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.

Belleville Intelligencer: Mulroney’s vision was on grand scale

 Email To Friend |  Print |18/05/09

Michael Den Tandt wrote the following in Friday’s Belleville Intelligencer:

Great men make great mistakes, they say. Does that make Brian Mulroney great?

He made some whoppers. He also — like him or loathe him — strove greatly and in some respects achieved greatly. Leaders of his ilk are history now. We are the poorer for it.

[...]

And yet his policy vision was grand. Sheath your skinning knife for a moment and think about it.

He opposed apartheid, vigourously. He was the only western leader to take up this torch in any meaningful way and was belittled for doing so by none other than Lady Margaret Thatcher, then prime minister of Britain.

He brought us free trade and the GST. Free trade marked a dramatic, even epochal leap forward for Canadian prosperity, Canadian job growth and the Canadian economy. The GST, reviled though it was at the time, was the cash cow that later allowed a Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin, to right the nation’s finances.

Remember acid rain? Mulroney was ahead of his time on the environment.

Meech Lake and Charlottetown? Canadians of that era didn’t want the “community of communities” (to borrow Joe Clark’s earlier expression) embodied by these failed accords. Yet where are we now? The House of Commons recognizes the Quebecois as a nation within Canada. Meech’s “distinct society” clause pales in comparison. Agree or disagree, here too Mulroney was ahead of his time.

Like Trudeau before him, Mulroney played politics on the battlefield of big ideas. And we so hated big ideas by the time he quit that small ideas took over, entirely. Enter Jean Chretien in 1993. Enter Stephen Harper in 2006. Both are pragmatic incrementalists and neither had, nor has, a discernible vision for Canada.

Mulroney was a big thinker and a big doer. Nothing, not Schreiber and not our modern political culture, which loves to hang ‘em high, can take that away.

Read the full story here.

Letter from Guy Pratte to Paul Szabo

 Email To Friend |  Print |27/02/08

February 27, 2008

BY E-MAIL AND BY FAX
(Original by courier)

Mr. Paul Szabo, M.P., Chair
c/o Mr. Richard Rumas, Clerk
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION,
PRIVACY AND ETHICS
Room 6-18
131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Re: Request for the Second Appearance of The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney

Sir :

I - INTRODUCTION:

Three months ago the Ethics Committee, under your Chairmanship, adopted a resolution (of questionable legality) stating “that in order to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards by any office holder, the … Committee…review matters relating to the Mulroney Airbus settlement, including any and all new evidence, testimony and information not available at the time of the settlement and including allegations relating to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney made by Karlheinz Schreiber…”.

Now that the Committee has heard from all the witnesses it has chosen to call (12 of them) and obtained thousands of pages of documents, it is absolutely clear that there is no case for former Prime Minister Mulroney to answer. Indeed, despite my written requests for it to do so, your committee has failed to indicate any applicable law or ethical standards Mr. Mulroney might have violated, either while he was Prime Minister or in the 15 years since leaving office and resuming private life. Notwithstanding Parliament’s extraordinary powers to compel the attendance of any person and obtain all relevant documents, not one iota of credible evidence has been presented in those three months of public hearings implicating Mr. Mulroney in any illegal or unethical conduct.

This conclusion is a proven fact, not wishful rhetoric. It is supported by all the evidence you have heard, as will be amply demonstrated by a detailed analysis of the evidence I shall forward to you presently. Allow me to state the inescapable conclusions any impartial observer must come to and then summarize the reasons supporting them:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Mulroney was involved in any illegal or improper conduct regarding the Airbus matter while in public office or thereafter. This was confirmed not only by the RCMP in 2003, but also by Prof. Johnston in his report to the Prime Minister, dated January 9, 2008;

2. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that the private transaction Mr. Mulroney entered into with Mr. Schreiber on August 27, 1993, violated any contemporaneous law or ethical standard. The only “evidence” to the contrary is the testimony of Mr. Schreiber, unsupported by any documentation or any other witness heard by the Committee. Yet, his own testimony in this regard is contradicted by (a) the testimony he himself gave under oath in 2004, whose truth he confirmed in March 2007 in another legal proceeding and (b) some of the testimony he himself provided to your committee.

3. Although Mr. Mulroney had no valid reason at the time to doubt Mr. Schreiber’s integrity and, despite the fact that no breaches of law or ethical standards have been identified by the Ethics Committee or anyone else, Mr. Mulroney apologized to the Canadian people for the error of judgment he made in agreeing to deal in cash with him upon re-entering private life;

4. Not only have no legal or ethical violations been identified, but the Ethics Committee has failed to unearth any evidence that would justify a costly public inquiry into those matters.
 

II - NO VIOLATIONS OF ANY LAW OR APPLICABLE ETHICAL STANDARD

a) The Airbus affair: no evidence or reason to set aside the settlement:
In 1997, the Government of Canada entered into a full and final settlement with Mr. Mulroney in which it apologized unconditionally for the defamatory statements contained in its widely distributed letter to the Swiss authorities. The Settlement Agreement stated, in part:

“2. The basis for the litigation was the Request for Assistance, indicated and drafted by the RCMP and signed and sent by the Department of Justice to the Swiss authorities in the Airbus investigation by the RCMP.

