Talk:Brian Mulroney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada

I don't know how to fit this in, so I'll file it here.

Mulroney's affection for the Americans was not shared by all Conservatives. Dalton Camp, "tutor" and adviser to Mulroney and himself an expatriate American, found it excessive. In The Player he relates one Whitehouse visit in which Reagan tossed a Frisbee and "for a moment, we weren't sure which one [the dog or Mulroney] was going to fetch it."[1]

"Leaders of the Reform, Canadian Alliance, and currently the Conservative Party have been socially conservative Blue Tories, which has solidified their support in Alberta but failed to make headway in the more centralized Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic region (once PC strongholds)."

Since when were Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritimes considered PC strongholds?

→they WERE once PC strongholds. Other than Quebec that is24.79.238.25 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] greatest pm ever analogy

"Many Canadian conservatives regard Mulroney as one of the best Prime Ministers in Canadian history, analogous to American conservatives' perception of former president Ronald Reagan."

I don't really see this analogy as particularly relevant or apt. Many American liberals consider FDR the greatest president ever. Many British conservatives consider Thatcher a great PM, etc... It kind of goes wihtout saying, and seems somewhat pointless to mention in the opening paragraph. Why not just say that a considerable school of thought considers him one of, or the best PM ever. Peregrine981 08:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

--The above is only an opinion. Quantify it with data or don't include it in an encyclopedic entry. His electoral victories were the greatest in Canadian history and his initial popularity exceeded even Trudeau's. But his legacy is a mixed bag of best intentions met with deeply partisan opposition; of false allegations of misdeeds and the electoral decimation of the very party he loved so deeply. Stick to facts which can be footnoted. --Andrew Saxton 23:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

--That statement isn't even true. Most Tories thought of him as a failure, and most Western Conservatives broke with the party because of his regime. Most dyed in the wool Conservatives I know think MacDonald was the best PM...Habsfannova 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned his government privatized Petro Canada? This may come handy on the legacy section sometime in future (2020 - 2030) when we can compare it with Norway.

While it is true that Trudeau was responsible for starting Canada down the road to dept, Mulroney and his cronies quadrupled it. Add to this the free trade agreement (which caused an increase in the exports of Canadian products and an even larger increase in the export of Canadian jobs) and the GST (which started an underground cash economy to avoid paying it) and I’d have to ask “Greatest Prime Minister? Have you been drinking the purple cool-aid?” --Neilrieck 00:04:22, 2005-09-13 (UTC)

[edit] 7400 pages

Where did the number 7400 pages come from? Duomillia 01:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newman book section merged away

I've been bold and made a short paragraph describing the book and controversy in After politics, but otherwise merged the entire section on the book off to the existing article on the book. Having grown so quickly and organically, I think it could use a bit of cleanup at this time. Samaritan 06:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, I wonder if, somewhere, there isn't a soundbite archived away of Mulroney's press club "speech". CTV aired a censored version but it wasn't quite the same. 23skidoo 00:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Prime Minister" section

I think this section needs a major re-write, it seems very disjointed. Maybe we should concentrate more on putting the events in chronological order? Just want to get some feedback before going about it.Habsfannova 04:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whitewashing?

According to the TheStar.com:

