Categories: Andrew Coyne, Capital Read

Forgetful Fred

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, April 27, 2009 1:32pm - 7 Comments

What a surprise…

Close Brian Mulroney confidante Fred Doucet answered repeatedly today he had “no recollection” to almost every question put to him at the public inquiry probing business dealings between Mulroney and German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

His absence of memory concerning almost everything to do with a controversial proposal by a German company to build light-armoured vehicles in Canada clearly frustrated lead inquiry counsel Richard Wolson.

Doucet, a former chief advisor to Mulroney when he was prime minister, is thought to be a key figure in the inquiry in terms of Mulroney’s involvement in Bear Head Industries project. However, he stated dozens of time that he had no recollection of events or did not recall meetings with individuals with respect to Bear Head, although he acknowledged being hired by Schreiber to lobby for the project after he left the government in August 1988 and was paid $90,000.

Gosh. Doucet must feel a bit sheepish, don’t you think, not being able to remember anything about a project for which he’d lobbied diligently for many years? Still, nothing like as embarrassing as being caught lying under oath.

UPDATE: My mistake. He wasn’t lying. He just … forgot.

A former senior adviser to Brian Mulroney said he can’t remember writing three letters or receiving a fax regarding the purchase and delivery of Airbus planes to Air Canada.

Fred Doucet, testifying at the federal inquiry into the business dealings between Karlheinz Schreiber and the former prime minister, said he had no recollection of any of the correspondence relating to Airbus that took place between 1992 and 1994.

Of particular note is a fax that was sent to Doucet from Denis Biro, then Air Canada’s manager of investor relations, and a letter written by Doucet to Schreiber. Both are dated April 27, 1993, the same date that Mulroney received his first cash envelope from Schreiber at a hotel in Mirabel airport.

…

At a federal ethics committee last February, Doucet testified he had no knowledge about anything involving Airbus.

In a letter dated Mar. 24, 1992 and addressed to Schreiber, however, Doucet wrote that: “I do not want to bother you with the matter of the Birds. As I recall, you felt that by now I would have heard from [Frank Moores]. I have not heard from him.”

“Birds” is believed to be another word for planes.

When asked about the letter by lead commission counsel Richard Wolson, Doucet replied: “I do not remember anything about that.”

In the second letter, dated Aug. 27, 1993, Doucet wrote that “Mr. Biro has confirmed that 34 Airbus have been purchased and delivered to Air Canada according to the enclosed schedule.”

“I have no memory of that document either,” Doucet told the inquiry.

…

Wolson seemed perplexed that Doucet had memory of certain things, and no memory of others. He asked how Doucet how he could remember details of a meeting 15 years ago between Mulroney and Schreiber in which Mulroney brought up China, Russian president Boris Yeltsin, and French President Francois Mitterand.

“You can recall specific countries, specific leaders. How is that?” Wolson asked.

“Well it was very vivid in my mind,” Doucet said. “When you talk about the Chinese leadership, when you talk about personages like president Yeltsin, president Mitterand, it registers.”

Wolson asked: “And Airbus airplanes don’t?”

“No,” Doucet said.

So Airbus is now firmly in play, notwithstanding David Johnston’s purblind terms of reference. Doucet has just effectively thumbed his nose at the commission. If his testimony goes unchallenged, it will make a mockery out of the inquiry. And Judge Oliphant cannot allow that to happen.

AMNESIADATE: The Globe has more, including this sublime exchange:

Mr. Justice Jeffrey Oliphant, the chair of the inquiry, tried to jog Mr. Doucet’s memory by asking him the identity of his secretary, who appeared to be the author of one of the letters.

“What was your secretary’s name at that time?” the judge asked. “Someone with the initials B.H.?”

After a long pause, Mr. Doucet replied: “I don’t remember.”

He can’t remember the name of his secretary. Perhaps she (I’ll assume it’s a she) only worked there a week? Maybe he had dozens of secretaries? But what if he only had the one, and for some lengthy period of time? Anybody out there know the name of Fred Doucet’s secretary, circa 1993? The mysterious B.H.?