3. Some of the language contained in the Request for Assistance indicates, wrongly, that the RCMP had reached conclusions that Mr. Mulroney had engaged in criminal activity.

4. Based on the evidence received to date, the RCMP acknowledges that any conclusions of wrongdoing by the former Prime Minister were and are unjustified.”

The Government of Canada agreed to repay $2.1 million for Mr. Mulroney’s legal or other consultants’ costs as determined by Former Québec Chief Justice Allan B. Gold. Not one cent of the settlement money was paid to Mr. Mulroney personally.

In 2003 the RCMP, after an exhaustive domestic and international investigation, advised Mr. Mulroney and the Government of Canada that there was no basis for laying any criminal charges in relation to the Canadian government’s 1995 allegations relating to Airbus and closed its investigation. In his report to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, dated January 9, 2008, Professor David Johnston confirmed, after discussions inter alia with the RCMP, that there was no basis for revisiting the Airbus matter.

The sole reason advanced to justify re-opening the settlement issue is not based on any evidence, but solely on the ex post facto speculation that the Government of Canada might not have settled on the same terms had it been cognizant in 1997 of the private business relationship that started in August 1993 between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney. However, this hypothesis ignores the raison d’être of the settlement which is succinctly explained in paragraphs 2-4 quoted above, namely, that neither the Government of Canada nor the RCMP had any evidence to sustain or justify the conclusory allegations of wrongdoing by Mr. Mulroney contained in the 1995 Request for Assistance letter sent to the Swiss Authorities. Mr. Mulroney’s subsequent business dealings with Mr. Schreiber were and are totally irrelevant as there is no evidence whatsoever that they were related in any way to Airbus.

Secondly, and in any event, the Government of Canada has been aware since at least the publication, on November 10, 2003, of the Globe and Mail article by William Kaplan (and probably much earlier as a result of the RCMP’s investigation), of cash payments from Mr. Schreiber to Mr. Mulroney in the context of their private business relationship. Now, 5 years later, the Government of Canada has taken no legal steps whatsoever to challenge the settlement in the Québec courts. In fact, it is too late to do so under Québec law. It is inconceivable that the Government of Canada would not have acted to attempt to set aside the settlement, within the time limitations set by law, had it believed there was any reason to justify such action.

There is simply no new evidence or justification before your committee that would warrant any further inquiry into the Airbus settlement with Mr. Mulroney.

b) Mr. Mulroney’s business dealings did not violate any applicable legal or ethical rules:
Almost 15 years after he started paying Mr. Mulroney for his consulting services, Mr. Schreiber filed an action in Ontario and an Affidavit, dated November 7, 2007, in which he alleged that Mr. Mulroney had not performed the contracted services. Mr. Schreiber asked for repayment of some $447,000, made up of $300,000 in cash payments he allegedly made to Mr. Mulroney, plus interest. This lawsuit was dismissed by the Superior Court of Ontario on December 20, 2007. Mr. Schreiber chose not to appeal that court decision. It follows that Mr. Schreiber’s has no valid claim against Mr. Mulroney that can be pursued in Ontario.

The conclusion that Mr. Schreiber’s claim is without merit is also supported by the totality of the credible evidence given before your committee.

First, as to the timing of the transaction, Mr. Schreiber alleged it was made while Mr. Mulroney was still Prime Minister. This was contradicted by Mr. Schreiber’s unequivocal testimony under oath in the 2004 Eurocopter preliminary inquiry in which he stated that the business relationship with Mr. Mulroney did not start until after the latter had “stepped down” as Prime Minister of Canada. Moreover, he reiterated that 2004 testimony in an affidavit dated March 3rd 2007, filed in the Federal Court of Canada. Indeed, Mr. Mulroney has emphatically denied that any business transaction was discussed at Harrington Lake on June 23, 1993 and the Committee, aside from Mr. Schreiber’s self-contradictory evidence, neither heard nor received any evidence that contradicted Mr. Mulroney’s recollection of the events. Rather, the evidence from Mr. Fred Doucet, that Mr. Schreiber called him, in August 1993, to arrange a meeting with Mr. Mulroney later that month (it eventually took place on August 27, 1993) to discuss an international mandate, confirms Mr. Mulroney’s own evidence, before the Committee, as do the documents produced to the Committee last week. Clearly therefore, the business relationship with Mr. Schreiber was created on August 27, 1993, when Mr. Mulroney was no longer Prime Minister.

