pleased to tell you what I suspect you already know: none of this would have been possible for me without the love, encouragement and support of Mila and the children all of whom, I am thrilled to point out, are with me here tonight.

Once you leave you tend not to miss much about active politics. But I can tell you that the part of political life I miss most of all is my caucus. I loved them all and deeply respected their sacrifice and admired their commitment. Their preoccupations become my priorities. So every Wednesday I witnessed a microcosm of Canada – replete with challenges, and achievements, tensions and dreams – as I watched men and women from vastly different regions, backgrounds and languages struggling to understand each other’s views while seeking to harmonize their differences into coherent national policy. Those moments exemplified for me the very essence of Parliamentary democracy and the splendor of a commitment to Canada.

We gathered to consider the great issues on our agenda, from the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement and Nafta to the GST, from Meech Lake to the Gulf war, from the creation of La Francophonie to the fight against apartheid in South Africa and the fight for the Canada-US acid rain agreement; from the abolition of the National Energy Program in the west to the creation of Nunavut in Canada’s north to the Atlantic Accord and Hiberia Agreement that launched prosperity in the east.

Nous jouissions il y a 25 ans d’un mandat clair, il nous appartenait, il était notre devoir de poser des gestes audacieux. C’est ce que nous avons fait.

Cet appui, ce réservoir de soutien et de loyauté, il est du devoir des leaders politiques de le mettre à contribution sagement, de s’en servir en invitant leurs collègues et leurs commettants à les accompagner dans les décisions difficiles, généralement impopulaires mais nécessaires à l’avancement et au mieux-être de la nation.

C’est cette philosophie qui nous animait et qui nous a permis de proposer, de défendre vigoureusement et finalement de faire adopter des mesures qui, à ce jour, avec le recul des années, ont fait la preuve qu’elles étaient la base d’une économie assainie et un outil essentiel à la bonne gouvernance de l’état.
Les gouvernements subséquents, après beaucoup de gymnastique et d’acrobatie oratoires ont finalement choisi, faisant preuve d’une sagesse réticente et tardive, de les laisser en place.

Nous étions, mon équipe et moi, plus jeunes, plus vigoureux, plus énergiques. N’allez pas croire, pour autant que nous étions dénués de sens politique et stratégique.

Nos adversaires nous ont affublés de tous les épithètes. Personne ne nous a jamais accusé toutefois d’être des rêveurs illuminés. Lorsque nous avons proposé le libre-échange et la TPS par exemple, ni moi, ni aucun membre du caucus n’a jamais pensé pour un seul instant que notre cote de faveur populaire allait monter en flèche!

Mais ces mesures étaient nécessaires. Nous avons affronté ensemble, solidairement, la tempête politique que nous avions déclenchée. Le prix politique a été lourd, les dividendes économiques beaucoup plus généreux que nous les avions anticipés; et le Canada d’aujourd’hui était le gagnant de cette décennie de grandes initiatives gouvernementales.

Comme Jean Charest l’a démontré encore il y a quelques mois, il faut toujours se souvenir que c’est en fin de soirée que l’on voit les meilleurs danseurs.

Tonight we celebrate not a victory of party, but an affirmation of democracy. 25 years ago, we created a new Conservative majority in Canada, restoring the alternation of government so essential to democratic renewal and change.

In the previous half century the Liberals had been in power for 42 years, the Conservatives for less than 7. It has developed that by winning 2 majority terms we gave the Conservative party more time in office than all other of our party’s leaders in 70 years combined.

So, this is truly an occasion for celebration. You did it. The women and men in this room did it. You carried me on your shoulders; but much more importantly, you carried us to victory. You did it throughout that remarkable campaign, when you proved day after day that our Conservative team was worthy of the confidence and trust of voters, and gave Canada what it needed most, not just a new government but a new direction for our country.

I promised “a brand new day and a brand new Canada.” And that’s exactly what we delivered. I promised to bring Canadians together in our time as Sir John A. Macdonald did in his own by re-creating his grand alliance of “English and French, East and West, new Canadians and old” to build a brand new Canada. And that’s exactly what we did.

