Skip navigation


Brian Mulroney is guilty of a lot of things but

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

All these are faults. Big faults. But are they crimes? Nope. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Derek R from Streetsville, Canada writes: Yup, time to move on...and time to deport Mr. Schreiber to Germany.
  2. William Borlase from Canada writes: As usual good summary and observations. I see that your employer has no story today about the CBC investigation on charges of Liberal/CBC collusion in the Mulroney?Schriber story. I wonder if it hits too close to home?
  3. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: Well MW you have recently defended Conrad Black and you are now doing the same for Mulroney.What we need is a proper inquiry,with lawyers who will not allow him to get away from giving straight answers using all the blarney and BS that he has used throughout his public life. If anyone else had failed to declare $300k for six years I doubt if CRA would have shown much indulgence.Mulroney must be eternally grateful that he is not a politician in the US.

    Let me point out that I am no friend of the Liberals or CBC.Wanting honesty and probity in public life should not be a partisan issue.
  4. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Unsurprisingly, Peggy defends Mulroney still. Like her hero, she accepts that taking secret cash payments for services undefined is sketchy, but like her hero, she would have us believe there is no wrongdoing in that. So, not a white-wash, but rather a grey-wash.

    The evidence so far in no way allows anyone to conclude no wrongdoing has occured. Mr. Mulroney knowing and deliberately misrepresented his multiple meetings with Schrieber as 'having coffee once or twice'. This misrepresentation alone, which led at least in part to his successful hornswogging of $2.1 dollars from taxpayers, should lead to further investigation or legal action.

    No, Ms. Wente, no 'buts' please.
  5. Ken Mann from Nanaimo, Canada writes: It certainly appears Mulroney was guilty of no more than contemplated tax evasion. How bad is that? If some-one insisted on paying me for a service in cash, I fear my thought processes might run along the following lines: let's see, if I pay tax on this, what will happen to the money? Well, it will go to MPs inflated salaries and pensions, which they have a habit of quietly increasing on the last day of the session, hoping we fools don't notice. Nope.
  6. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Ken Mann from Nanaimo, Canada writes: It certainly appears Mulroney was guilty of no more than contemplated tax evasion.


    What?! IF he received only $225000 from Schreiber then he's at least guilty of a self-granted six year tax deferal. If he got $300000 then he has yet to pay up fully. And, what about GST, has he paid that on the money collected for his services to Schrieber?
  7. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    I have great difficulty with this story.

    We need to be able to TRUST our leaders-while in office, and the plans they make for themselves during that tme after they leave......

    While it would be difficult to prove criminal or civil responsibility in this case, several continuous and on-going errors of judgement are quite concerning. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance and Canada is a very forgiving society as long as we feel we are told the truth with a semblance of heart felt contrition. I am not convinced this is the situation here.

    Questions that were never put forward concerned the "INTENT" of the actions carried out. Former PH Mulroney was a successful businesman-lawyer-and PM.

    Therefore, my questions become the following:
    What was the INTENT to accept cash not once-but 3 times?
    What was the INTENT as to not billing or receiving receipts-a paper trail?
    What was the INTENT to use Safety boxes and NOT the bank?

    When Schreiber was arrested 6 years later, why only then the tax revenue declaration for the total-and excluding expenses? Makes NO sense!

    The question becomes the INTENT of the interelated actions spanning several years!
  8. Elmo Harris from Niagara, Canada writes:
    Ugh! If Wente had a clue, I would say that she was a shill for the Conservative party and the rest of mankind's shady characters. Black? Mulroney? Harper?
  9. Brent Beach from Victoria, Canada writes: Wente has said a lot of stupid things in the her time at the G&M, but this bit of gloss has to top them all.

    The stench of corruption during the Mulroney years spread across the country.

    This bit of mindless support boggles.

    Is this the behaviour she expects of former Prime Ministers. Is the immediately post official behaviour not suggestive that perhaps some of the rumours about the Mulroney era might, just might, have some truth to them?

  10. pierre lefebvre from Brossard, Canada writes: Lies, lies and lies is the overriding impression. In law adversarial roles engender challenge to credibility. Mind you it does not encourage truth to come out necessarily. He who has the best legal team could win the case without achieving the objective that is The Truth. There is no DNA measure in this case.
  11. Greg Ast from Nanoose, Canada writes: I have often wondered about people throwing rocks at a writer's character instead of offering a rational rebuttal of the issue.