Nowhere is there any mention of the $300,000 in cash he received from Karlheinz Schreiber in the 18 months after stepping down as prime minister, money Mulroney said he was paid as a consultant and promoter when Schreiber started a pasta company. This is remarkable, because if you Google "`Mulroney' `pasta'", you find a quotation from what was presumably an earlier, if not the original, Wikipedia entry that reads, "It is unclear what services Mulroney performed for Schreiber to earn the money; Mulroney says it was for introductions for Schreiber's pasta business." But in the biography this now links to, that sentence no longer exists. In fact, the words "earn," "money," "introductions," "pasta," and even "Schreiber" don't appear at all. Having sued the federal government (he settled for $1 million and costs and an apology) because of RCMP allegations that he had received kickbacks from Schreiber during the Airbus affair, and since his testimony indicated that his contacts with Schreiber had been minimal, although Schreiber had raised money for his leadership campaign, the $300,000 he received on leaving office in 1993 continues to be an embarrassingly stinky pile on the Mulroney broadloom. The kicker is that way down at the bottom of the Mulroney material, Wikipedia provides a link that takes you — whoosh! — to the Airbus affair entry, and there it is, in quite different wording: how the $300,000 wasn't revealed until 2003, and how "Mulroney had not previously admitted accepting any commissions from Schreiber." You will also find the historian Robert Kaplan's criticism of Mulroney "for trying to hide the fact" that he received the dough. Whoever fiddled — maybe it was mice — with the information wasn't as careful as they might have been.(Joey Slinger, Toronto Star, January 17, 2006)

Can anyone explain this? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously some Tory took that out. As it's well documented, go ahead and put it back in with citations.70.29.159.91 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It was my fault...I was cutting/pasting some things around, and forgot to put it back in...it's still in the notepad file I used to "store" the text to paste back in a better section...so irresponsibility, not partisan hackery.

Speaking of that, should the "Airbus Affair" get it's own headline, or stay in the "Prime Minister" section? Habsfannova 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. I also read the Toronto star article above and that's prompted me to visit the page and found the whole article had been typed in. My plan was to go through the history but that is not necessarly now.
He even hammered Wales for endlessly editing his bio. I do agree that was not a great idea for Wales to do, but I am happy to see he also can't escape critism.
Wikipedia may not be ideal, but I love reading it. Most other work on the net is shallow, and that is where wikipedia fill in. A single topic can be discussed to unbelievable details. I believe errors inserted by accident or not will be with time be weeded out. All it need is one person noticing something is amiss and the whole thing is reversed. That is bound to happen sooner or later since human are rather hetogenous, with everyone seeking to shine light on his agenda. The only thing that determine who dominate is the facts, not your pocket size. Okay, this may just be a wish but then show me one source that is free of errors and I will shut up.
The Bible! I kid, I kid... --129.21.121.58 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Bloody hell. We get no room for error. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Leadership '83"

Mulroney was, by all acounts that I've read, most definatly not sincere in his actions towards Clark at the Ritz Summit. He even told Lorne Nystrom, after he had been drinking, a few days after that Clark was (I'm quoting exactly here), "...so stupid, even my five year old son calls him a fucking wimp." Habsfannova 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fifth estate

We should add something about yesterday's fifth estate which elaborates on payments to Mulroney by Karlheinz Shreiber after he left office and Shreiber's comments in regards to Mulroney's claims it was a payment to promote Shreiber's pasta business. Homey 13:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Too bad everyone's so scared to death about a libel suit that they can't really connect the dots on screen.Habsfannova 15:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean Mulroney's pasta expertise isn't worth $300,000?Homey 17:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] CF