Secondly, as to the nature of the transaction, Mr. Schreiber alleged that the mandate for which he sought Mr. Mulroney’s services was to lobby the Conservative Government and Canadian officials to promote the construction of Light Armoured Vehicles (LAVs) in Canada. Again, that new allegation was contradicted by Mr. Schreiber’s 2004 testimony in the Eurocopter case and especially before the Committee itself when he denied categorically having hired Mr. Mulroney for the purpose of lobbying any Canadian officials. Further, the evidence that Mr. Mulroney was hired strictly for the purpose of promoting the Thyssen LAV’S abroad is confirmed by:

1. the testimony of Fred Doucet, both as to the reason stated to him by Mr. Schreiber for requesting a meeting with Mr. Mulroney, in August 1993, and with respect to the briefing Mr. Mulroney gave Mr. Schreiber on his international activities in New York City, on December 8, 1994;

2. the mandate drafted by Mr. Doucet and annotated by Mr. Schreiber in 2000 that confirmed the international nature of the mandate;

3. the fact that Mr. Schreiber continued to pay Mr. Mulroney well after the Conservative Government had been defeated in the October election of 1993 (indeed, two of the three payments occurred after that date);

4. the fact that not a single Canadian government official has been called to give any evidence of any attempts by Mr. Mulroney to influence the Canadian government in relation to Thyssen Bear Head project;

5. the testimony of Mr. Greg Alford of GCI, who was responsible for the Thyssen project in Canada and who confirmed that he had never heard of Mr. Mulroney being retained to lobby Canadian authorities on Thyssen’s behalf; and

6. the fact that this allegation was made by Mr. Schreiber for the first time in his November 7, 2007 affidavit in a transparent attempt to bolster his desperate attempts to avoid extradition.

Thirdly, concerning the amount of the cash payments made by Mr. Schreiber to Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Schreiber alleges that these totalled $300,000, whereas Mr. Mulroney stated to the Committee that they amounted to $225,000 (Mr. Mulroney had previously indicated, in the November 10, 2003 Globe and Mail article written by William Kaplan, that he disputed the exact amounts claimed by Mr. Schreiber). In this regard, apart from the fact that Mr. Schreiber’s reliability with respect to any aspect of his testimony, is more than suspect, this difference as to the precise amount paid is as irrelevant to the mandate of the Committee as is the question of whether Mr. Mulroney was paid appropriately for the services he performed for Mr. Schreiber: it was entirely a private business matter between them.

Further, Mr. Schreiber was obviously completely satisfied with Mr. Mulroney’s services for almost 15 years, and sent him complimentary letters during that time. It was only in 2007 that he claimed his money back in the Ontario Superior Court. Since then, his claim has been dismissed. Clearly, therefore, there is no basis whatsoever to inquire further as to the adequacy of Mr. Mulroney’s international consultancy services provided to Mr. Schreiber.

Finally, as to the form of the payments chosen by Mr. Schreiber, namely cash, there was absolutely nothing illegal in Mr. Mulroney accepting legal tender for his services. No one has identified any law or applicable ethical rule that would have prohibited Mr. Mulroney from accepting cash from Mr. Schreiber, at the time, in the context of their private professional relationship. Therefore, the form of payment he accepted in 1993-1994 does not constitute a breach of any law or of the applicable Code of Conduct by Mr. Mulroney.

It follows that no evidence has been heard or document received by the Committee that suggests, let alone demonstrates, that Mr. Mulroney breached any law or violated any applicable ethical standard in connection with the private business dealings he entered into with Mr. Schreiber as he returned to private life.

III - MR. MULRONEY APOLOGIZED FOR HIS ERROR OF JUDGMENT IN ACCEPTING PAYMENT IN CASH FROM MR. SCHREIBER

Even though it is beyond dispute that Mr. Mulroney has violated no applicable law or ethical standard, Mr. Mulroney acknowledged that, in retrospect, he made an error of judgment when he agreed to accept cash from Mr. Schreiber in August 1993. At that time, as Mr. Mulroney explained in his testimony before the Committee on December 13, 2007, he sincerely believed that Mr. Schreiber was a reputable businessman. Still, Mr. Mulroney has accepted, without reservation, the responsibility for having left himself open to criticism by agreeing to deal in cash with Mr. Schreiber and has apologized for his error of judgment.

Mr. Mulroney has also been criticized for not acknowledging earlier, publicly and directly, the nature and extent of these private dealings with Mr. Schreiber. Those criticisms, while perhaps understandable, miss the fundamental point that Mr. Mulroney’s business relationship with Mr. Schreiber was (a) private, (b) legal and (c) in compliance with the 1985 Code of Conduct provisions applicable to him. Therefore, there was no legal or other obligation to discuss these matters in public, any more than the private business affairs of other former Prime Ministers have to be disclosed publicly.

Now that Mr. Schreiber has apparently succeeded in enticing some members of the Ethics Committee to assist him in his efforts to avoid extradition by manufacturing false accusations and making himself indispensable as the raison d’être of the Committee’s inquiry or of a subsequent public inquiry, it is easy to criticize Mr. Mulroney for his reticence. Some might claim this unfortunate parliamentary exercise could have been avoided had Mr. Mulroney decided earlier to open his private business affairs to the public. However, the unfair and very partisan way in which the Committee’s hearings have been conducted suggests this is but wishful speculation.

In any event, Mr. Mulroney has now explained the facts surrounding his business relationship with Mr. Schreiber and apologized to the Canadian people, although he has done nothing illegal or unethical. What else can be demanded or expected of him?

