Today former PM Mulroney faced cross examination in the commission inquiring into the payment by Karlheinz Schreiber of thousands of dollars in cash in hotel rooms to Mulroney.
One question in particular appears to be a difficult one for Mulroney:
"Commission counsel Richard Wolson hammered away at Mulroney's failure to explain his ties to Schreiber.
"As a former prime minister of the country, knowing that you had a legitimate business relationship, you didn't think you should say . . . I had a business relationship?" Wolson asked.
Mulroney said he was following the instructions of his lawyers: "Answer the questions truthfully. Do not volunteer information."
He said he would have answered fully had he been asked if he had a business deal with Schreiber. He said the nine government lawyers questioning him hadn't done their homework.
But Wolson noted that no lawyer could have asked the question because only four people knew of the deal: Mulroney, Schreiber, lobbyist Fred Doucet and an unidentified official at the German company Thyssen.
"How in the world would nine lawyers or 900 lawyers know about a commercial business relationship? You were the only one in the room who knew."
Mulroney simply insisted that he was prepared to answer all questions and that he was truthful in all his answers. Had he been asked directly if he had a commercial relationship with Schreiber, "the answer would have been yes.""
There we have it: Mulroney says he would have answered any question asked to him at an earlier proceeding if he had been asked whether he had a business relationship with Schreiber.
But only four people knew about the relationship at that time – Mulroney (and he did not volunteer anything); Schreiber – who also was not volunteering anything at that time; Doucet – no information volunteered by him, and possibly someone in Germany. Therefore, says our former PM, he did not have an tell anyone he had a business relationship with Schreiber, and so did not have to tell anyone then about the three cash payments in three different hotels.
What a pity none of the 'nine lawyers' hovering around the room at the time did not have sudden blinding prophetic flash of insight and decide to ask Mulroney whether he had a business relationship with Schreiber as well as a cup of coffee.
This exchange also came up during the cross examination:
"Early on, Mr. Wolson raised past reports of a comment Mr. Mulroney allegedly told his friend Luc Lavoie on his way into the Palais de Justice in Montreal for that 1996 hearing.
“Luc, do you know what Sheppard's problem is going to be today?” Mr. Mulroney reportedly said of government lawyer Claude Armand-Sheppard.
“No, boss,” Mr. Lavoie replied.
“He is going to ask me questions and he expects me to answer them.”
Mr. Wolson asked Mr. Mulroney Thursday to explain that comment.
“If Mr. Lavoie says it was said, I'm sure it was. It would also have been said in jest,” Mr. Mulroney explained. “My recollection of that one was with Mr. Lavoie entering the House of Commons before question period, and that's where I believe that that took place. If Mr. Lavoie said it was at that occasion as well, then I would have said it, but it would have been in jest, obviously. … As you know sir, sometimes in these areas of life, you get through a lot of it with a sense of humour.”"
Interesting stuff. If you get a chance, watch it.