I've tried again with another edit to the CF stuff - perhaps revitalized was too strong a word (though I honestly don't think so). Perhaps the current edit will be more amenable. Michael Dorosh 02:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't in the CF, but did live in Ottawa at the time and had many friends in uniform. They were happy with new uniforms and new equipment, but furious at the cutbacks, especially the base closures when Marcel Masse was minister. I just think we should tell the whole story here. HistoryBA 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
There's probably something to be said for that; I've added some comments on your talk page also. I realize equipment procurement is not the whole story either, and that we did get the Leopards under Trudeau. Neither one of us will go far based on what "some friend" in Ottawa said, or what we saw in a reserve unit in Calgary. I'll endeavour to track down some bonafide sources.Michael Dorosh 02:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's Peter Worthington in the Financial Post, 24 May 1991:
Evidence of contempt for the military can be seen in the appointment of Marcel Masse as defence minister. His first statement as head warrior was to suggest a 25% cutback; his first act was to cancel existing plans and purchases. Cancelling the purchase of small arms infantry weapons and ammunition, reneging on buying anti- tank weaponry and all-terrain vehicles, indicate we are well on our way to cancelling the army completely.
The reason we didn't send troops to the gulf war was because we couldn't. No self-respecting Third World country has a military as run-down as ours. Training good, personnel excellent, weapons and equipment of Smithsonian vintage and makeshift quality.
At 85,000 personnel, our military is already, proportionately, the world's smallest. Yet we are the only country whose regular forces outnumber its reserves - about around 40,000. We have more generals today than in the Second World War. When we were fighting Germans - the world's best soldiers - we had something like 60 generals.
HistoryBA 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
And here is Richard Littlemore in the Vancouver Sun, 25 July 1991:
QUICK, you have to cut your body weight immediately by 20 per cent, what do you do?
You might make a tough decision and sacrifice a couple of limbs. If you waffle, and the busy surgeon cuts away equal amounts from everywhere, what is left over will never survive.
It's a gruesome analogy, but a fairly accurate picture of what is happening to the Canadian military. Already anorexic from years of trimming, it faces a bleak future with shrinking budgets and deteriorating equipment.
If the government makes some hard decisions, cutting some commitments entirely and using the money to bolster the remaining elements of the force, we may maintain an effective military. If, however, the ministers continue to dither, cutting equally but indiscriminately from everywhere, the Canadian defence structure will, in the words of analyst Roger Hill, "implode on itself."
The foregoing is not merely obvious; military planners have issued the warning so many times that the ring of it is getting irritating. And yet, there is no policy. The government dithers.
HistoryBA 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Christopher Young, Edmonton Journal, 23 May 1991:
In 1987 this government brought out a white paper based on the thesis that the Soviet Union was still a major threat.
Now Defence Minister Masse is making the opposite mistake. He's working on the theory that the end of the Cold War justifies slashing military jobs, arms, even special vehicles designed to protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic. Like the 1987 white paper, this view is already out of date, exploded by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the American-led response.
HistoryBA 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll quote just one more. This is an editorial from the Halifax Daily News, 9 May 1991:
THE LATEST recruit in the squad of Mulroney government defence ministers, Marcel Masse, didn't expect a standing ovation from Armed Forces officers when he addressed them, vaguely, at CFB Stadacona yesterday. And he didn't get one, though there was some polite applause. There was every reason for the cool reception, not necessarily to Mr. Masse personally, since he has yet to state where he stands, but because Canada's defence policy is in a shambles.
While the military touts the service life in national recruiting ads, the cabinet ponders a huge cut in personnel. While the former Soviet military bloc was falling apart, the Department of National Defence was publicly debating a Cold War philosophy that was hopelessly out of touch. When someone (endorsed by former defence boss Perrin Beatty) got the idea of having an immensely costly nuclear-powered sub fleet, the navy was flying around in 30-year- old Sea King helicopters that should be parked at aviation museums. When the Gulf War came, the Canadian navy and HMC Dockyard workers had to jump through hoops to get a small task force ready and looking half-way respectable.
