Schreiber/Mulroney Dog & Pony Show Proceeds

Having dodged a bullet at the Commons ethics committee, Brian Mulroney was praying that the public inquiry into his nefarious dealings with KH Schreiber might somehow be called off.

Sorry, dude, it’s on. Justice min Nicholson says it’s going ahead and, better yet, Schreiber gets to stay here until it’s finished.

Jeebus I wonder what you have to do to get intervenor status at that thing?

The Commons ethics committee didn’t get very far but it did expose a whole pile of raw nerves , issues that the inquiry is going to look completely rigged if it chooses to avoid. That, I think, would be more damaging to the Tories than if they had called the whole thing off.

Enquiring minds want to know. Now where’s that guy, Hladun?

 

The Ethics Committee’s Ethical Quandry

Brian Mulroney has sent his stooges to Ottawa to tell the Commons ethics committee that he’d rather not face any more questions into his shady dealings with Karheinz Schreiber. That’s entirely understandable from his perspective. He’s spun so many tales that he’s cornered and, for BMPM, it can only get worse.

The committee could subpoena Mulroney to attend and even have him brought before them forcibly if he resists. Now wouldn’t that be a sight. But it seems the committee doesn’t have the appetite for subpoenaing a former prime minister, even one of Mulroney’s shabby stature.

I think the committee should just put the Mulroney issue on hold – for now. There are several other witnesses who should be called to testify including one Robert Hladun, Schreiber’s former lawyer. It was Hladun who basically confirmed author William Kaplan’s hunch that it was Schreiber who leaked the RCMP letter that led to the National Spot article that served as the launching pad for Mulroney’s lawsuit against the federal government. I’d like to hear that from his own mouth.

Then there’s the phone calls – two of them – Hladun supposedly received; one from Mulroney’s lawyer, the other from the lawyer and Mulroney himself. Schreiber’s narrative has these calls being placed to Hladun to get a letter or an affidavit from Schreiber claiming that no monies had ever changed hands between Schreiber and Mulroney. This was back when CBC’s Fifth Estate revealed it had copies of Schreiber’s Swiss bank records and – here’s the kicker – before Mulroney’s “voluntary disclosure” to Revenue Canada.

If Hladun corroborates Schreiber’s account of these calls, it’s over for Mulroney, he’s suborned perjury, and that goes directly to his credibility when he gave a grossly misleading answer about his dealings with Schreiber in his sworn evidence in the lawsuit itself. Cheque please, Mr. Mulroney – and don’t forget the interest.

The committee may not have the spine for a showdown with Brian Mulroney but there’s no excuse for not getting Hladun’s sworn evidence on these points.

 

The Lobbyist Who Never Was

Brian Mulroney was in a spot. He needed to explain why he received cash-stuffed envelopes from Karlheinz Schreiber, money about which he kept very quiet until Schreiber’s bank records became public sending Mulroney racing off to Revenue Canada to file a belated, “voluntary disclosure.”

The answer? He was retained by Schreiber to lobby foreign governments on behalf of Schreiber’s German customers, outfits like Thyssen. Now you would have expected that Thyssen would be delighted to have a former Canadian prime minister working to flog its products to new customers and it might have – if it had ever known about it. But, it seems, this was a secret Mulroney kept from everyone, even the companies he was supposedly earning hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote. From the Globe & Mail:

“In interviews with The Globe and Mail and CBC, a former Thyssen executive and a spokeswoman for the company, which has changed names after merging with another company in 1999, said they are not aware of the lobbying that the former prime minister says he did for Thyssen in China, Russia and France between 1993 and 1994.

“He never worked for Thyssen,” Winfried Haastert, a former Thyssen executive, said in a phone interview.

“I cannot imagine how he could expect to sell something like this to Russia or even to China. It’s absolute nonsense. Maybe he tried to support us. I don’t know.”

Anja Gerber, a spokeswoman for ThyssenKrupp Technologies, also said that Mr. Mulroney had “no official business with Thyssen.”

So that means that there’s just one person who can substantiate Mulroney’s bizarre claims – Karlheinz Schreiber – who vociferously disputes Mulroney’s story.

 

Since When Does a Prime Minister Lobby for a Lobbyist?