And so, 25 years ago today, a Conservative majority government took office for the first time since John Diefenbaker. Four years later, in the free trade election, we became the first Conservative government to win a second consecutive majority in 100 years.

That night, a quarter century ago, a party basically of English Canada also became the party of French Canada. Because that night, we grew from 1 Quebec seat to 58.

A party of Western Canada also became the party of Eastern Canada.

A party of old Canadians also became the party of new Canadians.

A party of rural Canada also became the party of urban Canada.

A party of the margins finally became the party of the mainstream.

That’s why we won then – because we fought for the mainstream and throughout the campaign we never forgot the advice of a wise Canadian who once said: “Don’t be down hearted in the heat of battle. It’s where all good men would wish to be”.

A country without vision is one without destiny; a nation without dreams is one without hope.
We had a vision of Canada as a country united at home and admired abroad, for our values as much as our prosperity; a land of opportunity, a beacon of hope for the world.

We had a vision of Canada as a functional federation, where the provinces were Ottawa’s partners in Confederation. We sought to build a stronger Canada by respecting the constitutional division of powers designed by Sir John A. and the founding fathers and by securing Quebec’s signature on the Constitution.

Quand je regarde derrière, comme vous sans doute, je me demande quelquefois ce que nous aurions pu faire de mieux, ce que nous aurions pu améliorer davantage.

Bien des choses, sans doute. Mais je suis fier, vous l’êtes aussi, que nous l’avons courageusement essayé. Lorsqu’avec 25 ans de recul, on fait le bilan, il est évident que la colonne des réalisations, pour impressionnante qu’elle soit, comporte des lacunes. C’est la vie.

Mais réfléchissez avec moi. La mort d’une initiative – l’Accord du Lac Meech - qui nous tenait tant à coeur, au succès de laquelle nous nous sommes tellement investis laisse derrière une profonde nostalgie. Mais songez combien différent serait notre sentiment, si en nous retrouvant ce soir, la question était « Si seulement on avait essayé. »

Eh bien, nous avons essayé de toutes nos forces et ce fait historique sera à l’honneur de vous tous et du gouvernement conservateur jusqu’à dans la nuit des temps.

We also had a vision of Canada as a country engaged with the world, beginning with the United States, our closest neighbour, largest partner, and best friend. And what did that get us? The Canada-US Free Trade agreement, the NAFTA, the Arctic Agreement, and the Acid Rain Accord.

We joined the Organization of American States, which has put us on the map throughout Latin America and led the fight in the Commonwealth against the scourge of apartheid in South Africa.

We were known in the world by the things we stood for, the people we stood by, and the company we kept. When Germany was re-united after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Chancellor Kohl spoke to the Bundestag and thanked the three leaders he said were indispensable at that historic moment – the President of the United States, the President of the Soviet Union and the Prime Minister of Canada.
Nous avons également mis un terme à la querelle triangulaire Ottawa-Québec-Paris et conclu une entente qui a résulté dans la création du sommet de la francophonie, permettant ainsi au Québec de s’épanouir en jouant un rôle vital au niveau international, tout en assurant le rayonnement mondial de notre langue et culture françaises.

We were also respected throughout the world, for our leadership on the environment. We were the first industrialized country to sign both the atmospheric and bio-diversity accords. Our leadership in 1987 gave us the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion. We were among the very first to recognize the threat of global warming and climate change. We created eight new national parks, including South Moresby in British Columbia, one of the great wilderness areas of the world. We brought in the Green Plan, ranked as no. 1 in the world by the United Nations, and Environmental Assessment Reviews and negotiated an Acid Rain Treaty with the U.S. that saved rivers, lakes, streams and forests for future generations of Canadians.
We also maintained the social safety net.

It turns out that we did more to enhance social programs than either our predecessors or our successors. Total social program spending in constant dollars increased from $48 billion in 1984 to $84 billion in 1993, and actually declined by 0.3 percent in the following ten years.

