Over lunch at the Oliphant Commission, I've been thumbing through some of the documents that have been tabled today as exhibits, here at the Oliphant Commission. Among them is this letter [PDF] sent to Mulroney on Feb. 22, 2005 from the CBC asking for an interview. Frustratingly, only the first two pages of this interview request are part of the exhibit (It is Exhibit 46, tab 20 [PDF]) and not the last pages of the request. As a result, there is no signatory on this letter. I just asked CBC producer Harvey Cashore, however, if he was the author and he says he is. Cashore, as Mulroney's team has just alleged, was laughing at Mulroney as he closed his testimony before lunch.
But despite the personal animosity Mulroney clearly feels for Cashore (and Stevie Cameron, a former colleague of Cashore's at The Fifth Estate) Cashore's interview request contains some important questions for Mulroney that, it seems to me, remain unanswered so far at this commission.
For example, in the last day-and-a-half this commission has heard Mr. Mulroney describe under oath how his relationship with Schreiber developed and how he was compensated by Schreiber and for what purpose. And yet, as Cashore points out in his interview request, Mulroney also said under oath in 1996 that he “had never had dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber.”
And on Nov. 20, 1995, lawyers acting for Mulroney filed a Statement of Claim, in connection with the libel suit over the RCMP Request for Assistance, in which Mulroney claimed “he has never received any of the alleged payments, in any form, from any person, whether named or not in the Request for Assistance, for any consideration whatsoever.”
But, of course, we heard this morning, from Mulroney himself, that, in 1993-94, he received $225,000 in cash from Schreiber, who was named in that RCMP Request for Assistance.
Now, Warren Kinsella, who doesn't much like Mulroney, wrote a column for National Post on Feb. 1, 2007 framing some of these uncomfortable questions in about that manner. That prompted Mulroney's legal team to ask the Post to publish a prominent correction, which it did. Here is the letter from the Post's lawyer to Mulroney's lawyer suggesting the wording of that correction. Effectively, Mulroney is saying he had no dealings with Schreiber in the context of Airbus in his 1996 testimony.
UPDATE: Here's Mulroney himself speaking to that issue last December, before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Ethics and Privacy:
In my defamation lawsuit arising from the Airbus allegations, government attorneys asked to examine me on discovery before plea in April 1996. In Quebec, the law is crystal clear that a defendant who chooses to do this before filing his defence can only ask questions relevant to the allegation contained in the statement of claim. The claim I had made against the Government of Canada was confined to the defamatory nature of the statements they had made, namely, the allegations that I had received bribes during my time as Prime Minister, notably in relation to Airbus.
That was the legal background to my appearance in the Montreal court house. When I took the stand that morning, the Government of Canada was represented by no less than nine lawyers.
After only one and a half days of the scheduled two-day hearing, the nine government attorneys said they had no further questions and the examination was adjourned. They never once asked me directly if I had entered into a commercial relationship with Mr. Schreiber after leaving office.
Much has been made in the media of an alleged statement by me that “I never had dealings with Mr. Schreiber” as amounting to a denial of the business dealings I had with him after I had left public life. This report of my testimony is clearly false, as even Mr. Schreiber himself made absolutely clear last week.
But although the charge has been resuscitated lately, it had been corrected earlier this year by both the National Post and The Globe and Mail, which published apologies and/or clarifications for having repeated this libel. …
Any reasonable reading of my testimony indicates that when I used the language “I had never had any dealings with Mr. Schreiber”, I was clearly referring to the sale of Airbus aircraft and my time in government.
Cashore denies he was laughing/chuckling at Mulroney and other news reports say no one else saw this behaviour. Don Newman says a check of the tape shows that Mulroney was looking at the Mr Oliphant when he became emotional. Were you in a better position to notice what happened?
Harvey and I spoke about this and he told me there was nothing funny to laugh at, that serious questions were being asked and serious answers were being given. Harvey, Greg and I are sitting essentially in the same row but we are at opposite ends of the room — 15 or 20 metres apart? — and so I did not see him nor could I. Sears said he had a good line of sight to both Cashore and McArthur. Other reporters, sitting next to Cashore and McArthur said they saw no evidence of laughing.
In any event: Having read Mulroney's autobiography, Sawatsky's biography and having watched the man in action here and in front of Parliamentary committees, it seems to me that if someone was laughing at him, Mulroney would not start sobbing, he'd get in their face and challenge them.
But that's just my opinion. The facts are: Sears says he saw what he saw; one of the journalists (Cashore) says there was no 'giggling'; Newman described what he saw; Toronto Star (and other) reporters described what they saw but, as for me, I didn't know enough to be looking at them!
On the other hand … Harvey Cashore has been a dogged accuser, along with Stevie Cameron, of the former PM. Even a smile having nothing to do with Mr. Mulroney could have been interpreted by the latter as having to do with him, as mocking him.
Further … to your contention that “Mulroney would not start sobbing, he'd get in their face and challenge them.”
First of all, Mulroney did not “start sobbing” – he merely choked up. Whether it was with emotion or with anger, he's the only one who knows that.
Secondly, he could hardly “get in their face and challenge them” – given where he is and under what kind of scrutiny he's being subjected to.
Personally, I believe Mr. Mulroney choked up because of a combination of emotions: the suffering his family underwent, and his anger at the aforementioned journalist, whom he might have wanted to literally choke. And I don't blame him.
Well, you may believe that's why he broke down, Gaby, and I might agree with you. But that's not what the man himself said!
Thanks for your input.
I hate to be such a pain in the proverbial about the weight of words used, but that was what I quibbled about when I wrote my comment.
1. As I stated, only Mulroney knows what caused Mulroney to choke up – not “sob” or “break down.”
2. As the last paragraph of my previous comment indicates by the word “personally” what I wrote is my interpretation of what transpired.
3. And what did I suggest transpired? That even the slightest hint of a smile on Harvey Cashore's face could conceivably have been interpreted by Mulroney as a smile mocking him.
I did not say that is what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt; it is simply my interpretation.
4. And please don't take any of this badly. I know I'm being peskily punctilious …
P.S. My moniker is Gabby (as in yak-a-lot) 😉