In any case, I don't see how we can paint the Mulroney years as rosy ones for the CF. HistoryBA 02:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Simple; compare them to the Trudeau/post-Vietnam years, where guys went to work in bus driver suits, used 20 year old equipment, and had 50% of the regular force regiments cut within a year or two. Black Watch, QOR, Canadian Guards got chopped all about the same time - though the personnel did go to PPCLI, Van Doos and RCR. As I said before, the newspaper articles on defence policy don't tell the whole story. :-) I didn't say they were rosy years, I said they were seen in some ways as an improvement after the neglect of the Trudeau years. Those friends of yours in Ottawa lamenting the cuts of bases - well, I suppose the money for the small arms programs, the vehicle procurements, etc., had to come from somewhere. I doubt a newspaper would be the best judge. Much of this new equipment was, as pointed out, tied to the Cold War mentality, but then how do you criticize lack of combat capability in the Gulf War, which called for a heavily armed mech brigade of the type we had in Germany for over a decade? That same Cold War force was what we needed in the Gulf, if we wanted to participate. Canadian Defence Quarterly discussed it, and even though the equipment was there, we hadn't exercised as a brigade in years. Anyway, an edit to the article is in order, as you say, to present both points of view. I'd say go ahead and edit it as you see fit and I'll get my ducks in a row re sources - I'll look at my Granatstein again, who discusses Mulroney in detail in WHO KILLED THE CANADIAN MILITARY.Michael Dorosh 03:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget Defence Minister Campbell, or as Mordecai Richler called her, "Our Lady of Hellicopters". Habsfannova 03:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I won't edit it further until we can agree here on what should be said. I am happy to accept Granatstein as the authority on this. HistoryBA 04:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We haven't made any progress on this issue in the last ten days. Unless someone objects, I will go ahead and make some revisions based on Grantstein, whom we all seem to accept as an authority on this subject. HistoryBA 15:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the revisions based on Granatstein are a good start, but I'm not sure they provide the whole picture:
Many of the other proposed reforms, however, failed to occur. According to historian J.L. Granatstein, Mulroney "raised the military's hopes repeatedly, but failed to deliver." In 1984, he had promised to increase the military budget and the regular force to 92,000 troops. Instead, the budget was cut and the troop level fell to below 80,000 by the end of his time in office.
The facts are accurate, but some context may be in order. Mulroney's second term coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which led to a drop in support for military spending and a demand that the "peace dividend" be invested other programs. In the face of this pressure, Mulroney's government was unable to maintain its first-term white paper plans. (Of course, Canada's peace dividend had already been taken by the Trudeau governments of the 1970s, but that's another story.)
My own CF career coincided almost exactly with Mulroney's term as PM, so I am aware of the roller-coaster ride the military went on at that time. It is certainly true that there was disappointment in the ranks at the second-term cuts, and I think his government could have done much more to support the CF. (Don't get me started on Marcel Masse). But the pressures to cut were certainly there, and the cuts had a lot of public support - witness the success Chretien had with his election promise to cancel the much-needed new helicopters.
I don't have a copy of Granatstein, so I don't know to what extent he acknowledges the context of these cuts. And I don't have another reference at hand for that context, so I'm reluctant to make an edit based on what is, right now, my own recollections and point of view. Eron 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The facts are accurate, but some context may be in order. . Exactly my point. There is only so much mileage one can get out of looking stuff up in books in order to research a page. Michael Dorosh 15:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You should certainly add any necessary context. I hope, however, that you are not stepping away from the Wikipedia policy on verifiable sources when you say that "there is only so much milage one can get out of looking stuff up in books to research a page." HistoryBA 15:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've taken a stab at it, also tightened up some of the text and minor grammar fixes.Michael Dorosh 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I have found (and used) a good source from the Library of Parliament which gives a pretty tight overview of defence policy changes in the late 80s and early 90s. I think it's clear from the historical record that there was impetus for cuts post-Cold War, but that the new realities of global politics - which may well have indicated increases in spending - weren't clear before the 1993 election. (Or at least, not so clear that the policy machine could change direction quickly enough). Eron 17:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the latest two edits by HBA and Eron work well.Michael Dorosh 17:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