And we transformed the Canadian economy, with free trade, privatizations, deregulation, low inflation, investment and tax reform, creating millions of new jobs for Canadians and building a foundation for prosperity while strengthening the public finances of Canada.

I was flipping through my morning copy of the Globe and Mail … of February 28, 1890 and, wouldn’t you know, came across a report on the unveiling of Sir John A. MacDonald’s Prime Ministerial portrait.
The Globe reports “that the address to [Prime Minister MacDonald] by a Conservative colleague was as laudatory as the English language would permit” (I find nothing wrong with that custom).

The Globe then observed that Sir John A. “told his admiring followers that he was the father of responsible government in Canada, the joint father of Confederation and that the peace, progress and prosperity of the country for the past quarter of a century was wholly due to the Conservative party”. And some of the media said I was guilty of hyperbole!

But then the Globe – in a tradition that has fortunately survived to this day – introduced some measure of balance into its report of the occasion. The Globe continues: “Someone has said that the chief business of old men is to tell stories which nobody believes and this is pretty much the case with [Sir John A].” The Journalist concluded: “Anyone familiar with the history of Canada knows that Sir John was the opponent of every measure of reform… and that he has held power by a set of the most rascally corrupt acts that ever disgraced the statutes of a free country”. Gee, some things never change, eh!

Sir John A. had his flaws and made his own mistakes but he is universally recognized today as Canada’s greatest Prime Minister, by far.

We had our achievements as well and we also made our share of mistakes, no one more than me. As Sir John A. said: “there is no claim of infallibility in this office” and I was fallible enough on many days, all too human on some others. You are all familiar with some of my errors of judgment.

In the words of the old English ballad:
“I am wounded but I am not slain.
I’ll lay me down and bleed awhile,
Then I’ll rise and fight again.”

Time is the ally of leaders who placed the defence of principle ahead of the pursuit of popularity. And history has little time for the marginal roles played by the carpers and complainers and less for their opinions. History tends to focus on the builders, the deciders, the leaders, because they like you are the men and women whose contributions have shaped the destiny of their nations.

Theodore Roosevelt had courageous leaders in mind when he spoke many years ago at La Sorbonne and uttered a few well known lines that I have come to cherish because they reflect the universal reality of all those who serve in the trenches of politics:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better.

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood… who spends himself in a worthy cause, who, at the best, knows in the end the triumphs of high achievement and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Privileged nations like Canada are often extremely resistant to change. Deep and important structural changes are indispensable however to re-ignite a growing economy and ensure the flourishing of peace and liberty and they can only be brought about by a firm expression of political will. As a contemporary American observer noted some years ago: “In a nation ruled by polls and ratings, where even newspapers hire focus groups to see what kind of news readers want, we are losing sight of something we should have learned as teen-agers: Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s right.”

In fact “transforming leadership” – leadership that makes a significant difference in the life of a nation – recognizes that political capital is acquired to be spent in great causes for one’s country.
This is precisely such a time.

Prime Ministers are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership. There are times when voters must be told not what they want to hear but what they have to know. And what they have to know is a quotation from the book of proverbs inscribed on the Peace Tower in Ottawa: “Where there is no vision, the people perish”.