IV- THERE IS NO NEED FOR FURTHER COSTLY PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE AIRBUS MATTER OR MR. MULRONEY’S DEALINGS WITH KARLHEINZ SCHREIBER:

In the fall of 2007, when Mr. Schreiber’s November 7, 2007 affidavit was made public by the media with great fanfare, it became evident that there would be renewed calls for a full public inquiry into the Airbus settlement and Mr. Mulroney’s business dealings with Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Mulroney decided the he would welcome such an inquiry, assuming that this was the only way to clear his name and prove that he had done nothing illegal nor violated any ethical rules.

In making this assumption, he did not anticipate the decision of the Ethics Committee to conduct its own inquiry into the same matters that the public inquiry was intended to consider. This was understandable, since the opposition parties had repeatedly asked for a public inquiry, not for the Ethics Committee to use its vast powers to conduct the inquiry itself. Yet, the Ethics Committee, claiming that it feared that Mr. Schreiber might be extradited before a public inquiry could be set up, surprised most observers, including Mr. Mulroney, by launching its own inquiry.

As summarized above and, despite the unfairness it demonstrated toward Mr. Mulroney (instances of which were brought to your attention in my earlier correspondence with you), it has now become clear that no violation of law or contemporaneous ethical rules have been proven or even suggested. Aside from Mr. Schreiber’s own contradictory evidence, the totality of the relevant testimony and documentation supports Mr. Mulroney’s account before the Committee. Mr. Schreiber having completely failed to establish even a prima facie case of wrongdoing on Mr. Mulroney’s part, despite five appearances before the Ethics Committee and the thousands of pages of documents he filed, is it really in the public interest to appoint a costly public Commission of inquiry in order to give Mr. Schreiber yet another chance to extend his stay in Canada? The only reasonable and fair answer to that question is “No”.

Indeed, in his fifth appearance before the Committee, Mr. Schreiber added nothing useful to what he had previously said and demonstrated to an obviously exasperated Committee that he was still playing the same game of buying time in Canada by pretending to have something dramatic to reveal. Only this time, he was promising such revelations not to the Committee (to which he had already made the same unkept promise several times) but to a future public inquiry. At the end of his testimony, Mr. Schreiber was asked directly and clearly whether he had any additional evidence of any wrongdoing to bring before the Committee. Instead of responding to this very pertinent and important question, Mr. Schreiber evaded it by talking about Mr. Pelossi.

Mr. Schreiber has simply continued his successful strategy of avoiding extradition by bluffing the Committee and the Canadian people into believing he has genuine evidence to bring forward when in fact he has nothing of the kind. In the circumstances, there is nothing for Mr. Mulroney to refute.

Moreover, as Mr. Mulroney has admitted and apologized for his error of judgment in agreeing to transact business with Mr. Schreiber in the way he did, what would be the point of forcing him to do so again in a public inquiry? No purpose would be served except to seek to embarrass him. But that cannot possibly be a legitimate use of the Inquiries Act.

In the end, the only justification for further consideration of these matters, whether by the Ethics Committee or another body chosen by the Government upon receipt of Mr. Johnston’s follow-up report, involves the question of whether the Code of Conduct applicable to former high office holders should be revised so as to enhance Canadians’ confidence in their elected representatives. Perhaps, to that extent, some good could come out of this extremely painful saga for Mr. Mulroney and his family.

V - CONCLUSION:

For those above reasons, Mr. Mulroney sees no need to re-attend before the Ethics Committee and therefore respectfully declines your offer to do so on February 28, 2008.

However, given the special responsibility of the Ethics Committee to ensure that any report it makes to Parliament does not unfairly damage the reputation of any Canadian citizen, I request that you provide me with a copy of any draft report that the Committee might prepare, so as to afford Mr. Mulroney a reasonable opportunity to provide comments before it is communicated to the House of Commons. Basic fairness requires no less, given that the damage already done to Mr. Mulroney’s reputation could be unjustifiably exacerbated by this report.

Yours truly,

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP

Guy J. Pratte
/mv

C.C.: Committee members: (by e-mail only)

Pratte response to Szabo’s second appearance request

 Email To Friend |  Print |22/02/08

February 22, 2008

BY E-MAIL AND BY FAX
(Original by courier)

Mr. Paul Szabo, M.P., Chair
c/o Mr. Richard Rumas, Clerk
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION,
PRIVACY AND ETHICS
Room 6-18
131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Re: Request for a Second Appearance of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney before the Ethics Committee on February 28, 2008

Sir :

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 16, 2008, in which you requested confirmation of Mr. Mulroney’s appearance on Thursday, February 28, 2008 at 3:30 p.m., failing which the Ethics Committee might decide to issue a summons for his appearance.