And then this. ;) No, I reverted HBA's latest edit - it seems more POV than Erons. There was the suggestion made in HBA's last edit that Mulroney should have somehow known what would happen in Yugoslavia or Somalia; I don't think that's fair. The current version implies that no one - Liberal, Conservative, or other - knew where to go after the Cold War. Truth is, we still don't. If anyone can prove otherwise, that will need some sources - I don't think Granatstein necessarily had this in mind with his comments?Michael Dorosh 17:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My concern is with this sentence:"However, according to the Mulroney government, the volatile nature of international relations in the early 1990s, and growing public demands for debate on the subject, meant that no comprehensive defence policy for the post-Cold War era was arrived at before the government's defeat in the 1993 general election." (Original text mine, italics from HBA). I drew that together from the Library of Parliament paper which reviewed defence policy from 1987 to 1994. It is not a Mulroney government paper; it is from a non-partisan source. I don't know what the Mulroney government thought on the subject.
I do not think that it is POV to state that the international context of the early 1990s combined with the timing of the 1993 election meant that there was no time for the Tories to get their post-Cold War act together. I won't RV it as I don't think that would be constructive - but I'd like to find a way to make the original statement clearly neutral. Eron 17:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Eron's concerns.Michael Dorosh 20:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Not everyone agrees, and that makes it POV. Some people think the Mulroney government could have done more, even given the context of the time. We have to acknowedge that there are at least two ways of looking at this, rather than presenting one way as fact and deleting references to the other way. For better or for worse, that's how it's done on Wikipedia. HistoryBA 23:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've suggested deleting references... I think Grantstein makes some excellent points. The Tories did many things to bugger up the CF; if they'd done a better job in the late 1980s they might have had a chance at getting it right in the early 1990s. (Now that's POV). I fully support keeping Granatstein's view in. All I am saying is that the reference I quoted is not from the Mulroney government. I'd be fine with "some Canadian government references suggest..." or words to that effect, but just not the direct link to a partisan position - because I don't believe that's what it is.Eron 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
My comment on deleting material referred to Michael Dorosh's last edit. My apologies for not making that clear. I'm fine with "some Canadian government references suggest." I do not, however, agree with presenting that POV as fact, which is how I understand Michael Dorosh's last edit. HistoryBA 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd reccomend trimming the Forces parts down a bit to make them fit in the article better.Habsfan|t 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We're giving the CF far too much emphasis. I suspect that Michael Dorosh and I have been too involved to have the objectivity to cut the current version. Are you willing to take a crack at it? HistoryBA 00:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for mismarking my last edit...it shouldn't be a "minor" one.Habsfan|t 02:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is too much emphasis on the CF; there is just too little info on the other stuff. As other editors add to it, it will develop. The CF section covers the bare bones nicely; why cut it down just because other editors haven't yet developed other policy areas?Michael Dorosh 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Because the rest is supposed to be a main summary of the man's life and his Prime Ministership (Proper term?), with further information being linked to the articles involved (For example, CUSTA). As it is, most of the information contained in that section would make a good addition to a history of the Forces in general. The Forces, however, when considered against the weight of what else Mulroney has done, aren't nearly as noteworthy of change.Habsfan|t 04:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, Wikipedia policy actually discourages excessively lengthy articles. HistoryBA 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the CF section was probably getting a bit long for its relative significance to the subject of the article. I believe that there is probably an interesting article (or subsection) to be written covering developments in the CF post-unification, from Trudeau's defence review through the post-Cold War era we are discussing here. It could potentially fit in Canadian Forces, Military History of Canada, or even Canada in the Cold War. Eron 14:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I agree. HistoryBA 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His fight against Apartheid?

