ETHI Committee Report

BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION

Although the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics reflects the opinion of the Bloc Québécois as regards the Mulroney‑Airbus affair, the Bloc feels it necessary to append a supplementary opinion to the report. 

1 – Why did Brian Mulroney make this error?

When he appeared before the ethics committee, former prime minister Brian Mulroney admitted he made “a serious error in judgment” and that it was his “biggest mistake in life.” And he said so several times. But he never said why he made that error. 

Why did he accept so much cash from one of the most powerful lobbyists under his government? Why did he do it? What was clouding his judgment at the time? How did he rationalize taking 75 or 100 $1,000 bills? Why did he accept the money in cash? Brian Mulroney must be asked these questions.

Was it a lack of money? Was it greed?

When the public learns that a prime minister, who had just left office, accepted $225,000 or $300,000 from a powerful lobbyist and businessman who had obtained contracts worth at least $2 billion from the government of that prime minister, it is not surprising that they think the money was awarded in return for services rendered.

2 - Brian Mulroney tried to show that he did nothing illegal, rather than correct the negative perception of his actions

Brian Mulroney kept his error quiet for a long time.

He took five years to report the money as income.

And he didn’t publicly admit to his error until December 2007, 14 years after the fact!

Brian Mulroney owes Canadian taxpayers an explanation. He bears the burden of proof. In the circumstances, it turns out to be a very heavy burden of proof.

Although many public allegations were made, in his testimony he said nothing to correct the negative perception that his “biggest mistake in life” had on the senior position he held. To the contrary.

Brian Mulroney tried to convince us there was no evidence he had done anything illegal rather than give a credible explanation and correct the negative perception of his actions.

3 - Brian Mulroney should have corrected the negative perception

If Brian Mulroney had wanted to correct the negative perception that his error in judgment created, he should have showed the utmost transparency.

For example, to justify keeping the money for himself rather than handing it over to his law firm, which is general practice, he invoked a specific paragraph in his contract allowing him to personally retain the benefits of some contracts. When we asked to see a copy of the contract, he produced a sheet of paper with nothing on it but a single paragraph, without any reference to where it came from.

When he should have shown complete transparency, Brian Mulroney failed to produce any other evidence to prove that the paragraph was part of his contract and that it was in effect at the time in question.

The least he could have done was produce an affidavit from his firm’s associate manager attesting that the paragraph was indeed part of his contract and in effect between 1993 and 1998. A public inquiry should verify this.

4 – Schreiber did not always pay in cash

Brian Mulroney said that Karlheinz Schreiber always paid in cash, while many other witnesses told us the opposite, including Marc Lalonde, who was clear and straightforward. He said he was paid in the usual way by cheque or bank draft.

In short, Brian Mulroney erred when he said that Karlheinz always paid in cash.

Marc Lalonde also added that it made no sense to sell armoured vehicles to China.

5 – A mysterious contract

The very nature of the contract is questionable. Both explanations are equally unbelievable, but Brian Mulroney’s is the most far-fetched. It is absolutely unbelievable that he travelled the world selling armoured vehicles to countries such as China, a country he himself banned selling arms to. It is therefore not surprising that there is nobody in the world who is still alive who can confirm his version.

Karlheinz Schreiber’s version is equally hard to believe: how could the former prime minister of Canada be hired to carry out a mandate that no one knew about? No one in Canada has ever heard about the meetings Brian Mulroney held to influence the building of an armoured vehicle factory, let alone in Canada. This includes the former vice-president of Thyssen in Canada, Greg Alford.

In any event, how could a Conservative lobby a Liberal government?

Furthermore, this version contravenes the Code of Ethics in force at the time.

6 - A timely tax return

Brian Mulroney’s 1999 tax return was prepared in a mad rush just as Karlheinz Schreiber was arrested for the first time to be extradited. As if to hide information that might come out. Five years after first receiving the money, four years after the last payment.

If we believe Brian Mulroney’s and Fred Doucet’s version, in January 2000, at the same time, Mr. Doucet asked Mr. Schreiber to sign a contract, the purpose of which seemed to be to publicly agree on the amount, nature and mandate of the contract. As if this information was never clear, as if they had to agree on a public version of events, as if these conditions were never negotiated beforehand.

Why pay taxes on these expenses if it is not because no document exists and no expenses were ever made?

7 – If this transaction was a bribe, Mulroney and Schreiber would not have acted differently

Two people, the first, the most influential politician in Canada in eight years, the second, one of the most powerful lobbyists who obtained contracts worth billions of dollars from the first. The second paid money to the first, in cash, in $1,000 bills, in a hotel room, without signing a contract. No written mandate, no receipt, no report, no summary. The money was not deposited in a bank account but placed in a safe. No tax form. Absolutely no trace of the money.

It should be pointed out that $1,000 bills have since been banned because of their connection to organized crime.

Five years later, when the legal authorities got involved, the person who took the money got scared and filed an income tax report. The two tried to agree on the name of the representatives, the amount and the mandate. This failed.

A few years later, the person who paid the money, the powerful lobbyist, asks a favour from the person who received the money, the influential politician: help him get out of his extradition. Faced with the first’s lack of willingness, the second takes legal action based on some excuse or another.

If Mulroney wanted to be paid for the many contracts his government awarded Schreiber, he would not have acted differently.

This is what the public believes and this is why a public inquiry must be held.

Recommendation

The above seven key considerations require Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber to provide solid evidence to prove that the $225,000//$300,000 was not a payment for services rendered or a thank you for the contracts Karlheinz Schreiber obtained from Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government.

A public inquiry must be launched as quickly as possible, with as broad a mandate as possible, and it must absolutely require proof. Brian Mulroney will have to testify, and this time, he will have to do so under oath.

Taxpayers have a right to know whether their taxes directly or indirectly paid for commissions so that large foreign corporations could obtain contracts from Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government. They have the right to know whether they overpaid for goods (because the commissions were so high) or whether they paid for inappropriate goods and services because the lobbyists were more influential and powerful than the companies offering the best products and services.