I am puzzled by your threat as you have previously stated that the Committee would not force Mr. Mulroney to testify. Indeed, other members of your committee (such as Messrs. Thibault and Murphy) publicly stated that they would not seek a summons to compel my client’s testimony. Moreover, according to committee vice-chair, Mr. Pat Martin, you failed to consult with him or other committee members on this issue. In the February 20, 2008 edition of La Presse, Mr. Martin is quoted as saying:

“Le NPD détient la balance du pouvoir au comité, souligne le député de Winnipeg-Centre. Et nous avons décidé de ne pas appuyer un vote pour assigner M. Mulroney à comparaître de force ou pour l’obliger à nous remettre ses rapports d’impôt. ”

“Ce n’est pas parce que nous avons le pouvoir d’obliger l’ancien premier ministre à comparaître, poursuit M. Martin, que cela veut dire que nous devrions le faire. […]”

On CTV (February 19, 2008), Mr. Martin stated: “[…] That’s correct, unless [Mr. Mulroney] wants to come on the 28th to clarify something or to challenge other testimony we might have heard from witnesses. He’s welcome to. If he chooses not to, the committee will not have the NPD’s swing vote to force him to attend. And I believe that should conclude the work of the committee for the purposes of this study. I’d like to get on to other things like the access to information act which is the name of our committee.”

As is clear to all, Mr. Mulroney is the prime target of your inquiry. Before deciding whether to re-attend, Mr. Mulroney is entitled, as a matter of basic fairness, to know the specific allegations made against him and the specific provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act and/or of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders he is alleged to have violated. Yet, you have totally failed to provide Mr. Mulroney with this information. He is also entitled to know and consider all the evidence that has been put before your committee before deciding whether to re-attend. As Mr. Martin stated, it is up to Mr. Mulroney to decide whether it is necessary for him to re-attend in order “to clarify something or to challenge other testimony [the Ethics Committee] might have heard from witnesses.”

Obviously, a final decision on that score can only be made after the appearances of Messrs. Elmer MacKay and Karlheinz Schreiber scheduled on February 25, 2008. Thereafter, Mr. Mulroney will advise as to whether or not he will accept your invitation to attend on the 28th of February, 2008.

Yours truly,

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP

Guy J. Pratte
(Signed in his absence by Mtre Tommy Tremblay)
/mv

C.C.: Committee members: (by e-mail only)
Martin.Pat@parl.gc.ca (Pat Martin)
Tilson.D@parl.gc.ca (David Tilson)
Asselin.G@parl.gc.ca (Gérard Asselin)
Dhaliwal.S@parl.gc.ca (Sukh Dhaliwal)
Hubbard.C@parl.gc.ca (Charles Hubbard)
Pearson.G@parl.gc.ca (Glen Douglas Pearson)
Wallace.M@parl.gc.ca (Mike Wallace)
DelMastro.D@parl.gc.ca (Dean Del Mastro)
Hiebert.R@parl.gc.ca (Russ Hiebert)
Lavallee.C@parl.gc.ca (Carole Lavallée)
VanKesteren.D@parl.gc.ca (Dave Van Kesteren)

Pratte response to Szabo’s document request

 Email To Friend |  Print |22/02/08

February 22, 2008

BY E-MAIL AND BY FAX
(Original by courier)

Mr. Paul Szabo, M.P., Chair
c/o Mr. Richard Rumas, Clerk
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ACCESS TO INFORMATION,
PRIVACY AND ETHICS
Room 6-18
131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

Re: Additional documents and information requested from the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney

Sir :

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 16, 2008 requesting additional documents and information concerning the international mandate Mr. Schreiber gave Mr. Mulroney in August 1993, as described in the latter’s testimony of December 13, 2007.

I also acknowledge receipt on February 20, 2008 of a summons which is addressed to me personally. I assume that this is an error, as I cannot believe that your committee would seek to execute a summons on counsel for a witness that has appeared before it. That would be clearly abusive. In addition, I consider your threats as reported in the media this morning to be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that the deadline you have yourself set to reply to your letter of February 16, 2008 has not yet expired.

Be that as it may, I respond as follows:

(1) Details of Mr. Mulroney’s international visits and meetings including notes of his reports to Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber.

First, as regards any relevant documentation, the only documents which Mr. Mulroney has in his possession are brochures concerning the light armoured vehicle (LAV) produced by Thyssen and copy of a fax attesting to the possible interest of foreign countries, e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom (copy attached). These were related to Mr. Schreiber’s idea of retaining Mr. Mulroney’s services for promoting internationally Thyssen LAV. Pursuant to the August 27, 1993 meeting, Mr. Mulroney decided that discussions with P-5 leaders to see if the UN would be interested in a LAV, which could be used in peacekeeping missions, could be a helpful way to begin this process, as he has testified.

[Click here for the first brochure]
[Click here for the second brochure]
[Click here for the fax]

Secondly, as to the details of his meetings with foreign leaders and governments, Mr. Mulroney has already responded to this request in his testimony on December 13, 2007 and through my letter to you dated January 29, 2008 (copy attached). Although no written reports were provided, Mr. Mulroney presented Mr. Schreiber with a detailed oral briefing when they met in New York on December 8, 1994, in the presence of Mr. Doucet (a fact which Mr. Doucet confirmed when he testified before the Ethics Committee recently).