Leaders must have vision and they must find the courage to fight for the policies that will give that vision life. Leaders must govern not for easy headlines in 10 days but for a better Canada in 10 years – and they must be ready to endure the attacks that often accompany profound or controversial change, while they await the distant and compelling sounds of a verdict that only history and a more reflective nation can render in the fullness of time.
Look at what is happening today in the United States. President Obama is fighting for a form of universal health care and is encountering ferocious resistance, even though his own party controls the House, Senate and White House. He is now struggling on all fronts to provide a viable program for 47 million uninsured Americans, and the millions more who continue to lose their health insurance every year because they can no longer afford it, while attempting to cut health care expenditures that are twice that of every industrialized nation in the world, 18% of their entire GDP.
The attacks on President Obama are often bitter and mean spirited and his approval ratings are sinking like a stone. Still he fights on.
Almost 50 years ago a similar battle raged in Canada. But the vision, courage and determination of Tommy Douglas, John Diefenbaker, Emmett Hall and Lester B. Pearson produced Canada’s national medicare program which, with its imperfections, remains to this day a monument both to their leadership and to the social justice and genuine sense of fairness inherent in our Canadian citizenship.
And 50 years from today Americans will revere the name Obama because – like his Canadian predecessors - he chose the tough responsibilities of national political leadership over the meaningless nostrums of sterile partisanship.
Chers amis, merci du fond du coeur de votre appui, de votre loyauté, de votre générosité.
Thank you all for your kindness, loyalty and support to Mila, the family and me over so many years. We will never forget your friendship and what you have done for Canada.
From the bloodied sands of Afghanistan to the snows and waters of the high Artic – and everything in between – the Canada of 50 years from now will be defined by the leadership we are given today.
This is the party that founded Canada.
This is the party that has contributed mightily to her growth and prosperity for almost a century and a half.
This is the party with the capacity and courage required to continue a grand and glorious tradition of keeping Canada on that broad, sweeping vista towards greater prosperity, respect and success.
And this is the party that will ensure unfolding decades record always that you stood for Canada today in a manner that built her future so that our very youngest Canadians will celebrate and benefit from your uncommonly effective national leadership that will power our country to new and impressive levels of achievement and that history will always hold high.
May God bless you all and bless our beloved country.
Merci à vous tous et bonne fin de soirée.

Doug Fisher

 Email To Friend |  Print |18/09/09

I knew Doug for over fifty years and always enjoyed our time together. He became the respected dean of the Press Gallery after his career in politics as a result of his incredible capacity for hard work, his keen appreciation of history and his intelligence. He will be greatly missed. My deepest condolences to his family and children.
Brian Mulroney

Advisory:Current and former cabinet ministers to attend Mulroney celebration

 Email To Friend |  Print |16/09/09

Friends and supporters will gather September 17 at Le Centre Sheraton Hotel Montreal to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the swearing in of The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney’s first majority government. Cabinet ministers from both the Mulroney and Harper governments will be present for the celebration.

This event is co-chaired by Premier Jean Charest and Ambassador Michael Wilson, who both served as cabinet ministers in the Mulroney government. In addition to the more than forty former ministers of the Mulroney governments, a number of current federal cabinet ministers are scheduled to attend, including:

• The Honourable Jim Flaherty
• The Honourable Peter MacKay
• The Honourable Lawrence Cannon
• The Honourable John Baird
• The Honourable Tony Clement
• The Honourable Jim Prentice
• The Honourable Christian Paradis
• The Honourable Rob Nicholson
• The Honourable Greg Thompson
• The Honourable Lisa Raitt
• The Honourable Joseé Verner
• The Honourable Bev Oda
• The Honourable Rona Ambrose
• The Honourable Diane Ablonczy
• The Honourable Jean-Pierre Blackburn
• The Honourable Jay Hill
• The Honourable Denis Lebel
• The Honourable Gary Lunn
• The Honourable Peter Kent
• The Honourable Rob Merrifield
• The Honourable Keith Ashfield

  Laureen Harper, wife of Prime Minister Stephen Harper (who is in Washington DC and New York and unable to attend) is also scheduled to be in attendance.

  When: Thursday, September 17, 2009.
  Doors open to the public at 5.30 p.m. Program will begin at 6:30 p.m.
  Where: Le Centre Sheraton Montreal Hotel Ballroom
  1201 Boulevard René-Lévesque West, Montreal
  Media: Doors will open for media accreditation at 4:30 p.m.
  Ballroom will open for media at 5:00 p.m.