Hi:

My recollection was that this was Joe Clarke's fight. Mulroney seemed entirely happy to let Clarke tackle this as it kept him out of the way.

Not entirely. Mulroney played a major role in dealing with the British, and his negotiation skills were superb. It was probably his best moment as PM, if I may say so.Habsfan|t 16:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very confused here

Ok, ummm, I am being dumbfounded by something that is happening to me on this page, and I was wondering if someone could clarify it for me. When I am not signed in to my account on Wikipedia, and I visit this page, the infobox does not appear for me, even though it's written into the page text when I click "edit this page" and then when I go to the bottom of the page, the boxes containing his positions within the ministry are all screwed up. However, when I DO sign in, the infobox appears just as it should, as do the ministry boxes on the bottom of the page. Does anyone know why this is happening, or if it has happened to anyone else? Thanks (Grizzwald 05:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Caroline Mulroney merger proposal

It has been proposed by Andrew Saxton that the article on Caroline Mulroney be merged with that of Brian Mulroney. I support the proposal for the same reasons I provided in my Caroline Mulroney AfD nomination. Referring to Caroline Mulroney article, I wrote during the voting that being the the daughter of a fairly famous man, marrying the son of a fairly famous man, and having a third fairly famous man sing at the wedding does not a notable person make. Caroline Mulroney's name appears to carry no recognition as it is nearly always followed by "daughter of former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney" or some such description. Furthermore, being the child of a Canadian Prime Minister does not necessarily convey notability. None of Stephen Harper's children have Wikipedia articles, nor do those of Paul Martin. Of Caroline Mulroney's siblings, only Ben Mulroney, host of Canadian Idol, has an entry. Victoriagirl 22:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV in lead

There have been several recent edits from user 24.57.186.226 adding the following text to the lead paragraph: "By the time he left office in 1993, scandal-ridden and at an all-time low in the popularity polls, he was increasingly referred to as the most despised Prime Minister in Canadian history. A popular feeling among many Canadians that still holds true today." I think this is POV - the last sentence certainly is - and it doesn't belong in the introduction.

The article already addresses Mulroney's unpopularity at the end of his career; the section on his retirement notes "By this time, his approval ratings had dipped into the teens, making him one of the most (if not the most) unpopular prime ministers since opinion polling began in Canada in the 1940s." (It's not sourced, but that's another issue; I'm sure a source can be easily found.) As to the "still holds true today," that is not by any means broadly true. I would call his legacy disputed.

The text has been removed and re-added several times so I thought it best to raise the issue here to explain why. Eron 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

...And, it's back. I've reverted it twice already an I'm reluctant to do so again. Anyone? Eron 16:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it and sent a WP:3RR warning to User talk:24.57.186.226. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion nomination

This article was nominated for deletion. The outcome was speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine why it was speedy keep. I know of Brian Mulroney, but this article is SERIOUSLY lacking sources. I am going to read it over to flag and possibly comment out text due to lack of sources.Alan.ca 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider helping to find and add some sources as well? - Eron Talk 14:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It was likely Speedy Kept because he was the Prime Minister of Canada (a G8 country) making him a world leader. Also a haveing to few sources is a case for cleanup not deletion. There was no chance that there was going to be a consensus to delete the article so Speedy Keep was appropiate. --70.48.109.247 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The problem with finding sources is that many of the statements made in the article are not associated even generally with a source. There is so much written about Mulroney, it would be easier to find new content and cite the sources for that IMO.Alan.ca 06:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could an editor see if he/she could intergrate this info into the article?

Could an editor see if he/she could intergrate this info into the article?: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/07/27/mulroney-judgment.html Nat Tang ta | co | em 14:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Concerns

The section on the Airbus affair is riddled with POV language, weaseling away from criticisms, and irrelevant info on Schreiber's unrelated law problems in an attempt to discredit him, and it also makes a pretty strong (unsourced) statement about there being "NO evidence that Mulroney accepted bribes". Couldn't this section at least present some of the perceived evidence for Mulroney accepting bribes, and then counter that with "However, *group* questions this idea..(etc., explain why). Presenting perceived evidence and countering it seems to be less POV than simply stating that there is "NO evidence". 69.156.106.63 16:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


I concur. This blurb in particular is blatant POV and unsupported speculation: "But unanswered questions and the appearance of improper or illegal behaviour have persisted. Mulroney's reputation has been tarnished." If anything, there should be also something added about the RCMP investigation being potentially politically motivated, as Harper pointed out.

Regarding the memoirs, its very POV to state what Mulroney said and then have two full paragraphs of criticism from against it. The memoirs didn't actually cause much of a furor, it was something similar to Newman's secret conversations. GoldDragon 00:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Voluntary Disclosure"

How does anyone know if Brian Mulroney indeed made a "Voluntary Disclosure" except for Karlheinz Schreiber's asying so. Schreiber will say anything to avoid dying in a German prison; which appears to be a certainty if he is extradited to Germany.

