Category: Politics

I'm at the Oliphant Commission, blogging Brian Mulroney's testimony. You can follow me on Twitter (@davidakin) where you'll find links to all the blog posts. For your one-stop shopping convenience, I provide them for you here:

• Canada.com: [Oliphant] Morning press roundup: Some of the interesting tidbits in this morning's c.. (expand)
• Canada.com: [Oliphant] The Spin War at MulroneyMediaRoom.com: Brian Mulroney wanted this commission, .. (expand)
• Mulroney goes to France: (expand)
• Canada.com: [Oliphant] Day 2 begins with a trip to Asia and update on Schreiber's health: And we'.. (expand)
• Canada.com: [Oliphant] Schreiber falls in love with the Liberals: Mulroney went to China on a busines.. (expand)
• Canada.com: [Oliphant] Mulroney gets another $75,000 from Schreiber: At the coffee shop, in the hotel.. (expand)
• Canada.com: [Oliphant] Mulroney goes to France: Mulroney goes to France[PDF] in September of 1994 and.. (expand)
• Canada.com: [Oliphant] Mulroney gets his last $75,000 in New York: On Dec. 8, 1994, Mulroney has a me.. (expand)

Some of the interesting tidbits in this morning's coverage of yesterday's activities at the Oliphant Commission or, as it's more formally know, the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Allegations Respecting Business and Financial Dealings Between Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney.

First, this odd development was first reported by my colleague Norma Greenaway:

Schreiber, who listened to Mulroney's testimony in the morning, disappeared from the inquiry in the afternoon.

His wife, Barbel, said Tuesday night that he had gone to hospital and was scheduled for an emergency gallbladder surgery late Tuesday night.

She said Schreiber was experiencing a lot of pain, which is why he went to the hospital.

This morning we learn that Schreiber is recovering and should be out of the hospital Friday. Writing in The Globe and Mail, Greg McArthur  points us at this interesting nugget:

As Mr. Mulroney began the first of an estimated four days of testimony, inquiry lawyers introduced reams of never-before-seen pages of Mr. Schreiber's diary. The notations reveal that there was a period in 1997 when the German-born lobbyist was preoccupied with something involving the former prime minister, former German chancellor Helmut Kohl and European manufacturer Airbus Industrie.

Over a two month-period in 1997, just shortly after Mr. Mulroney received an apology from the federal government and a $2.1-million settlement in connection with the Airbus affair, Mr. Schreiber made four entries in his agenda books related to “Kohl” and “Mulroney.” Twice he scribbled next to their names “AB” – his shorthand for Airbus, the part-German company that paid Mr. Schreiber about $20-million in secret commissions after Air Canada bought 34 of its airplanes.

On Jan. 14, 1997, just a week after justice minister Allan Rock apologized to the former prime minister over an RCMP letter that alleged he had received kickbacks on the Airbus sale, Mr. Schreiber wrote in his agenda book “Kohl” and “Mulroney” above the words “AB” and “Steuergeheimnis,” a German word meaning tax secrecy.

McArthur also looks at Mulroney's offered excuse (I'm not sure that's the right word but there it is) for accepting cash payments and wonders if there is an unexplained time element issue there:

On Tuesday, Mr. Mulroney tried to address the secrecy surrounding the payments, saying he believes gossip and rumour led the Mounties to send the 1995 letter stating that he had received kickbacks, and that it threatened to ruin his family's name.

That devastating experience “explains my conduct in trying to keep private the private commercial transaction I entered into with Mr. Schreiber after I left office, so as to avoid the same kinds of deceitful and false purveying of information that had led to the original Airbus matter in the first place.”

The RCMP's letter of request was sent in 1995. Mr. Mulroney received the cash from Mr. Schreiber in 1993 and 1994.

Chantal Hebert makes, what seems to me, a not inconsiderate point in The Toronto Star:

Based on what Justice Jeffery Oliphant has heard to date, his conclusions will almost certainly involve a judgment call as to the relative credibility of the conflicting versions put forward by the two main protagonists….It can't harm Mulroney to remind the commission that when it comes to professional accomplishments he and Schreiber are not on a level playing field. Or that in his daily decision-making as prime minister, he was not solely surrounded by cronies but also by a cohort of advisers, including senior civil servants with impeccable ethical credentials. Or that he did have legitimate international access and expertise to offer for the money Schreiber was paying him.
The next few days under cross-examination will tell whether he can hold the high ground he tried to stake out yesterday.