Karlheinz Schreiber may be a sideshow in the financial affairs of Brian Mulroney. It was always thought that Schreiber received the $20-million in Schmiergelder, or grease (bribe) money, paid out by Airbus Industries in the course of the Air Canada deal. Schreiber says that money went, instead, to GCI (Government Consultants International), a lobby firm owned by Mulroney croney, the late Frank Moores.

GCI is gone and Frank Moores is dead so getting to the bottom of this is going to be more difficult than it otherwise might. That said, the records of Air Canada and its board during the Mulroney years do exist and might shed a lot of light on what happened.

Why did Mulroney sack some 15-Air Canada directors and why did he include among the replacements he appointed Frank Moores? Why did Frank Moores hurriedly resign this directorship? Why did Moores repeatedly deny claims that he and GCI acted for Airbus on the sale (although correspondence has emerged plainly showing just that)? Why did Moores run off in lockstep with Mulroney to make his own “voluntary disclosure” to Revenue Canada when Schreiber’s Swiss bank records became public?

One thing, however, stands out. It’s been reported that Mulroney repeatedly pressured the Air Canada board to pay GCI a $5-million fee of some sort related to the Airbus purchase. Did Mulroney, while prime minister, really lobby for the lobbyist and, if so, why and what did he get out of it? Why would Air Canada pay a fee to GCI if it was acting as lobbyist for Airbus? Did any money pass from Air Canada to GCI or Frank Moores and, if so, how much and for what?

Norman Spector did ponder what the Commons ethics committee might have learned had it held the current enquiry back in 2002 while Moores was still alive. It’s too bad he was never asked to expand on that thought.

 

Peeking Into Mulroney’s Bags of Cash

The Brian Mulroney soap opera resumes today when former aide Norman Spector testifies before the Commons ethics committee. Spector supposedly has information pertaining to piles of cash that were delivered to 24 Sussex Drive while Mulroney was prime minister.

So many questions. Why cash? Did Mulroney hit the stores for bouts of shopping? I guess Mila did. Whose cash was it? Who delivered it and why? How did Mulroney treat the money for tax purposes? How was it recorded and where are those records today? What, if anything, did Mulroney do to get this money? Did Mulroney keep a safe in the basement to handle this cashflow? Where did all this cash go?

After Spector, former justice minister Allan Rock is expected to testify, presumably in regard to Mulroney’s defamation lawsuit against the government of Canada. Again, so many questions.

 

Brian Mulroney’s Cash Fetish

Whenever Brian Mulroney falls into controversy it always seems to involve cash. Long before he started pocketing envelopes of the stuff from Karlheinz Schreiber, Mulroney was awash in good, old fashion, paper currency – bundles of it.

The Commons ethics committee is planning on calling two men who can shed some light on this. One is Mulroney’s former Chief of Staff, Norman Spector, and the other is the Mulroney’s private chef, Francois Martin. From the Toronto Star:

“Spector, chief of staff to Mulroney in the early 1990s, wrote about the payments in a forward to Toronto lawyer and author William Kaplan’s book about Mulroney’s relationship with Schreiber.

He describes Mulroney’s networking with wealthy and powerful people. He writes also of Mila Mulroney’s “expensive lifestyle.”

“Mulroney was not a rich man. Party funds were being drawn, and one of our staff was assigned to pore through personal expenses to determine if some might be reimbursed. Every month I cashed a cheque at a local bank and remitted the funds to Mila,” Spector wrote.

The committee also expects to hear from François Martin, Mulroney’s former chef, who has told of transporting thick envelopes of cash for the family.

In Stevie Cameron’s 1994 On the Take, Martin tells of visiting Mulroney aide Fred Doucet in the Prime Minister’s Office to pick up thick envelopes of cash and deliver them to Mila Mulroney.

“Cash came in like it was falling from the sky,” he said in the book.”

Author Stevie Cameron quotes Martin as telling her Mulroney kept a large safe in the basement of 24 Sussex Drive to hold the cash. She also claims that when Mulroney bought his $1.7-million retirement home in Montreal, he and Mila had it extensively renovated. The renos, she claims, cost close to $1-million and much of the cost was paid – in cash.