  -30-

  For more information and/or media accreditation please contact:

  Joseph Lavoie
  (416) 642-4044
  jlavoie@navltd.com

  September 16, 2009 | In Media Releases |

  25 Years Ago Today

   Email To Friend |  Print |04/09/09
  

  The greatest election victory in Canadian history took place on September 4, 1984, 25 years ago today. In his first national campaign, a year after his election as leader, Brian Mulroney led the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada to a landslide, winning 211 out of 282 seats. The party won the support of a majority of all Canadian voters, and elected MPs in every single province and territory, an achievement never attained before or since. The campaign was seen by commentators as a referendum on the generation of Liberal leadership, as a reaction to a singularly ineffective campaign by new Liberal leader John Turner, and a response to Mulroney’s promise of Canadian unity and economic change. The campaign featured one of the most powerful moments in Canadian political debate history in the confrontation between Turner and Mulroney over patronage. Pleading that he had no choice but to approve a wave of eleventh hour patronage appointments by the outgoing Trudeau government, Turner set himself up for attack. Many observers believe that the election turned on Mulroney’s response as he wheeled on Turner with pointed finger and declared angrily, “You had an option, sir. You could have said, ‘I am not going to do it. This is wrong for Canada’…you could have done better.” A little more than a month after that fateful night Canadians elected what would become the longest serving Conservative administration since that of Sir John A. Macdonald.

  September 4, 2009 | In Uncategorized |

  Pat MacAdam on Brian Mulroney

   Email To Friend |  Print |24/05/09
  

  From today’s Ottawa Sun:

  When I look back at Brian Mulroney’s roller-coaster life since his 1993 resignation, I think of phrases from Francis Thompson’s poem The Hound of Heaven.

  Brian has been hounded by malicious innuendos “down the nights and down the days….down the arches of the years; down the labyrinthine ways.”

  We have been friends since September 1955, at St. F.X. He was Brian or “Bones.” When he was sworn in as prime minister 29 years later, he became “Sir” or “Prime Minister” — as a mark of respect. He still has that respect.

  One of his cardinal virtues is he has always been there for family and friends. When his father died, he became the breadwinner for his mother and brother and sisters.

  He ensured his mother was comfortable in an apartment in the Gleneagles, up the hill from Sherbrooke St.

  After his leadership loss in 1976, he had his pick of senior positions — Standard Brands, NHL presidency, et al. When he shook the plum tree, Iron Ore Company of Canada was his choice.

  I sometimes ask myself why he would want to leave IOC for politics. When he cut his deal with Iron Ore, Bob Anderson, IOC’s chairman, asked if there was “anything else.”

  Brian’s answer was that every director around the boardroom table was a millionaire and he would like to be one too.

  Passed!

  I have no idea what his salary was at IOC but I suspect he took a 50%-75% cut to serve as PM. At IOC, he had a private air force — a seven-passenger DeHavilland 127 jet, an executive Viscount and a fleet of other prop planes.

  He had memberships in exclusive clubs and access to a smashing trout fishing camp in Labrador, accessible only by floatplanes. The camp had two guides on staff and their wives provided us with gourmet meals.

  He was the toast of Montreal. One day, Brian, MP Bob Coates and I walked into the Beaver Club at the Queen E. and every head in the room snapped up.

  At a Toronto fundraiser for Claude Bennett, he joked he was in politics for “the recognition.” He said it was an exhilarating feeling to walk through a hotel lobby, see heads turn and hear people say: “There goes Bryce Malooney.”

  Four years later, in 1980, we were in Bucharest, Romania, pitching iron ore pellets and concentrates at the invitation of Nicolae Ceaucescu. Our 20-minute audience stretched beyond an hour.

  Ceaucescu said: “Mr. Mulroney, when Richard Nixon was here, he was in disgrace. He lost the presidency to John Kennedy and California governor to Pat Brown. He sat in that very chair you are sitting in. He didn’t give up. Don’t you give up either. Mr. Mulroney.”

  Two years ago, Brian and I were in a limo in New York. He was taking a shuttle to Washington to have breakfast with Sen. Ted Kennedy and I was returning to Ottawa.

