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.