In the edition of The press On October 15, Denis Lessard published a column entitled: “25 Years Ago – Mulroney Receives an Apology from Chrétien: A Very Short-Lived Victory”1.
Posted at 12:00 p.m
Mr Mulroney never received an apology from Jean Chrétien in the Airbus affair. In fact, Mr. Mulroney never requested an apology from Mr. Chrétien, and it is unlikely that he would have accepted it if it had been offered to him.
It might therefore be useful to provide a chronology of this complex matter, which might prove useful to readers who have read Mr Lessard’s original text.
Before moving on to more important matters, however, I note in passing that Mr. Lessard stated that William Kaplan was Mr. Mulroney’s attorney. Although Mr. Kaplan is an attorney, he was never Mr. Mulroney’s attorney.
In September 1995, the Government of Canada and the RCMP sent a letter to the Swiss government requesting assistance, the equivalent of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. In that motion they alleged that Mr. Mulroney was involved in an ongoing conspiracy to defraud the government of Canada out of millions of dollars.
In November 1995, after this allegedly “confidential” letter was leaked to the media, Mr. Mulroney sued him for defamation in the Superior Court of Quebec in Montreal.
As early as June 1996, the Swiss government informed the Canadian government and the RCMP that there was no evidence to support the charges against Mr Mulroney.
In January 1997, the Canadian government and the RCMP, not wanting to be heard in court about the events leading up to the charges, reached a settlement agreement with Mr. Mulroney, apologizing to him, his wife and their children. The apology reads in part as follows: “Any findings of wrongdoing by the former Prime Minister were – and are – unjustified. »
In April 2003, RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli, fully briefed on Mr. Mulroney’s business arrangement with Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber, wrote to Mr. Mulroney announcing the completion of the investigation into the allegations of offense at MBB Helicopters, Thyssen and Airbus because they could not be occupied.
In November 2007, Mr. Schreiber, desperate to avoid his extradition to Germany for tax evasion, signed an affidavit that became the proximate cause of what would later become the Oliphant Commission of Inquiry.
In that affidavit, Mr. Schreiber made four main allegations, two of which, if true, would have been violations of the law Act of Parliament of Canada and Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders of 1985 in force at the time.
Mr. Schreiber alleged that they entered into a business relationship on June 23, 1993, two days before Mr. Mulroney resigned as Prime Minister of Canada.
However, Commissioner Oliphant said: “Mr. Mulroney did not reach an agreement with Mr. Schreiber during his tenure as Prime Minister. »
Mr. Schreiber also alleged that this agreement obligated Mr. Mulroney to support his efforts to obtain permission for Bear Head Industries Limited to set up a light armored vehicle manufacturing facility in Nova Scotia or Quebec by lobbying Canadian government agencies.
Commissioner Oliphant said: “I reject Mr. Schreiber’s evidence that Mr. Mulroney’s mandate was national in nature. I accept Mr. Mulroney’s statement that the mandate was international. »
These lies did not surprise the commissioner. When he closed: [Schreiber] admitted he would have done “anything” in his bid for a public inquiry. »
In his report, Commissioner Oliphant also came to two other notable conclusions.
The commissioner concluded: “There is no evidence that he [Mulroney] in public office – i.e. prime minister – he received a benefit from Mr. Schreiber that could have affected his judgment and the performance of his official duties. »
Referring to Airbus, Commissioner Oliphant concluded: “The only way to link Mr Mulroney to the Airbus affair is to speculate or support the concept of guilt by association. Based on my sense of fairness and my experience as a trial judge for twenty-five years, I am not prepared to do either. »
Mr Lessard also referred to Allan Rock’s testimony before the Ethics Committee in 2008, in which the former Attorney General said that if the Canadian government had known about the business arrangement between Mr Mulroney and Mr Schreiber, he might not have apologized and, in doing so, the Issue of defamation lawsuit settled.
This is an incomplete and therefore inaccurate account of Mr. Rock’s testimony.
First, Mr. Rock admitted that the RCMP wrongly concluded that Mr. Mulroney was involved in criminal activity and that it was this outrageous conclusion that formed the basis of the 1997 Settlement Agreement.
“The advice I received from the Ministry [de la Justice], said Mr Rock, with whom I agreed that the main reason we apologized to Mr Mulroney was the language of the letter of demand, and if you read that language you will see that it was conclusive. We’re used to the language of claiming that this and that happened, but this language, while sometimes saying that, goes much further. He actually says there was criminal activity. An apology was presented for this reason. »
Second, it is important to note that at this point Mr. Rock was specifically asked whether he was evidence of wrongdoing by an official regarding Mr. Mulroney’s business arrangement with Schreiber or Air Canada’s purchase of Airbus aircraft and His response: ” NO. »
After more than 20 years of investigations into the Airbus affair, which included an Air Canada inquiry, a Transport Canada inquiry, a House of Commons Transport Committee inquiry, four RCMP inquiries, a House of Commons Ethics Committee and a public inquiry, there is no Misconduct the role of Mr. Mulroney was ever found.
As concluded by Philipp Mathias, the Airbus case was over financial post, “the mouse that roared. »
Mr. Mulroney is a close friend who I supported during what everyone called the “Airbus Affair”. I wanted to post this update.
Total web buff. Student. Tv enthusiast. Evil thinker. Travelaholic. Proud bacon guru.