The reference to the "Voluntary Disclosure" should be excluded from the article until it is corroborated from a verifiable source independent of Karlheinz Schreiber.

  • The CRA's Voluntary Disclosure Program is strictly confidential, as are all matters relating to a taxpayer's dealings with the CRA. How can this possibly be verifiable?

[edit] Schreiber cash payments declared by Mulroney at border crossing!?

The Globe and Mail, last week, pointed out that Mulroney would have had to declare the large cash payments as received from Schreiber in New York when he crossed the border into Canada; he apparently did NOT do so at the time; although this is still a possibly unresolved issue. Ironically, as the Globe article pointed out, the law requiring this was passed under Mulroney's own administration. A former RCMP inspector, Bruce Bowie, was quoted extensively in the article; he had a significant role in the law's development. I think this is very significant, and should be added to the article, once it is unblocked from further editing. The article in question appeared in the Globe on November 1, 2007, and was written by Greg McArthur; a supporting article on the same page (A4) was written by McArthur, Bill Curry, and Daniel Leblanc.

Sincerely, FrankEldonDixon, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Nov. 6, 2007, 933 p.m., GMT+5, 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sawatsky's book asserts Mulroney flunked out of his first year at Dalhousie Law

John Sawatsky's 1991 book "Mulroney: the Politics of Ambition" asserts clearly that Mulroney in fact flunked out of his first year at Dalhousie Law School. He then went to Laval University Law School, repeating first year there. The Sawatsky book also points out that Mulroney flunked the Quebec Bar exams not once, but twice, following his graduation from Laval. The Sawatsky book should be included as a reference in this article.

Sincerely, FrankEldonDixon, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Nov. 6, 2007, 1058 p.m., GMT+5, FrankEldonDixon 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone care about this? Alan.ca (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globe and Mail revelations of Nov. 9, 2007

In a front-page story from The Globe and Mail, Friday, November 9, 2007, Karlheinz Schreiber's sworn affadavit is analyzed, and a large colour picture of Schreiber's meeting with Brian Mulroney, Fred Doucet, and David McLaughlin is presented. Clearly, Schreiber's relationship with Mulroney, before, during and after Mulroney's term as Prime Minister, is much more extensive, important, and close than Mulroney presented in sworn testimony during his lawsuit process against the federal government, which eventually ended in him receiving an apology and a settlement of more than $2 million.

The wikipedia articles on Mulroney, Schreiber, Airbus, Stevie Cameron, and William Kaplan need to be updated to reflect these developments. I wrote a short article on William Kaplan earlier this week; wiki did not have anything specifically on him before that. I also updated and improved the articles on Cameron, Schreiber, and Airbus. I think this is a major priority which needs to be addressed, since the issue is very much in the news. But I don't feel qualified enough yet to do this myself, to take it on in a full-blown way; others who are more qualified need to get involved here. And the Mulroney article needs to be dealt with; he is a former Prime Minister of Canada, involved in perhaps the biggest and longest-running scandal in Canadian political history, which has already run 20 years and been the subject of several books.

Sincerely, FrankEldonDixon, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Nov. 9, 2007, 16:05, GMT+5 FrankEldonDixon 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a platform for your animosity for Brain Mulroney; or anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.142 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The sort of comment expressed above should definitely be signed; this is NOT a partisan politics forum. I'm not expressing animosity towards Brian Mulroney with these posts on the 'talk' page about the article on Brian Mulroney. Given the intense scrutiny in recent media coverage on this topic, I believe my views are not only correct, but completely objective, in asking that this article be updated to reflect recent developments. The current Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, who is politically of the same stripe as the former Prime Minister Mulroney, has now asked for an independent investigation of Schreiber's statements, so that indicates there is something significant about them. This is even more important given that it is now firmly established that Mulroney gave only partial information at various key junctures, or in fact actively misled investigators on vital facts.

