Ethics Committee blows Schreiber II

It is clear that very few - if any - of the MPs on the Ethics Committee have the faintest idea how to conduct cross examinations, and that is a pity.

Of all the parties, the Tory MPs were the most focused, and most disciplined, and extracted from a beaming Karlheinz Schreiber what they aimed to extract.

However, as for the interests of the Canadian voter, the Committee failed in two major areas to zero in on the facts ...

Certainly, Schreiber, showing true packrattian traits, handed out several binders with correspondence relating to Mulroney and Harper, and the Committee members will no doubt spend a delightful evening poring over them. I doubt there are any smoking guns in those files, though. Schreiber seems to like delivering choice bits orally.

Apart from other ancillary issues (Did Schreiber bribe any politicians or officials in Canada? Was Mulroney involved in the Airbus affair in an immoral or illegal way, or in any way? Did Schreiber make any other "grooming donations" to up and coming politicians, other than to Brian Mulroney and Jean Charest?), there are two foundation issues before this Committee which they did a less than satisfactory job of illuminating with the rather ridiculous "x minutes per talking head" procedure they have adopted.

Both these issue revolved around Harrington Lake, which seems destined to become a Canadian political landmark, as Meech Lake has.

Item one: Did Harper and Mulroney discuss Schreiber at the Harrington Lake meeting? Schreiber could not or did not add much clarity to this issue, and the Committee failed to follow up an answer he made during questioning which might have cast more light on the issue. Obviously Schreiber was not present at the meeting between Harper and Mulroney, and so far neither of those two has volunteered that they did indeed discuss Schreiber's plight under our extradition laws. So, we have to find out if there are other indicia of any such discussion.

Schreiber said very clearly that Mulroney did not tell him that Mulroney had discussed Schreiber's plight with Harper at that meeting.

But, said Schreiber, "a friend" told him that these two gentlemen had indeed discussed Schreiber. As Schreiber said last time, in much more detail, he (Schreiber) was told that he was discussed, that the court case had to be brought to completion, and that at that stage the Minister of Justice would perhaps do something to help Schreiber. When this never happened, and Harper denied having discussed Schreiber with Mulroney, Schreiber felt - so he said again today - upset; he was shocked and felt betrayed.

What did the Committee miss? Nobody asked Schreiber who his "friend" was who told him all the details about the meeting; nor when his friend told him this; nor how his friend might have known about the discussion between Harper and Mulroney; nor whether the friend had indeed spoken to Mulroney and/or Harper about what happened at the meeting; nor where the friend told him all these things.

Let's hope someone on the Committee decides to ask lots of follow up questions on this issue, so as to allow this issue to be laid to rest as far as Schreiber's evidence is concerned.

Item two: Did Mulroney, while still Prime Minister, on June 23 1993, enter into an agreement with Schreiber to perform work for Schreiber in the future?

We learned today that Mulroney sent a limousine to pick Schreiber up and take him to the PM for a discussion about how Schreiber might help the penniless prime minister overcome his cash flow problem.

We learned today that Schreiber believed at the time of that meeting that Brian Mulroney might have been correct in Mulroney's estimate that the hapless Kim would become prime minister, and that Schreiber felt that Mulroney would have influence in a continued Tory government if that happened.

We learned that Schreiber said that he and Brian entered into "an agreement in principle". This was an oral agreement. There is no smoking gun written agreement, or confirming letters. Just two men talking about the future. Schreiber was emphatic that this "agreement in principle" was entered into while Mulroney was prime minister. Schreiber also confirmed very clearly that he later paid Mulroney $100,000 cash while Mulroney was an MP.

What else did we learn today from Schreiber (allegations not proven in any court, mind you) about the "agreement in principle"? These facts:

(a) No money changed hands at this meeting.
(b) Apparently, no money was discussed. (Schreiber does not strike me as a man who pays influencers of some importance a set sum for each hour worked ...).
(c) If Kim Campbell became PM, then Mulroney would do work in future, after he stepped down as PM, for Bear Head.
(d) Schreiber was to find out how much money was allocated for use with the Bear Head project.

Schreiber then found out that there was $500,000 in the pot for the Bear Head project, and he used $300,000 of that to pay Mulroney three cash lots of $100,000 each. It is still not clear what exactly were the services which Mulroney performed for these generous payments, but Schreiber is clear on one thing: it was not about any pasta project; that came a long time later, he said.

So, the issue revolves around (1) whether an "agreement in principle" is the same as an "agreement", (2) whether such an "agreement in principle" was in fact reached on June 23, 1993, and, if it was, (3) whether such an "agreement in principle" by a sitting prime minister breached any laws or ethical principles applicable in 1993.

So where did the Ethics Committee blow it on this second item?

Simply this. To seek the truth, on a balance of probabilities, where two parties disagree on whether something took place or did not take place, you have to explore the details. The devil is in the details. You dig into the contours of the discussion. Some digging was done by some Committee members (the meeting took place around 11.30 am or so; no third party was present; Mulroney offered a photograph to Schreiber). You explore what each party said, what else they said, what words were used, what questions were asked, what answers were given, what follow up actions were agreed upon ...

For example, what did Mulroney say to Schreiber about the "agreement in principle"? Did they talk about possible payments? Did Schreiber mention to Mulroney that he had to check the size of the budget before he could say how much might be available? Did they talk at all about what kind of services Mulroney might perform?

Let's hope that the Ethics Committee smartens up before the next session with Schreiber, and starts doing a far more professional job. The issue is not air time for MPs who are members of the Committee; the issue is the truth about allegations made by Schreiber with respect to Mulroney and Harper.

Sharpen your pencils, gentlemen and ladies. Serve voters better, please!