Skip navigation

Conduct unbecoming

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Hearing what Brian Mulroney says he was paid for strains credibility ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. robert taylor from Sunshine Coast, Canada writes: What concerns me the most about this Lyin' Brian charade is that he is the only Progressive Conservative that I have ever voted for in my long life.

    It's not just that Mulroney will forever will have a tainted brand, it's that 'I' was personally hoodwinked by the lies and deceit and criminal actions by this slease-bag who has the audacity to keep on lyin' and cryin' in front of all the world. He's acting like a sociopath. Sad, appalling and power hungry.
  2. trevor hearnden from cobourg, Canada writes: most reasonable people will probably conclude there is something fishy about an ex-prime minister accepting envelopes stuffed with cash and not declaring it as inccme for over half a decade.
  3. rablais rabble from Canada writes: It is odd that he had the balls to sue and then received more then $2 million in settlement from the Chretien govt.
    It is all preposterous. But no seems to really care.
    It seems like Canadians lack moral engagement. Is this the legacy of fear politics and negative ad campaigns as practiced by Bush and Harper? Are we all now simply numb and cynical?
    If so, these leaders are as bad for democracy as tin pot dictators.
  4. Donna Isaac from Listuguj, Canada writes: I live on an Indian reserve. Because taxable services provided on reserve are free of sales taxes, non-native contractors enjoy working here....for cash payments. This they do to avoid a record of their contract income so as to avoid paying income taxes. Is Mulroney somehow different from the norm? I think not.

    Canada has an historic norm of using indigenous lands without paying royalties to indigenous peoples, leaving us mostly landless and impoverished all these generations. From what i've seen of the earliest land thefts and frauds in canada and most recently, the pollution, and legacy of pain that Mulroney's party left to a small community of Mi'gmaq families in Boat Harbour, Nova Scotia, this kickback is a minor affair. There should be a public inquiry into the Boat Harbour Affair.
  5. jim reed from dungannon, Canada writes: Ms. Isaac is right on.

    Well done Mr. Simpson...but...there's a missing piece.
  6. herring choker from Canada writes: I enjoy it when people say something is 'technically correct but...' It translates as 'I really don't like this, but I can't give a good reason why.' It also avoids the rather messy business of having to place the offending statements in any sort of context. The offending statements to the gov't lawyers were made in a deposition for discovery in the Mulroney lawsuit. What was it over? A little matter of the Gov't of Canada saying that one B. Mulroney had been engaged a 'criminal conduct' while he was prime minister. No small accusation. But one for which the gov't had no evidence, just a lot of conjecture, some from dubious sources. Depositions in lawsuits are adversarial affairs, not simple matters of fact-finding. The Mulroney deposition was no different and, in fact, was probably more adversarial than most. It was an opportunity, however, for the gov't lawyers (nine of them) to question Mulroney on any of the evidence they had about the so-called 'criminal conduct'. Of course they didn't ask any questions on that because they didn't have any evidence. For the nine gov't lawyers the deposition was a fishing expedition, an opportunity to dig up something...anything...that would have justified calling BM a criminal in the first place. To criticize BM for a lack of candour means ignoring all the circumstances that led to lawsuit. The essential argument from the 'technically correct' crowd is that Mulroney was wrong not only for failing to put his head in the noose, but for not providing the rope as well. A balanced examination of the affair, on the other hand, would need to acknowledge the curious set of circumstances that led to the deposition in the first place. But that would require examining the train wreck that was the Airbus investigation and the tendrils that led to individuals with an axe to grind. The truth is that the whole investigation was swirling in politics, some of it quite venal. But acknowledging that would be 'technically incorrect'.
  7. richard steiner from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm sick and tired of these politicians who not only lie or 'misrepresent the truth,' but then have the gall to weep in public like little children trying to invoke sympathy and avoid punishment. Ms. Dhalla, who treats her 'caregivers' like slaves and then pretends that their insistence of their legal rights is some kind of orchestrated political attack and this crook who denies and denies, and hides behind his lawyers, and takes millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers in phony legal cases. Have they no honour, have they no shame.

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