The issues to be decided at the Oliphant Commission, probing the dealings between Karlheinz Schreiber and former prime minister Brian Mulroney, have a lot to do with credibility. In today's testimony by Mulroney, it was clear that one of the documents presented by his team attempted to weaken the credibility of Schreiber. The document was a letter, written by Schreiber on May 7, 1991, nearly a month after Schreiber claims to have had a meeting with Mulroney, Paul Tellier, and Fred Doucet.

Tellier was, at the time, the Clerk of the Privy Council. Doucet was then a lobbyist but had been Mulroney's chief of staff while he was opposition leader and a senior advisor when he became prime minister. He and Mulroney also had a close personal relationship that existed decades before he became PM.

Mulroney disputed the notion that he took a meeting with Schreiber. He says he took a meeting with either Doucet or Elmer Mackay (Peter's father, who stepped down as MP for Central Nova so Mulroney could run there once) and if they brought Schreiber in to that meeting, well then, so be it, because he trusted both those men.

However it's characterized, it seems clear that Tellier, with Mulroney present, met with Schreiber on April 10, 1991.

Schreiber was pushing the deal for his company, Bear Head Industries Ltd. Bear Head's plan was to have German arms maker Thyssen build a manufacturing facility in Cape Breton, “a relatively simple proposition”, in Schreiber's words.

Mulroney – and Tellier – had soured on the plan early on because they concluded it was exactly the opposite of a “relatively simple proposition”. Still, some Conservatives — notably Sen. Lowell Murray — and Schreiber continued to press the plan.

So: After meeting Tellier on April 10 and believing that he had impressed everyone with his plan, he waits. And waits. And waits. He calls. He has Doucet call. And no one calls him back.

He can't understand why no one has followed up with him:

“At the conclusion of that meeting, it was understood that you [Tellier] would bring your personal leadership to the file and chari a meeting between Government and company officials as early as possible within one week's time.”

Tellier scrawls two words in the margin of this letter from Schreiber: “Not accurate.”

Later in this seven-page letter, Schreiber says he can't understand why this has become a problem, particularly since:

“.. The Prime MInister (Mulroney) … made it clear in his speeches that his Government declared in its Cabinet Policy to use the industrial benefits associated with defence procurement to strengthen regional economies and overcome regional disparities. Furthermore, the Prime Minister made his personal position on the subject clear on April during our meeting.”

Tellier scrawls again in the margin: “Not accurate.”

Schreiber continues with his theme on page 5 of the letter: “All parties, with the possible exception of our competitors, seemed in favour of the project.”

And again, Tellier's note reads “Not accurate.”

Read the letter, with Tellier's notes, yourself [PDF].

Before we got going this morning, I dashed about with my digital camera. The results (click through on the thumbnail to see a larger picture). A reminder that I'm live-blogging Mulroney's testimony over here:

I'll be live-blogging Brian Mulroney's appearance this week at the Oliphant Commission but not here. I'll be live-blogging over here, a new “franchise”, if you will, for “On the Hill” within the Canada.com network. If you subscribe to this blog via RSS, may I suggest you wander over to the Canada.com site and do the same there. Some posts here will be mirrored there and some posts there will be mirrored here but there will be some posts exclusive to both sites. For example, you can see what I hope will soon be an exclusive daily feature at Canada.com's On The Hill in the form of “The Agenda”, a daily peak at activity on the Parliamentary Precinct. And all the blogging I do from the Oliphant Commission will only be found at Canada.com's On the Hill as well.

And as an extra incentive to get you pointed in that direction, the Canada.com On The Hill is where you can learn about a new poll from Nik Nanos who asked Canadians if they thought Oliphant's inquiry into Schreiber and Mulroney is worth the time and effort . .

The Brampton Filipino Seniors Club issued the following statement today, in support of Brampton-Springdale MP Ruby Dhalla (left). Two Filipino foreign workers say that the Dhalla family mistreated them during while they were employed with them.

Statement from the Brampton Filipino Seniors Club

We are writing in support of Dr. Ruby Dhalla, Member of Parliament for Brampton-Springdale, who has been unjustly smeared by the Toronto Star's article released on May 5th 2009 — and by the Canadian media. The Brampton Filipino Seniors Club have known Ruby since she was first elected in 2004 and can attest to her character as being nothing short of the highest integrity. She is one of the hardest working and most dedicated people we have ever known.

We have seen firsthand Ruby's commitment to people, to Brampton and the Filipino community. When ever any one has needed her she has always been there.

In fact, early this year Ruby lent her support to a Filipina live in caregiver who was diagnosed with colon cancer. Ruby went shoulder to shoulder with the Filipino community to fight for the live in caregiver to receive her permanent residency.