[Click here for the letter to Szabo dated January 29, 2008]

Furthermore, I fail to see how the precise nature and extent of the work Mr. Mulroney did for Mr. Schreiber is of any relevance to the Ethics Committee or its mandate beyond the fact that it was of an international nature - a fact also confirmed by Mr. Doucet and Mr. Schreiber himself when he appeared on November 29, 2007 before the Ethics Committee. The issue of whether Mr. Mulroney performed adequately the work for which he was paid by Mr. Schreiber is an entirely private matter. Indeed Mr. Schreiber, for almost 15 years after he had first retained the services of Mr. Mulroney, had no complaint about the extent or quality of his services. To the contrary, on at least two occasions, Mr. Schreiber wrote Mr. Mulroney highly complimentary letters regarding his services and talents (copies of which have already been provided to the Ethics Committee). Then, in 2007, in a transparent attempt to enhance his chances of resisting extradition, he sued Mr. Mulroney alleging that no services had been performed. Mr. Schreiber’s suit was dismissed by the Superior Court of Ontario in December 2007 and no appeal was filed.

(2) A general summary of the disposition of the three payments of $75,000, and the discrepancy with the $100,000 payments as stated by Mr. Schreiber.

On this issue, Mr. Mulroney has nothing to add to the testimony he provided the Ethics Committee on December 13, 2007 and has no contemporaneous documents. Moreover, how he spent the money received is utterly irrelevant to any genuine issue before the Ethics Committee. While Mr. Mulroney voluntarily indicated during his testimony that he used some of the money to defray the legitimate expenses incurred in carrying out the international mandate, this is a matter that could only have been relevant in Mr. Schreiber’s now dismissed lawsuit. As for the funds received in the U.S., Mr. Mulroney stated in his testimony that he took them to a safety deposit box in New York (whose existence was separately confirmed to you by JPMorgan Chase Bank in a letter provided to the Ethics Committee – copy attached) and that none of the funds were taken back to Canada.

[Click here for the letter from JPMorgan Chase Bank]

Finally, I note again that any discrepancy on the amounts is totally irrelevant to the Ethics Committee’s mandate, and could only have been relevant in the context of Mr. Schreiber’s lawsuit against Mr. Mulroney which, as above stated, was dismissed. Indeed, I am astounded that your committee would not only waste time pursuing the issue of this “discrepancy”, but would give any weight to Mr. Schreiber’s assertions in this regard. Mr. Giorgio Pelossi, Mr. Schreiber’s former accountant and business partner, testifying at the Committee’s invitation, stated that Mr. Schreiber is “lying every time he tells you something. The only goal he has is to stay in Canada and not to be deported to Germany”. Mr. Pelossi’s assessment is supported not only by Mr. Schreiber’s own contradictory evidence to the Ethics Committee, but could not be better illustrated than by Mr. Schreiber’s changing versions of his contribution to Mr. Jean Charest’s leadership campaign: he told your committee the amount involved was $30,000. Then it was revealed he had told the authors of a book that the amount was $13,000. And finally Premier Charest’s brother, who had received the contribution, stated the amount involved was $10,000.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours truly,

BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP

Guy J. Pratte
(Signed in his absence by Mtre Tommy Tremblay)
/mv
Encl.

C.C.: Committee members: (by e-mail only)
Martin.Pat@parl.gc.ca (Pat Martin)
Tilson.D@parl.gc.ca (David Tilson)
Asselin.G@parl.gc.ca (Gérard Asselin)
Dhaliwal.S@parl.gc.ca (Sukh Dhaliwal)
Hubbard.C@parl.gc.ca (Charles Hubbard)
Pearson.G@parl.gc.ca (Glen Douglas Pearson)
Wallace.M@parl.gc.ca (Mike Wallace)
DelMastro.D@parl.gc.ca (Dean Del Mastro)
Hiebert.R@parl.gc.ca (Russ Hiebert)
Lavallee.C@parl.gc.ca (Carole Lavallée)
VanKesteren.D@parl.gc.ca (Dave Van Kesteren)

Documents Relating to the System of Expenses Management at the PMO

 Email To Friend |  Print |05/02/08

The Honourable W. David Angus, Q.C.
Suite 4000-115 Rene Levesque Blvd. W.
Montreal, Quebec HB 3V2

January 31, 2008

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I served as Chairman of the PC Canada Fund during the period 1983 to 1993. The PC Canada Fund was at all material times the Chief Agent of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, with authority over and responsibility for the Party’s finances.

Following the election of the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney as Prime Minister of Canada in 1984, a process was developed for the payment and allocation of expenses to be incurred by or on behalf of the Prime Minister. These expenses fell into three categories: (i) expenses incurred as Prime Minister; (ii) expenses incurred as the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party; and (iii) expenses of a strictly personal nature.

My involvement in this expense process was, to the best of my recollection, as follows:

1. Prime Minister Mulroney wrote to me with instructions to keep a careful record of any and all expenses of a personal nature paid on his behalf by PC Canada Fund and to bill him periodically for reimbursement of same. I duly complied with these instructions and Prime Minister Mulroney paid all invoices submitted to him.

2. The Party Presidents in office from time to time during 1983-1993 were all aware of and in full agreement with the payment from the PC Canada Fund of expenses incurred by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. The payments by PC Canada Fund in connection with expenses of the Prime Minister were audited on a regular basis by the Party auditor, Mr. Carmen Joynt, CA. The Board of PC Canada Fund was fully aware of the process and duly approved the banking arrangements. I reported to them regularly as to the expenditures.