 

Mulroney Waterboy Runs to the Rescue

Phil Mathias, former “investigative” reporter for the National Spot, has come out swinging (or at least fanning the air) in defence of the guy he never wanted to investigate, Brian Mulroney.

A whole little PR sturm und drang has been unleashed just in time for the resumption of the Commons ethics committee investigation into the dealings between Brian Mulroney and his long time buddy, Karlheinz Schreiber.

One of Muldoon’s lawyers has sent a whining gripe note to committee chairman, Paul Szabo, complaining that the grand old bullshitter himself hasn’t been treated with kid gloves by the committee members. Lawyer Guy Pratte had a right proper hissie, claiming the committee had treated Mulroney unfairly and with disrespect. Oh dear me!

The whole thing seems to have erupted just as there’s talk the committee may subpoena Mulroney’s tax records to see if they will shed any light on the cash-stuffed envelopes that Schreiber passed to our former Conservative prime minister.

Then Phil Mathias waded in with an opinion piece condemning all and sundry for subjecting Mulroney to a witch hunt.

“… the campaign against Mr. Mulroney is what academics call a “mobbing,” a process that is most visible on politically correct university campuses. An unpopular member of faculty is targeted by an accusation and then subjected to an inquisition, which eventually leads to his expulsion in disgrace. Very often, the accusation is trivial or false, and the disciplinary process is abused. This is what has happened to Mr. Mulroney.”

“The grudge most Canadians hold against Mr. Mulroney is that he introduced the hated Goods and Services Tax in 1989, a measure that was nevertheless applauded by economists, and later by Liberals. His image suffered a serious blow in 1995, when publisher Seal Books (subsequently absorbed by Random House Canada) decided the best way to excite interest in a book by Stevie Cameron was to feature Mr. Mulroney on the cover dressed opulently in a tuxedo next to the words On the Take, even though the book contained no hard evidence that he has ever taken a bribe.”

“…During his libel action against the government, Mr. Mulroney was asked by government lawyers if he had ever had any dealings with Mr. Schreiber. In his answer, Mr. Mulroney failed to mention a $225,000-$300,000 deal he had made with Mr. Schreiber for work that he would do after he left office. (Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber disagree on the amount paid.) Mr. Mulroney’s political savvy probably told him that if he revealed the Schreiber deal, the roof would cave in on him, as it has since done. Mr. Mulroney is now condemned for not revealing this arrangement, even though it had nothing to do with the issue in the libel case.”

Hey Phil, if the question wasn’t relevant Mulroney, a lawyer accompanied by senior counsel, could have objected to answering it. He didn’t. Instead he went off on a detailed description of meeting Schreiber a few times for a cup of coffee. Sorry, Phil, but the guy’s under oath and he’s giving a deliberately misleading (ie “false”) answer. He was “savvy” enough to know that if he told the truth, “the roof would cave in on him?” I think that’s called perjury, Phil. He chose to answer the question, he was under oath, what you now think of the question itself is irrelevant, Phil.

“The ethics committee now wants to examine Mr. Mulroney’s tax records relating to the $225,000-$300,000 payment, even though Mr. Mulroney received most of the money while he was a private citizen for work that he would do as a private citizen. The Canada Revenue Agency has apparently accepted Mr. Mulroney’s submissions, so why are the tax records of this private citizen a matter of Parliamentary ethics? When a mobbing is in progress, such questions are put aside.”

You see, Phil, there you go again. He received “most” of the money while he was a private citizen. That’s like saying we don’t need to worry about the fact that this transaction was put into effect while BM was a key figure in the government of the day, the former prime minister. Sorry, you’ve got a few spots on your logic Phil and I think they’re grease.

“…By the time the ethics committee and the commission of inquiry have finished with Mr. Mulroney, their inquiries will have added another year or two to the 15 years that this witch hunt has already been going on. And whatever their ultimate findings, the mere process of investigation may destroy the last shreds of Mr. Mulroney’s reputation and make the disgrace of this former Canadian prime minister complete.”

Phil, Phil, Phil – If Mulroney’s reputation is destroyed and his disgrace complete, that’s his doing and no one else’s. If only we could get into GCI and Frank Moores and where that $20-million of Airbus money went and whether any of it found its way into Brian’s pockets but that’s a long shot and Mulroney knows it. CGI is long gone and, fortunately for Mulroney, so is Moores. That’s one thing the Commons committee has clarified. That money – that illicit money – didn’t go to Schreiber but to Frank Moores, the same guy Mulroney appointed to the board of Air Canada just in time for the Airbus deal.