  He mused, wistfully, “New York is my town.”

  I can understand why Caroline, Ben, Mark and Nicholas attended American colleges but I always thought Brian and Mila would move to New York because most of Brian’s professional life was in the U.S.

  I was with him in New York when he delivered a speech to a packed audience of agri-bankers in the Rainbow Room at the top of Rockefeller Center. It was a balmy evening. I dismissed our driver and we walked five blocks back to the St. Regis Hotel.

  Every 10 feet some smiling person who wanted to shake his hand stopped us.

  “Who are these people, Brian? Canadians?”

  “No, Americans.”

  “How do they recognize you?”

  “Don’t forget, J.P., I was prime minister for nine years and I delivered the eulogy at Ronald Reagan’s funeral.”

  I was tempted to say “maybe they mistook your chin for Jay Leno’s,” but I didn’t want to rain on his Fifth Avenue parade.

  Back in the hotel, he fielded phone calls from Condoleezza Rice and Ted Kennedy. Then, he asked me if I had seen the New York Times that day. There was an article about a blue-chip committee of 30 former U.S. presidents, senators and governors past and present and leading Fortune 500 CEOs formed to raise money for a 9/11 memorial.

  The names of Martin Brian Mulroney and a British peer were the only non-Americans on the list of 30.

  I was with him in Washington for a speech to a roomful of pension fund managers — clients of the Thayer Group. There was probably $300 billion-$500 billion in the room.

  William Cohen, Thayer’s chairman, mayor of Bangor, Maine congressman, senator and former secretary of defence, introduced Brian. I was stunned by the powerful introduction. I looked over to make sure Brian hadn’t passed away between the soup and the salad and Bill was delivering his eulogy.

  Next up was Thayer director Jack Kemp, Buffalo Bills quarterback, congressman, cabinet secretary, vice-presidential candidate. He out-did Bill Cohen praising Brian. Then came President George Bush the elder’s campaign manager, Frank Zerbe, another Thayer director. He left Cohen and Kemp behind with his eloquent praise. My head would have exploded.

  I will never know why Brian didn’t move to New York to soar with the eagles instead of remaining in Canada to walk among the turkeys at the Oliphant inquiry.

  May 24, 2009 | In In the media |

  James Ferrabee: Mulroney earns his rest

   Email To Friend |  Print |23/05/09
  

  There are many more losers than winners at the inquiry into former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.

  The list of losers start with Brian Mulroney, battered and bruised after 15 years of attacks on his personal integrity in books, on TV and in parliamentary committees. None of it has to do with his time in office so it is not a probe of his policies while prime minister.

  Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a loser because he launched the inquiry and commanded his caucus members not to speak to Brian Mulroney. Treating Mulroney as an outcast angered many of his MPs and in doing that, Harper made an enemy of Mulroney and damaged his own position as Conservative party leader..

  The media is a loser for printing articles or broadcasting stories whose sole aim was to bring down Mulroney whether or not the evidence justified the charges. The media will print a correction from time to time, but will rarely admit when they are wrong.

  Elected officials in Canada are losers. They include cabinet ministers in Ottawa and the provinces, mayors of small communities, school board members, anyone who wants to serve the public good in government. The hounding Mulroney received will scare away bright and ambitious people from serving in these positions.

  The Canadian people are losers because they paid millions of dollars for inquiries and parliamentary hearings where the same questions are asked and the answers offer almost no new information.

  The only winners are the opposition Liberal, New Democratic and Bloc parties who will take advantage of the split in the Conservatives at the next election. Whether or not they organized the 15-year-long vendetta against Mulroney, they are taking full advantage of Mulroney’s troubles to win votes.

  Mulroney has his faults, like all of us. He is loyal to his friends who often got him into trouble. He enjoys friends who are rich which he is not. It is difficult to compete with them on a prime minister’s pension.

  Read full story.