Sincerely, FrankEldonDixon, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, Nov. 9, 2007, 23:02, GMY+5, FrankEldonDixon 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is factually incorrect and needs to be fixed

The article notes that "Some politicians have called for a public inquiry and for Mulroney to repay the $2 million settlement he received from the Canadian government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper rejected the calls." Not only is this not true, the opposite is true. It has been well reported that Stephen Harper has announced that he will appoint an independent third party to review allegation that Mulroney agreed to accept $300,000 from Schrieber while he was the Prime Minister of Canada; see link. Nfitz 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to be careful about what we choose to include about this investigation while it is still ongoing. Wikipedia is not a news site, but an encyclopedia and we should probably wait to see the outcome of the inquiry before getting too caught up in writing about it here. Alan.ca (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Serious editing needed

This entry is far too long. Mulroney is not god.Freiherrin (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that the updated section on Brian Mulroney's testimony from December 13, 2007, before the Canadian House of Commons Ethics Committee, which I added yesterday, has been chopped completely. Something is seriously wrong on wikipedia, when a former Canadian prime minister is called to answer serious allegations, his credibility remains in serious question according to the Globe and Mail, this updated information is reported on wikipedia, sourced from legitimate media reports, and then SOMEONE decides to swoop in and delete everything. Might that person have been a Mulroney agent!? In any case, a serious supporter. This topic made it to a wikinews article, so it is very important. FrankEldonDixon (talk) 15:44, GMT+5, 16 December 2007 (UTC) FrankEldonDixon (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] fasseeee

he is a good pm for canada. dont no whatta say here,,,nvm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.117.147 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Harper/Paul Martin was stiill better!

The fact that Stephen Harper and even Kim Campell was better in law is weird,but I'm not sure that's true,I just remembered that someone told me that two years ago..OMG! Why am I still writing here?!? nvm and w/e people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.117.147 (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Better in law"? What are you on? 207.47.224.213 (talk) 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Mulroney's term as MP

Is there a reference somewhere on when Brian Mulroney stopped being an MP? Presumably he had resigned his seat sometime before the 1993 election started, but I can't see a reference anywhere, or a date in the article. Probably in important date, as he has admitted taking an envelope of cash as early as August 27, 1993; however he wasn't PM after June 25, 1993 - but parliament wasn't dissolved until September 8, 1993. Mulroney would have presumably resigned as MP sometime between June 25, 1993 and August 27, 1993, or else he wouldn't have been accepting payments as a lobbiest. But I can't find a reference to the date he resigned. As this date is important to the current allegations, it should be added to the article - but I need a source. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

According to the Parliament of Canada website Mulroney remained an MP until September 8, 1993 [2] This means he didn't resign his seat and remained an MP until the general election. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • That's not what I expected ... that raises some questions ... though not for here I guess. Hmm, Library and Archives Canada references a date of October 25, 1993 - I'd think that the Parlimentary Library is more accurate given other odd things I've seen in fond descriptions in the National Archives - but what's the normal policy - does the MP's term end when the election is called, or the election occurs. Nfitz (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, I should read Wikipedia! I just noticed that the article itself notes that he took money while he was still an MP - though it needs references. Nfitz (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] He haunts us still

The article soft-pedals a man who is still not ....ummm... appreciated. Last night at the impromptu parade down St-Catherine's street in Montreal after the Canadians won, someone (obviously not a hockey fan) asked what was up and the reply came that perhaps Mulroney had died. This article needs to be a little less laudatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.18.144 (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Will never be anything less than laudatory

This article will never be anything but laudatory to Mulroney. The reason being a small group of dedicated admirers of his who vigously monitor the page practically 24 hours a day 7 days a week, and who take it upon themselves to defend his "honour" by immediately removing any hints of crticism. Hanoidick (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced edits like "He remains to this day the most widely despised politician in Canadian history" can hardly be called "defending his honour". ... discospinster talk 16:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Can you name any other Canadian politician who'd occupy the spot above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.189.230 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)