Minutes after Norman Spector, a former political advisor to Brian Mulroney, finished testifying at the House of Commons Ethics Committee about what he knew about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, some of this former colleagues released the following:
Open letter from B. Roy, D. Burney, S. Hartt & H. Segal
“We are surprised and disappointed to see that one of our former colleagues as Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister, a position in which each of us were privileged to serve, has made a series of allegations during his appearance before the House of Commons Ethics Committee by promising to reveal the sources of cash payments delivered to 24 Sussex Drive while he, Norman Spector, served as the senior confidential political adviser to Mr. Mulroney. The claims he made are not new, having been the subject of at least one decades-old effort at “investigative journalism”, but it is difficult to see how they can in any way be remotely linked to the mandate the Committee has given itself.
The re-imbursement of the Mulroney household’s personal expenses, and Mr. Mulroney’s expenses in his role as party leader as well as those legitimately incurred in his governmental role and therefore reimbursable by his employer, was handled by a process of allocation on the basis of invoices or other evidence of expenditures and careful evaluation of the purpose of each outlay.
In essence, each month’s expenses were divided into three categories – government, party and personal. Claims for reimbursement by the government were forwarded to P.C.O. for processing. Receipts deemed payable by the party were forwarded to the PC Canada Fund. Personal expenses were sent to Mr. Mulroney’s private accountant in Montreal for payment.
This process for reimbursement never resulted in any dispute or disagreement with any of the three distinct sources as to the appropriateness of the allocation amongst them. It is no different from the reimbursement procedures followed by any employee who travels or has out-of-pocket expenses in the course of his or her business. The sums were not large having regard to the scope of the responsibilities of the Mulroney’s and the operation of their household.
Claims and payments were received and reimbursements made by administrative staff. We were responsible for the system’s oversight. Reimbursement of claims were made directly by the PC Canada Fund or by a cheque delivered for deposit by a PMO staff member. When cash was necessary for purchases of the household it was delivered to the residence.
In our experience, there was nothing untoward or sensational about the practice followed. The process was straightforward. If any aspect had troubled Mr. Spector during his time in the PMO, he would have had the full authority to make whatever changes he deemed necessary. “
Bernard Roy Derek Burney Stanley Hartt Hugh Segal
Honestly David, I don't understand. You're a journalist on the hill, please explain.
This is not an issue regarding Airbus. But the members of committee will ask the questions anyway. They won't however, ask where all the money went that Schreiber admitted to receiving. That would make the scope too broad?
And I can't help but wonder each time this story makes headlines…how could the committee ask questions that admittedly were written by a CBC reporter, again not on subject and not objected to? This is an issue I would like answers to. Who were the reporter's co-conspirators? Why won't other media outlets let the people know? Is this a non-story to you? Do you already know?
I can appreciate that you have to network and sometimes make deals to get your story or a quote. But this was way beyond wrong and those who participated are elected officials. We, the electorate, deserve to know who these people on the “Ethics Committee” are. And you and your colleagues in the media, on the hill, are remiss in allowing this story to go away without identifying those elected officials who are now charged with deciding the ethics of another.
The bottom line…It simply doesn't pass the smell test. And your silence and that of others in the media causes the rest of us to wonder; where is the truth and how do we get to it.