3. My dealings respecting payment of these expenses were all with representatives of the Prime Minister’s Office. In the period up to late 1987, the representative was, in all or most cases, Mr. J.A. Doucet. He would request payments on a regular basis and each time I would furnish him with a cheque payable to “J.A. Doucet in Trust”. Subsequently, the requests came from the various Chiefs of Staff (e.g. Derek Burney, Norman Spector, Hugh Segal ) and the cheques were also issued to them “in Trust”. Occasionally, I was presented by the Prime Minister’s Office with invoices from suppliers with instructions to pay them directly, which I did after satisfying myself as to whether they were personal or Party expenses. As I recall it, I never dealt directly with the Prime Minister, his wife, or any member of his household one expense reimbursement or payment. Payments I made were always and without exception by cheque.

Signed at Montreal, Quebec
this 31st day of January, 2008

W. David Angus

************************************************

NOTE TO PRIME MINISTER ONLY

Attached is the formulation I would propose to cover party-related expenditures (instead of the monthly statements as in separate attachment). It would satisfy the requirements of the PC Canada Fund.

I will await your views, but if this could be put in place effective July 31:
- to cover May, June and July of this year,
- and thereafter on a quarterly basis.

Payment can be by cheque or in cash or however you prefer.

Please advise.

D. H. Burney

************************************************

GUIDELINES RE: PRIME MINISTER’S TRAVEL EXPENSES (DOMESTIC)

1. Expenses incurred re: travel for official government business are paid for by the Government (PCO)

Examples: P & P meetings
Official dinners and functions
Tours of Canadian cities and towns
Summit meetings
Cabinet meetings outside Ottawa

2. Expenses incurred re: travel for political or private business are paid for by the Party

Examples: Quebec Caucus meetings
Constituency visits
PCCF fundraisers
Private events

3. When a trip includes both government and Party functions, the expenses are divided accordingly between the Government and the Party.

4. All travel undertaken by Mrs. Mulroney on her own is paid for by the party.

********************************************

RECEPTIONS – PRIME MINISTER’S RESIDENCE
AS AT MAY 6, 1988

PCCF BUDGET PMO/PCO BUDGET
Feb. 8 $1,537.77 Mar. 22 $3,881.71
Feb. 22 $2,776.60
Mar. 29 $3,382.72

TOTAL $7,697.09 TOTAL $3,881.71

********************************************

EXPENSE SUMMARY REPORT

EVENT: Private Event. 24 Sussex -> PCCF
DATE: March 29, 1988

SERVICE PROVIDED	INVOICE RECEIVED	INVOICE APPROVED	COST
Roris Floral Service (Inv.# 67442)	Mar. 30/88	Apr. 5/88	$690.00
Thomas Brown Entertainment			$220.00
Valet Service	Mar. 30/88	Mar. 31/88	$200.00
H&L Calligraphy. Inv. Date: Mar.17/88			$46.25
N.A.C. Inv.#41644			$1,148.65
Party Time Rentals. Inv.#9160	Apr. 22/88	Apr. 26/88	$1,077.82
TOTAL COST			$3,382.72

***************************************************

MEMORANDUM Dec 2, 1985

TO: Ginette Pilotte
FROM: J. A. Doucet

Please send me a cheque made out to the Receiver General in the amount of $43.90 to reimburse the Crown for a toboggan which was mistakenly paid for with Government funds. I need this immediately.

Thank you.

J. A. Doucet

Documents Relating to Payment for 24 Sussex Furniture

 Email To Friend |  Print |05/02/08

PERSONAL

OTTAWA K1A 0A6
March 5, 1984

W. David Angus, Esq.,
Stikeman Elliott,
1155 Dorchester Blvd. West,
Suite 3900,
Montreal, Quebec H3B 3V2

Dear David,

Because of the remarkably demanding schedule that I have been keeping and the fact that you and I have not been able to get together at regular intervals, I would be obliged if you would keep track of any expenditures incurred by me which might be of a personal nature and for which I shall reimburse the Party at the end of each year.

I want to tell you as well that from time to time both Mila and I receive gifts from constituency associations and Party officials across the country. These are never of great value and all of them are kept at Stornoway. I consider these, however, to be the property of the Party and at the end of each year, I shall provide you as well with a list of same so that these may be conveyed to the Party upon my departure.

With best regards,

Yours sincerely,
Brian

******************************************************

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

Rt. Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., M.P.
Prime Minister of Canada
24 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1M 1M4

Dear Prime Minister,

I refer to your letter of March 5, 1984, a copy of which is attached.

As requested, I attach an invoice addressed to you personally representing the balance of advances made on your behalf by the Party in respect to residences.

Please arrange to forward me a cheque in the sum of $211,796.18 payable to PC Canada Fund (The Party’s chief registered agent) at your convenience.

With warm regards,

Yours Sincerely,
W. David Angus, Q.C.

******************************************************

April 13, 1987

BY COURIER

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. W David Angus
Stikeman Elliott
1155 Dorchester Blvd. West
Suite 3900
Montreal (Quebec)
H3B 3V2

Dear David:

Find enclosed herewith a cheque of $211,796.18 to P.C. Canada Fund.