More by Andrew Coyne

Al Heck Brakes

“he had no recollection of events or did not recall meetings with individuals with respect to Bear Head, although he acknowledged being hired by Schreiber to lobby for the project after he left the government in August 1988 and was paid $90,000.”

Then how does he know that he was paid $90k as a lobbyist – did he read it in the newspaper?

I was going to say, a $90,000 fine for contempt of the inquiry might be about right, but I was forgetting myself. The point of political witch hunts is to expose, embarrass and weaken one’s rivals, not to actually punish corruption and abuse of power, or prevent its recurrence.

And on a completely different and totally unrelated subject … the replacements and upgrades to all of the DND equipment which was worn out and blown up in Afghanistan … are going to be worth how much approximately? (expressed as a multiple of the amount of money spent on Airbus, etc. that Mulroney Inc. were, ah, managing for the taxpayers)
Al Heck Brakes

Also – remember the lady who was Sinclair Stevens’ secretary. IIRC, at first she tried the “no spicka Inglesa” defense when questioned at his inquiry, but then some kind of judicial Big Stick was waved in her face and magically her memory came flooding back.

Which leads to a question. Does the awful majesty of the law only apply to little people? I read just now that the cabinet rules to which Sinc Stevens was bound, on sober second thought by the finest judicial minds, were deemed to have been mere “guidelines”. The upshot is, the lowly secretary lady could have been thrown in the slammer for forgetting how her privy councillor boss may have inadvertently neglected to follow mere guidelines.
http://deleted Sandi

Talk about “selective” memory loss. My mother-in-law had heart problems and she suffered some memory loss – about events that took place 10 minutes ago, or where she put her purse. Her memories of the past were extremely clear.
Dot

Schreiber says he paid Mulroney $100k on three occasions. Mulroney says he declared $225as income. Who received the other $75k?

Doucet arranged the meetings. He was also present. Will anyone ask him if he received the balance?

Stephen

Assuming the two facts of $300,000 withdrawls by Schreiber and Mulroney’s receipt of only $225,000 are both true then KHS keeping the difference makes more sense. Either because he really was going to pay $300,000 in 4 installements or he kept it, in keeping with his “middlemaness” and in keeping with what the German tax authorities would have you believe…ie he hides income and lots of it.

If you dont believe Mulroney, you have to answer why he would only declare $225,000 and not $300,000.

Either he forgot what he had received in his rush to declare and fix his mistake, or he also decided he was going to hide $75,000. It is an unproveable unfortuantely, with both parties potentially having reasons for lying about it. My bias is KHS because of the German issues and charges, but neither is ultimately proveable so opinion reigns.

madeyoulook

Maybe there’s another safety deposit box with 75 smackers in it somewhere, and this collection of Alzheimers-R-Us members just “can’t recollect” where it is…

Stephen

Maybe, but maybe not. And my doubts about being able to prove that there is this mythical missing $75,000 are quite high. So once again, an unproveable, opinion reigns and the commission is a waste of money. although apparently we are getting new docs from Sen murray recently discovered…..I am quite certain they will turn out to be as earth shattering as anything else we have seen so far.

The answers lay not here, but in a German Court that has access to all of KHS Swiss Banks accounts.

Let him be tried there, the Germans have a real iincentive, likely north of 10 million dollars with back taxes, interest and fines, to uncover what the then German resident KHS was up to and where his money went.

If KHS can prove his money was used for “business purposes” he gets to write it off against income. If not then guess where the money was/is. The answer to the questions are not here….imho….KHS has done nothing illegal in Canada, why do you think he wants to stay, but he has apparently done bad stuff in germany, let the Germans try to prove it. As a side benefit you’ll discover if he put money aside for Brian Mulroney, which is what our host thinks.

Anyway, let Oliphant play out, and then ship KHS home….then we get to hear where the money really went.

Of course this could have happened over a year ago, but we wanted one more fireside yarn from our favourite German Uncle, one that has intrigue and scarey noises and lets out imaginations create all sorts of scarey monsters but ultimately safely returns us to our own world and beds no worse for wear, in good German fable tradition.

The time is coming soon to wave goodbye to Uncle Karlheinz, we wont be seeing him again for awhile after this trip I suspect.