As well, earlier this year, when a Filipina resident of Brampton (a former Caregiver) was terminally ill Ruby went above and beyond to comfort this women. She offered help and support to the members of the Filipino community and the members of the Filipino-Canadian Autoworkers Association as they provided care and comfort to this dying woman. When she succumbed to death, Ruby again stood shoulder to shoulder with the community to collect funds for her funeral. Ruby spoke at the funeral with a speech that touched the hearts of everyone in the room.

On several occasions we have had the pleasure of working with her and her office on a number of initiatives to empower women, seniors and the Filipino community. She tabled a petition in the House of Commons to call on the government to stop the political killings and human rights violations in the Philippines and also worked with the Filipino community to support the campaign to demand justice for Comfort Women.

Everyone in the Filipino community in Brampton knows Ruby is always a phone call away when help is needed. She is a champion of women, of immigrants, of seniors and of children. She is seen as role model by our youth and as a compassionate and loving person by our community. Whether it's empowering women, giving youth a voice or advocating for seniors, Ruby has always stood up for the community.

Given Ruby's floving and caring nature and her dedication to people and the community the allegations by the caregivers and treatment in the media is unfair. We don't know what motive the care givers have in making these allegations but anyone that knows Ruby finds it difficult to believe. She is caring and compassionate. The Brampton Filipino Seniors and the entire community stand behind Ruby as she goes through this difficult time.

Sincerely,

The Brampton Filipino Seniors Club
Aurora G. Villanueva
President

UPDATE: Ms. Villanueva has since retracted this letter.

After reviewing this morning's post “To appear or not to appear? Baird's office assesses the damage”, Baird's press secretary Chris Day provides some more information and context. In addition to providing one more e-mail message from Baird's office to the clerk of the committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO), Day writes: “You'll note in the email that our Director of Parliamentary Affairs provided the committee chair a detailed explanation as to why we preferred to have the Minister appear at a later date than what was being proposed. The Minister has appeared before committees six times since the budget was tabled, including one appearance at OGGO on March 5th. It is our goal to always ensure that the Minister is fully prepared prior to committee meetings in order to provide committee members with as much detailed information as possible.”

Here is the additional e-mail provided by Day and should be read in context with the earlier ones published here.

From: Hamilton, Ben
Sent:Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:53 PM
To:Shamoon, Rana; Michel Marcotte
Cc: Baldwin , Kristin

Subject: RE: OGGO

Hi Michel ,
Just to provide further context to Rana's email , Minister Baird has to present at a cabinet committee in the morning, then presents for Bill C-7 to the Tranpsort Committee in the afternoon , right after Question Period . He also returns to the Transport Committee on Thursday for Main Estimates. The Minister always wants to make sure that he has proper time to prepare for his committee presentations, as he feels that coming unprepared can be a frustrating experience for Committee members and ultimately damage the Minister/Committee relationship. I imagine that there will be a number of opportunities to appear before OGGO for updates as the fiscal year continues, hence our caution on the April 21 st date .

Regards,

Ben Hamilton
Director, Issues Management
Office of the Hon. John Baird

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (known on the Hill as OGGO) asked that John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, to appear for before it. Yesterday, some odd e-mail correspondence was distributed to reporters by the press relations people in Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's office. The correspondence is between the clerk of that committee – an independent, non-political servant of the committee — and Rana Shamoon, a special assistant in Baird's office. Shamoon would be part of the minister's political staff and is not part of the independent, non-partisan departmental staff.

First, a message from Shamoon in response to clerk Michel Marcotte's initial request to have Minister Baird appear before the committee (In these messages, I have removed telephone numbers and replaced e-mail addresses with the individual's name):

De : Shamoon, Rana
Envoyé : 8 avril 2009 14:47
À : Marcotte, Michel Cc : Tony Reznowski; Hamilton, Ben; Baldwin, Kristin
Objet : OGGO

Hi Michel, As discussed, Minister Baird will be unable to appear before OGGO on April 21st concerning the stimulus fund since he has made other commitments that day.

Thank you, Rana Shamoon

Marcotte tries again with this e-mail to Shamoon:

From: Marcotte, Michel
To: Shamoon, Rana
Sent: Thu Apr 09 09:02:11 2009
Subject: RE: OGGO

I understand Minister Baird will appear before the SC on Transport between 3 :00 and 4 : 00 p.m.. Are you sure he cannot appear before the SC on Government Operations and Estimates, between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m., on the Infrastructures side of the stimulus package? The plan is to have a televised meeting with Ministers (Department officials already appeared last week) on the status of the 3 $ Billions envelope.

