After stonewalling and blustering in response to opposition calls for an inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, PM Harper has done an about face and authorized a full public inquiry. This follows upon a demand for an inquiry by Brian Mulroney himself.

Recently during a speech at St Francis Xavier University, in typical bellicose fashion, Mulroney vowed that he was going to "fight and win again."

And that's part of the problem. