There's More to Schreiber Than Meets the Eye

Until Tuesday, Conservatives were warning all and sundry not to believe a word that came out of Karlheinz Schreiber's mouth. That all changed when Schreiber said the money he gave Mulroney had nothing to do with the Airbus affair. Suddenly the clouds have parted, the sun is shining and Schreiber is telling the God's honest truth. Mulroney's exonerated, happy days are here again! Ya think?

Except that Mulroney isn't off the hook yet. Not hardly. We still have to get through the basics. Why did he accept money from Schreiber? What did he do in exchange? Why did he say, under oath, that his only involvement with Schreiber after leaving office was to have a coffee with the guy a couple of times? Why didn't he declare that money as income for tax purposes until years later after Schreiber had refused to provide a statement that no money had ever been paid by him to Mulroney? Those are some very big questions. Each of them stands in the way of any exoneration of Martin Brian Mulroney. Big Chin has a good deal of explaining to do.

But is that all there is? Are we to take Schreiber's word at face value? Why?

Curiously enough, the National Post has finally taken an interest in this story and it's begun asking some pretty interesting questions. William Kaplan says the ethics committee needs to get a proper investigator to follow the money:

"In the real world -- that is to say, somewhere not inhabited by credulous Members of Parliament who apparently believe everything they hear, even from witnesses with an obvious agenda -- there might have been a follow-up question. The truth of Schreiber's evidence might have been put to the test. For instance, Schreiber might then have been reminded about exactly what his lawyer had testified to under oath. His memory could have been refreshed. It might have gone something like this:

"In December, 2002, your German attorney, Olaf Liesner, testified in your extradition hearing. He told Mr. Justice Watt, when you were sitting in a Toronto courtroom, that, until 1999, paying bribes to secure export business was perfectly lawful in Germany provided they were paid to "foreigners of influence." Do you remember that, Mr. Schreiber? And do you remember when your lawyer told reporters outside the courtroom, when you were standing next to him, that Canadians -- not a single solitary Canadian but Canadians -- were among the influential foreigners who had received lawful -- in Germany that is -- bribes between 1988 and 1993?"

Apparently, Liesner testified that Schreiber had doled out about $10-million in bribes in trying to influence Canadian politicians. That would be about half the schmiergelder he got under the table from Airbus Industries.

And then there's the late, great Frank Moores, former Newfoundland premier, pal of Brian Mulroney, associate of Schreiber, Mulroney appointed director to the board of Air Canada and founder of the lobbyist firm Government Consultants International.

In a letter to Mulroney last spring, Schreiber said he was ready to expose payments made to the former prime minister by Moores' once prominent lobbying firm.

"I am prepared to disclose: that you received payments from GCI, Frank Moores, Fred Doucet, Gary Ouellet, that I was asked by Fred Doucet to transfer funds to your lawyer in Geneva, [Airbus] what the reason was for your trip to Zurich in 1998, that you asked me through my lawyers to commit perjury to protect you, that you supported fraud related to the Thyssen project and more."

Has Schreiber's testimony settled any questions that dog Brian Mulroney? No, not by a long shot. If anything, he's only added to them.