    What is it with these people?

    You think an attempt to humiliate Margaret Wente is going to change her style?

    I for one don't always agree with mw but I ALWAYS read mw.

    Rock on Peggy!
  12. W M from Canada writes: While it may be true that in technical terms (and in light of the fact that Mulroney belated declared and paid taxes on the money he received from Shreiber), I find it very hard to believe that his intent was not do something illegal. At the very least, to evade his taxes. And, there have been enough instances so far, where Shreiber's claims have turned out to be true and Mulroney's claims, lies, that Mulroney did receive $300,000 and not the $225,000 he reported. And, at the very least, Mulroney broke the spirit of US and Canadian anti-money laundering laws, including one brought in by his own government. I also think that his settlement should be reviewed, as his denial that he had ever received money from Shreiber, let alone money from the account used for the payments that he has been indicted for in Germany, has to have played in the decision to give in the settlement and the amount of the settlement. Moreover, if it is true that the money he recieved came from the same account as was used to pay the bribes for which he has been indicted in Germany, the claims made in the RCMP's letter sent to the Swiss government look a lot less unjustified and outragious than I used to think is the case, even in they are wrong. Let's face it, if we are going to start paying damages to everyone who is investigated by the police, but not charged or convicted, our justice system is in big trouble. And (like Eric Nielsen), I say this as someone who supported his government, used to think that the whole investigation was nothing more than Chretien vendetta and still think his government did a pretty good job (far better than Trudeau ever did). The thing is that this isn't a review of Mulroney's prime ministership, just a review of his dealings with Shreiber.
  13. Not Withstanding from Not Toronto, Canada writes:
    The Mulroney "corruption" non-story:

    It's Dead Jim.

    Hate the guy all you want (I'm no fan) but it's clear that, whatever the bad judgment involved in taking money from Schrieber, no crimes were committed, now or then.

    Chretien's Liberals and RCMP lapdogs had years to investigate Mulroney - and all the motivation in the world - to find something, anything, to nail him and they couldn't.

    Now it's all come out (or enough of it to draw conclusions, anyhow) and it's obvious the reason they couldn't find anything was that there just weren't nuttin' dere, as Chretch might've said.

    The inquiry will happen anyhow and we'll get to spend $30 million or whatever to have this basic fact verified.
  14. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: Not Withstanding from Not Toronto, Canada writes: ... Hate the guy all you want (I'm no fan) but it's clear that, whatever the bad judgment involved in taking money from Schrieber, no crimes were committed, now or then.


    How on Earth can you say it's "clear" no crimes were committed? Mulroney's testimony never dealt with the very key elements of potential crimes. Did he not apparently lie under oath in saying he met with Schrieber 'once or twice for coffee'? YES, he did. Did he not apparently ignore his tax filing obligations for SIX YEARS? Yes he did. Those to things alone speak of potential wrongdoing.

    The haste with which some people are leaping to the assertion that there was 'no crimes' suggests a contrived desire to protect Mulroney, their party, or their consciences from the facts.
  15. Fred Draper from Kingston, Canada writes: Let's face it, the explanation offered (international work, talking to now dead guys, US safety deposit box) is the only one which explains all the facts AND avoids any illegality.

    Which is quite helpful...

    At best, Brian was paid for work he didn't do. In my view, this is getting Boarshead in place. He probably never thought Karlhienz would sue.

    I'd be interested in seeing the explanation for the income in the voluntary disclosure, if there was one. He could have just declared as 1999 income.
  16. Yogie Bear from The Forest, Canada writes: The inquiry was called a year ago......what's the hold-up??????????????
  17. john kitchen from Vernon, B.C., Canada writes: Unbelievable - seems to me the whole big C was in on the arms deals, possibly the big boys from the income tax also. Harper had better stay away from all the past C's, if people had known he had Mulroney in his camp, can you imagine how many votes would have gone the other way.
    Our Parliment needs a complete overhaul, a leader should not be able to go beyond eight years. As it is - I'd say we are electing a "dictator", let's change the system!!?? Yours truly, J.K.
    N B . . . Wouldn't it be nice to send all these players to the crowbar hotel? Who is the arms dealer for Afganistan?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff


Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top