For a supposed “investigative reporter”, Mathias has gone well out of his way for years to avoid investigating this one. Mathias broke the story of the RCMP letter of request, the publication of which created the basis for Mulroney’s defamation suit. It was during a Fifth Estate interview with Mathias in his office at the Spot that a CBC cameraman filmed a letter on his desk that turned out to be the English translation of the “smoking gun” letter. From the Fifth Estate web site:

“Mathias’ former colleague at the National Post, Andrew Coyne, says the leaking of the letter was the act which actually constituted the libel.

“What made it a libel was that it was printed in the Financial Post and everyone could read it there,” Andrew Coyne told the fifth estate. “Obviously Mr. Mulroney would be very concerned about his reputation … but for the police to be passing back and forth allegations to each other on its own it seems to me is not terribly blameworthy.”

Schreiber has long been suspected as source of the Letter of Request that wound up with Mathias. Those suspicions grew when it was revealed by CBC reporter Neil MacDonald that the document in Mathias’ possession was the same translation of the letter Mulroney’s lawyers had filed in court the day they launched their lawsuit.

Mathias had obtained a translation of the justice department letter prepared for Mulroney by Schreiber’s lawyers in Switzerland.

“So how could a private document prepared for Mulroney by his own lawyers find its way into the hands of the reporter who broke the story?”

Caught with the translation – not the actual RCMP letter but the translation prepared by Schreiber’s Swiss lawyers – investigative reporter Mathias refused to explain the obvious – how this wound up in his hands, the very reporter who “broke” the story? Was this whole thing – the letter, its publication in the Spot contrived? If so, there was no libel of Brian Mulroney, at least none for which the federal government could be help responsible. We deserve our two million back plus a whole pile of cash-stuffed envelopes in accrued interest.

I hope the committee issues one more subpoena – to Phil Mathias. He has a lot of questions to answer.

 

Dropping the Hot Potato, David Johnston Style

There were always doubts whether David Johnston would be able to keep his Conservative ties out of his proposed enquiry into Brian Mulroney’s dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber and those doubts have now been confirmed.

The Globe & Mail reports that Johnston, who was supposed to advise Harper on the terms and scope of such an enquiry, has instead gone straight for the political levers, informing Harper that he need not stage – or stagemanage – the promised enquiry if he (Harper) is satisfied with the Commons ethics committee enquiry.

If that’s Johnston’s attitude before an enquiry can even be commenced, it’s pretty clear he’s more than willing to carry water for Stephen Harper’s political agenda should the hearings go ahead. You can’t pretend to be objective and unbiased if you launch yourself into this proceeding with political jockeying of this sort.

 

The Walls Close In on Brian Mulroney

How is he going to talk his way out of this one?

Until today I figured Mulroney was going to claim he earned the $300,000 he received from Karlheinz Schreiber by promoting the Thyssen/Bear Head armoured vehicle project. The story about Schreiber’s pasta business seems to have turned into a pile of damp semolina, so the weapons plant seemed to be the last refuge.

Except the door on that one seems to have been slammed shut by Mulroney’s own former top aide, Norman Spector. In a Canadian Press interview, Spector confirmed that Mulroney did indeed intervene to support the project to build light-armoured vehicles in Nova Scotia. The only problem is that, if he got paid by Schreiber for his services, this was long before Mulroney stepped down as Prime Minister.

Spector has added to the record being instructed by Mulroney to make Bear Head a reality. With that, Mulroney was transforming the proposal from a bureaucratic issue into a political matter. Spector also said that the sun set on the Bear Head deal when he informed Mulroney that the project would cost the government $100-million.

The ever dutiful scribe, Spector was even able to tell Canadian Press the date of the final discussion 16 December, 1990, and Mulroney’s response: “In that case, the project is dead.”

This seems to suggest that the Bear Head business was over, as far as Mulroney was concerned, in late 1990, while he was still prime minister.

If Bear Head is ruled out and the pasta story is just that, a story, what’s left? Don’t look at me, I’m not even going to say that.