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.

Voters Will Punish Harper for Mulroney's Sins

Political leaders often take credit for things that happen under their watch, whether or not they are directly or indirectly responsible.

But more often, we measure our politicians on our perception of their ability to manage a crisis once it happens. With its latest misstep, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is lifting the heavy, dirty rug that previously hid bags of money and one sullied former Prime Minister – and making room for the whole Conservative Party down below.

Yesterday, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he had no authority to block the impending (Dec. 1) extradition of Karlheinz Schreiber to Germany. The Commons ethics committee looking into Schreiber’s dealings with former PM Brian Mulroney would have to proceed without its star witness because, he claimed, because the federal government had no jurisdiction.

Parliamentary lawyers, meanwhile, argued the minister clearly has the power under the federal Extradition Act to amend the order and keep Schreiber in the country as long as his testimony is required. Schreiber’s presence is crucial to the Commons hearing, and will be even moreso to the public inquiry, the terms of which are to be released Jan. 11.

When pressed during Question Period today on the issue of jurisdiction, Nicholson declined to answer any questions because the matter was “before the courts.” Refusing to answer a procedural question such as, “Who’s in charge?” does not jeopardize any proceedings, be they before courts of law or Commons committees.

He knows this. He also knows that there is no obligation under the Canadian-German extradition treaty to extradite Canadian nationals – and Schreiber is a Canadian.

Nicholson also knows that Schreiber has promised to keep his mouth shut about the whole Airbus affair if he is forced to leave the country. And the German government, who wants him on bribery, fraud and tax evasion charges, would be unlikely to let him out of jail to testify in Canada.

This appearance of being less than co-operative and of shirking responsibility comes just weeks after Harper obstreperously dismissed initial calls for a public inquiry, warning opposition parties of the dangers of giving him any more power, even threatening to look into business dealings of former Liberal prime ministers.

When this is all said and done in a few years, and newspapers are printing timelines showing the sequence of events leading up to the inquiry, they will show that this Conservative Party never wanted this inquiry to begin with, and that they deliberately eschewed opportunities to ensure the star witness would be able to testify.

Whether or not they have something to hide, they are giving the impression that they do. This will be particularly damning if there is any hint of a connection -- however remote -- with the current government because their actions will have lost them the benefit of any doubt.

This may well be the first crisis the Conservative Party has had to manage that wasn’t of their own doing. If they’re not careful, it could wind up the one issue to define this government in parts of Canada in the same way that the Gomery Commission caused lasting damage to the Liberal brand in Quebec.

There is a lot at stake here.

How Many Generations of Schreiber/Mulroney?

If Ben Mulroney weren't the spitting image of his father, now would be a good time to start a rumour. It' wouldn't be that outrageous if you think about it. Karlheinz Schreiber arrived in Canada in 1975, and Ben was born the following year. Maybe that "spitting image" is a bit too eery, in a Madame Tussaud kind of way. Could it be that Ben really is the lovechild of Schreiber and Mila? And in order to hide this great shame, the Mulroneys have been progressively surgically altering Ben's face to ensure that he looks more and more like daddy? Okay, perhaps that is a bit outrageous. So outrageous, as to be utterly unbelievable. (But thank you for entertaining my whimsy.)

However, as outrageous as the whole Mulroney/Schreiber story is to the Canadian political context -- and growing more sordid by the day -- sadly, it is believable.

We have a soon-to-be ex-prime minister desperately seeking a way to continue to afford his wife's fetish for fancy footwear, who hosts his friend Schreiber at the PM's official summer residence, days before stepping down as one of the least liked prime ministers in Canadian history. There's a lot of back-shaving, er, scratching going on here. Big, greenback-scratching.

There is little doubt they were friends, at least in Mulroney's eyes. I say "friends" because the two have a history that goes back to at least 1982/83, when Schreiber raised money for Mulroney's run at politics and then paid to have delegates vote against Joe Clark at the leadership convention that Mulroney would win. They were associates who established a friendship rooted in greed.

And with Mulroney it is always personal -- from the personalized thank-you notes and birthday cards to everyone on his very long Christmas card list, to the bitterness he still harbours towards Lucien Bouchard, Pierre Trudeau and Peter C. Newman (to name a few).

As obsessed as Mulroney has shown he is with his legacy, I can't help but wonder if being burned by another friend is losing him more sleep.

But where I lose sleep is over the long-term impact of the sketchy nature of this whole story, especially, overlapping in time as it does with the sponsorship fiasco. The sponsorship inquiry ensured daily media coverage that was unflattering to politicians. A lengthy Airbus inquiry will only further damage public perception of politics as a noble profession. What kind of impact will this have on recruiting the next generation(s) of political leadership? For young people or other professionals who have considered a career in politics, this is devastating. The stories making the news out of Ottawa are just as convoluted, the images just as nasty, as the stories coming out of Washington. It's not supposed to be like this in Canada.

Either that next generation of political leadership possessing a modicum of integrity will be so discouraged by the "outrageousness" of it all that they will turn their backs on the process and we will all lose as a result. Or, they will become so "outraged" as to do something and affect real change. I'm not hopeful.