  May 23, 2009 | In In the media |

  Conrad Black: Oliphant/Mulroney is nothing like Frost/Nixon

   Email To Friend |  Print |23/05/09
  

  The comparisons in the Canadian media between Brian Mulroney’s appearance at the Oliphant Commission and Richard Nixon’s encounter with David Frost are almost entirely unfounded. Nixon had a more tenuous claim to innocence of wrongdoing, and although the interviews were sold as “the only trial Nixon will ever face,” he was not a sworn witness.

  It is scandalous that Brian Mulroney is still being harassed over these accusations, 17 years after leaving office. He has acknowledged that it was not an image-building act to accept suitcases of cash, and to be late declaring them on his income tax return. But he had left office and there has never been any evidence that he did anything inappropriate to promote the unlikely “Bear Head” project being championed by his financial benefactor, Karlheinz Schreiber.

  The Canadian government should not have been manipulated into public hearings by an amiable scoundrel like Schreiber, and Stephen Harper should not have alienated the sizeable number of Conservatives who support and admire the former leader. He was a very competent prime minister, and was the first Conservative leader since Sir John A. Macdonald to win two consecutive majority governments, and to defeat the Liberals in Quebec. (I discount Sir Robert L. Borden, who led a coalition to re-election in 1917, and John Diefenbaker, whose 50 Quebec MPs in 1958 were an outright gift from premier Maurice Duplessis.)

  Publicly telling caucus members not to speak with a former prime minister of their own party is pretty shabby and ungrateful treatment of someone who deserves every presumption of legal, if not optically impeccable, conduct.

  The Schreiber saga is an entertaining farce, orchestrated by his resourceful lawyer, Eddie Greenspan, as he recovered Schreiber from the airport where a platoon of Mounted Police were about to put him on an airplane to Germany after his last appeal was rejected. The government had to avoid seeming to deport an accuser of a former prime minister, but all these matters should have been, and I presume, were, dealt with by normal police investigations. So the government could (and should) have just released the police report without comment, conducted Schreiber to his reluctant homecoming and spared Brian Mulroney a sequel of the disgraceful Airbus persecution.

  This seems to be the kernel of the problem, a demented insistence that the money from Schreiber had to do with Airbus. I am not an expert on this case, but I have heard of no evidence of that, and

  Schreiber is certainly imaginative enough to claim it if he could. The Airbus allegation was a partisan smear job in which the federal police were effectively directed by a gonzo Globe and Mail reporter. Brian Mulroney was quite right not to volunteer anything about Schreiber to the government’s lawyers. He was answering hostile questions about Airbus from people desperately trying to justify the government’s false accusation that he had taken a bribe. He was not giving a stream-of-consciousness musing on his career with confessional overtones, and Justice Oliphant’s question about why he did not reveal the Schreiber connection to his interrogators was bizarre. The answer is obvious and there is nothing wrong with it.

  Read full story.

  May 23, 2009 | In In the media |

  Toronto Star on Mulroney’s legal fees

   Email To Friend |  Print |22/05/09
  

  Editorial from today’s Toronto Star:

  The fuss over the federal government’s payment of former prime minister *Brian* *Mulroney*’s $2 million in legal fees arising from the Oliphant inquiry is misplaced.

  A public inquiry is a massive undertaking. A judge presides over it, but under him or her is a wide array of lawyers and researchers digging into files and conducting tough cross-examinations of the subjects of the inquiry, who are often former senior office holders like Mulroney. Furthermore, it is not a trial (Mulroney stands accused of no crime) but a search for information. The conclusions drawn from the inquiry are generally political (whom to blame) or policy-oriented (how to avoid a reoccurrence). It is only right, then, that the government pay the legal expenses of the subjects of the inquiry, both to protect their interests and to assist in the fact-finding.

  There is also ample precedent for this. For example, the legal fees racked up by former prime minister Jean Chretien during the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal were paid by the government.
  So, too, were former premier Mike Harris’ fees during the Ipperwash inquiry.

  Read full article

  May 22, 2009 | In In the media |
  Next Page »

Search