Michel Marcotte
Procedural Clerk / Greffier à la procédure
Committees Directorate / Direction des comités
House of Commons / Chambre des communes

To which Marcotte gets this very odd reply from Shamoon:

From: Shamoon, Rana
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 9:14 AM
To: Michel Marcotte Cc: Baldwin, Kristin; Hamilton, Ben
Subject: Re: OGGO

Hi Mike – as already discussed this at the strategy meeting, we really are not trying to be difficult but we think it would be more damaging to have him appear than not appear at this point.

Rana Shamoon

At this point, enter Liberal MP Martha Hall FIndlay in Question Period Tuesday. Hall Findlay is a member of the Govt Ops and Estimates committee:

Mme Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Monsieur le Président, le Comité permanent des opérations gouvernementales et des prévisions budgétaires examine les mesures de stimulation dans le budget 2009. Le ministre des Transports, de l’Infrastructure et des Collectivités s'est engagé à comparaître devant le comité afin de discuter des mesures de stimulation. Or, depuis, le ministre ne cesse de décliner des convocations à comparaître.

Le ministre voudrait-il expliquer pourquoi il a changé d'avis?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I was before the committee just last week and I have always made myself available to go to the committee. I would be very pleased to answer any specific questions that the member has and I look forward to doing just that.

Ms. Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, different committees and let me quote from and email sent by the minister's staff to the clerk of the government operations committee now declining the committees request to appear,“We think it would be more damaging to have him appear than not appear”.

I know I may have been a little firm with the minister the first time he appeared, but he is not usually short of things to say. Could he explain what exactly would be damaging and to whom?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I say to the member of the Liberal Party, if I had the opportunity to go before the committee and to read the quote from the Leader of the Liberal Party, “We will have to raise your taxes”.

Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know from this member for Willowdale which taxes will she raise, how much will they be raised and will the Liberals finally come clean with Canadians and be honest about their tax increasing plan?

But wait there's more — Baird press secretary Chris Day provides more information and context

At 1620 this afternoon, Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla's Nanny Trouble was the most read story at the Toronto Star's Web site. Reporter Dale Brazao finds that “two caregivers say they were mistreated after MP hired them. Dhalla says she is 'appalled' by their accusations.”

After Question Period today, in a scrum with several reporters, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney spends quite a bit of time not commenting on this case:

Reporter: So what should be done about these allegations?

Kenney: Well, it's difficult for me to comment on particular cases but we're aware of stories of abuse of the rights of live-in caregivers that are very disturbing. These are typically vulnerable workers. It's a very valuable program and provides a pathway to permanent residency within three years for thousands of women who otherwise would have a real hard time coming to Canada. So we think it's a good program but it needs to be improved. And I'm working with provinces, encouraging them to ensure the proper monitoring and enforcement of provincial Labour Code protections for live-in caregivers. And at the federal level we have launched consultations with caregivers and other stakeholders, including employers, to hear how we can better ensure their protection. We're looking at the role of intermediaries, of recruiting agencies. We are looking at the sanctions that are imposed. For instance, if we hear about – if we have reports of employers who are repeat abusers of the rules, we're looking at making it impossible for them to get future labour market opinions for additional caregivers in the future. And so we're basically open-minded about how we can improve the program to prevent abuse because one thing is clear : taking away someone's passport, requiring them to do work that's outside the terms of the caregiver status, not processing the work – having people work as a caregiver without a work permit, paying people under the table without takes, these – the accusations this happens on a fairly widespread basis. I think most employers are very dutiful and very good honest employers but we want to crack down on the abusive cases for sure.

Reporter: Is your department going to launch an investigation based on what you've heard?

Kenney: Well, to the best of my knowledge – I don't comment on particular cases so I can't really say. . . .

Reporter: The fact that this involves a sitting MP, what do you think should happen next?

Kenney: I'll leave that to the MP in question or her leader. I can't comment on the details of particular cases. That's a matter for that individual but as it relates to the appropriate authorities, if complaints are provided, you know, one question I have is if this information came to light in a public forum, I would hope that any responsible authorities would have notified the appropriate officials. I think these allegations may have been provided two weeks ago to a Minister of Labour in Ontario and I presume that the appropriate authorities were informed.

Reporter: Do you have to rely on a complaint in order to launch an investigation? So you won't necessarily investigate until you see that complaint?

Kenney: Well, you know, I think it's – that's up to officials. We don't want to politicize the complaints process and whether or not our officials have taken public reports into account, I'm not aware and I should probably not be asking questions of that nature because we want to ensure that any process is fair and not politicized. I'm just commenting on the broader issue here. We're aware of these instances of abuse and we're concerned and that's why we've launched these consultations and plan to tighten up the regulations surrounding the live-in caregiver program.