Brian had impressed upon me to issue this cheque as soon as possible after a meeting I had with him in Quebec in the latter part of February of this year. Unfortunately, I was unable to comply with his request earlier, due to extensive traveling at the time and an unfortunate ski accident that kept me in a Vancouver hospital for 12 days in March.

Nevertheless, the first thing I am doing now that I am back at the office, is forwarding to you this cheque.

I hope that this involuntary delay will not create any difficulty for you.

Best personal regards.
Alain Paris
Partner

****************************************************

April 15, 1988

Private & Confidential

Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C, M.P.
Leader
Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
24 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1M 1M4

Dear Prime Minister,

I am pleased to confirm that you have fully reimbursed the Party for amounts expended for your account, pursuant to a written agreement between us. Moreover, you have no outstanding indebtedness whatsoever to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada respecting the renovations, decorating and furnishing expenses for any of the official residences which you occupy of have occupied during your tenure as the Leader of the Party.

Yours Sincerely,

W. David Angus, Q.C.

Alan Gold Settlement Agreement

 Email To Friend |  Print |05/02/08

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1. The parties wish to announce that the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, the Government of Canada and the RCMP agree to settle out of court the litigation presently pending among them.

2. The basis for the litigation was the Request for Assistance, initiated and drafted by the RCMP and signed and sent by the Department of Justice to the Swiss authorities in the Airbus investigation by the RCMP.

3. Some of the language contained in the Request for Assistance indicates, wrongly, that the RCMP had reached conclusions that Mr. Mulroney had engaged in criminal activity.

4. Based on the evidence received to date, the RCMP acknowledges that any conclusions of wrongdoing by the former Prime Minister were – and are – unjustified.

5. The Government of Canada and the RCMP regret any damage suffered by Mr. Mulroney and his family and fully apologize to them.

6. The parties have always acknowledged that the RCMP must continue investigating any allegations of illegality or wrongdoing brought to its attention.

7. The Government of Canada and the RCMP emphasize that the Request for Assistance was a highly confidential state-to-state communication intended to be retrieved by Swiss authorities who knew that is contained only allegations which were to be verified and that the persons named were presumed innocent of any wrongdoing.

8. The parties acknowledge that the procedure used in sending the Request for Assistance to Switzerland in this case was the same as that followed in numerous previous requests for mutual assistance under both the current and previous administrations where such requests have remained confidential. Because of this the Government of Canada did not foresee that the Request for Assistance would become public. Since it did, the Government of Canada has reviewed its procedure to ensure that the risk of this happening again is minimized.

9. The parties accept that the RCMP, on its own, initiated the Airbus investigation; that the Minister of Justice was not involved in the decision to initiate the investigation; and that before November 4, 1995, the Minister of Justice was not aware of the Request for Assistance and the RCMP investigation.

10. The parties accept that the RCMP and the Department of Justice in sending the request for Assistance to Switzerland acted within their legitimate responsibilities in this matter.

11. The RCMP will pay to Mr. Mulroney all legal fees and disbursements and all fees and disbursements paid to experts whose reports were intended to be rendered to the Court, and which were reasonably incurred in the prosecution of his action. The final amount is to be determined by final binding arbitration, to the exclusion of any court, by former Chief Justice Alan B. Gold or, if unavailable to act, by such other arbitrator chosen by the parties or in conformity with the Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec.

12. Mr. Mulroney waives his claim to damages because any award would be payable out of public funds.

13. Contemporaneous with the signing of this Settlement Agreement Mr. Mulroney will sign a release in the form attached as Schedule “A” and the Declaration of Settlement Out of Court attached as Schedule “B”.

January 5, 1997

B. Mulroney
Feigenwald, Murray & The RCMP
AG & Prust

RCMP Letter to Brian Mulroney Announcing No Charges in the Airbus/Thyssen/MBB Matter

 Email To Friend |  Print |05/02/08

April 17, 2003

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C.
c/o Mr. Harvey Yarosky
Yarosky, Daviault and Isaacs
625 Rene Levesque Boulevard West
Montreal, Quebec
H3B 1R2

Dear Mr. Mulroney,

I am writing further to a letter dated October 13, 1999, from former Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Commissioner J.P.R. Murray to Gerald Tremblay.

As you are aware, the RCMP has been conducting an investigation into allegations described in a September 29, 1995, Request for Assistance from Switzerland. This Request for Assistance concerned allegations of wrongdoing involving MBB Helicopters, Thyssen and Airbus, and named you amongst other individuals.

In his letter of October 13, 1999, former Commissioner Murray made a commitment to announce the results of the investigation once it was concluded.

In October 2002, a charge of fraud was brought against MBB Helicopters Canada Ltd. (now Eurocopter Canada) and two German citizens.

On April 22, 2003, the RCMP will announce that after an exhaustive investigation in Canada and abroad, the remaining investigation into the 1995 allegations of wrongdoing involving MBB Helicopters, Thyssen and Airbus has concluded that the outstanding allegations cannot be substantiated, and that no charges will be laid, beyond the charge of fraud which is already before the courts.

Sincerely,

G. Zaccardelli

1200 Valmar Parkway
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0R2

Search