Mulroney Speaks, Loud and Clear -- Kind of

Believe it or not, I am actually trying to feel some sympathy for Brian Mulroney. But his testimony before the Commons Ethics Committee today has only reaffirmed my distrust of the former prime minister. It’s not only what he said/didn’t say, but how he said it.

“The first, biggest mistake by far has to be ever having been introduced to Karlheinz Schreiber in the first place,” Mulroney said in his opening statement. “The second biggest mistake in my life is having accepted payments from Karlheinz Schreiber.”

Call me a nit picker, but it seems he’s blaming the person who introduced them or even Schreiber himself for existing. The mistake Mulroney made was taking the money – which he did on three separate occasions, even after feeling leery about doing business in cash. On three separate occasions.

It is interesting to contrast the manner in which he answered questions about Schreiber against questions about the current government. When asked if Schreiber was seeking Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s help to stop his extradition, Mulroney’s responses were clear and concise, at one point he seemed to recite lawyered text.

The exchange with NDP committee member Pat Martin was rather illuminating. While Martin has brought more petty partisanship than intellectual muscle to the committee hearings so far, he should be credited for one of today’s most memorable lines. “I’m not calling you a liar Mr. Mulroney, but I don’t want anybody here to think I believe you.”

In addition to providing documentation showing that Schreiber in fact supported Mulroney’s first leadership bid against Joe Clark (not the second bid which he would win), he took a jab at Martin, by referring to Schreiber as “a friend of yours.” Mulroney immediately withdrew that statement, showing us that he has the ability to be clear and concise, and to apologize when he knows he has done something wrong, especially when he’s telling the truth. (I mean, who would know better than Mulroney whose Schreiber’s friends are, right?)

However, the rest of Mulroney’s testimony was vague, and much of his documentation came in the form of Karhleinz Schreiber’s previous testimony through various affidavits and media interviews – a man Mulroney claims is a self-confessed liar. I do not understand, then, why he would use the words of a liar to defend himself.

Mulroney has declared that he thought it strange to do business in cash, but that the Schreiber he met 20 years ago was an international businessman who dealt only in cash, a “legitimate business man” even. (Did Mulroney ever watch The Godfather?)

This is not an explanation. Mulroney said he put the money in safety deposit boxes, but never really answered why the cash wasn’t deposited. He would draw on those funds for expenses for the work he was doing for Schreiber but he claims it was not income. Mulroney went so clearly out of his way to hide the money, and not declare it as income because, he said, it was tax exempt due to its international nature. He said he made an error in judgment, but he has not told us what his intentions were.

Mulroney went to great lengths to refute various points of the affidavit signed by Schreiber which launched this whole process. Well, that and the fact that Stephen Harper’s name was mentioned in another affidavit certainly helped push things along. And it could be argued that this process was launched ages ago because Mulroney has never come out personally to tell his version of events, opting instead to use spokespersons and legal statements. Even in the 1,000-plus pages of his recently published memoirs, there is absolutely no mention of Karlheinz Schreiber – a man who he claims plays a role in the two biggest mistakes of his life.

And now we come full circle. When Mulroney was asked by Conservative MP Russ Hiebert if he had any conversations with Stephen Harper about wireless communications, he could have responded immediately with a firm “No,” but he chose to be coy. He was asked the question again and he responded with “Negative.”

Again, call me a nit-picker, but evading the question (I don’t have the exact quote) and responding with “Negative” rather than a firm “No” tells me he’s not confident that what he’s saying is the truth. And let’s not forget that Mulroney chose to forego testifying under oath, but has promised to tell the truth. There will be more on this story.

That Karlheinz Schreiber is a pro, there is very little doubt – he is still in Canada after all.

That Karlheinz Schreiber is a shady character, there is absolutely no doubt. When we're finished with him, he's off to Germany where he faces charges of tax evasion, bribery and fraud. So what are we to make of Brian Mulroney?

As George Bernard Shaw once said, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." Mulroney should have thought twice before wrestling with this pig. Instead, he didn’t think – and he didn’t do it three times.

Bring on the public inquiry.

Will Canadians Let Mulroney Speak?

CP/Decima has released a poll showing most Canadians don’t believe Mulroney’s version of events around his pasta/tank/airplane business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber, that shady yet cuddly international man of money bags.

Schreiber is wanted on bribery, fraud and tax evasion charges in Germany. But Canadians believe him over our former prime minister. Schreiber has spent the last few years in jail awaiting extradition. We have seen him escorted by RCMP officers in handcuffs, and can tell you how he would answer the “boxers or briefs” question. His testimony has appeared to contradict itself on several occasions. And yet, only 30 per cent of respondents say they don’t believe him, compared to 51 per cent who don’t believe Mulroney. Further, more than twice as many people were more likely to say they DO believe Schreiber over Mulroney.

What amuses me here is that Mulroney hasn’t even given his version of events yet – and people still don’t believe him. There have been four prime ministers since 1997 when the federal (Liberal) government awarded him a $2.1 million libel settlement after he was linked to kickbacks in the sale of Airbus jets to Air Canada in 1988. He has had many opportunities (including in his recent book) to explain why he accepted the $300,000, why he concealed those payments from Revenue Canada and the RCMP, and why he claimed not to know Schreiber. And why cash?

Unfortunately, members of the Commons Ethics Committee appear to be so focused on either connecting or distancing the current government from the whole affair, that they have forgotten their mandate – to determine if, in the light of Schreiber’s allegations, the Chrétien government acted properly in settling with Mulroney and if Mulroney was being truthful at the time, and if a public inquiry is warranted.

Mulroney will have 20 minutes to provide an opening statement tomorrow to a committee on which he has no friends, likely with his family in the background (at his request to the committee.) He will attempt his own act of contrition and paint a picture of himself that many Canadians won’t believe – because the story will be told by him. He will be witty and charming, and fiercely partisan. He will be aggressive; he will be defensive. He’s a fighter, it will be quite the performance.

But it will be mostly in vain. Canadians have already made up their minds that they don’t believe his version of events. Still, that’s some TV worth watching.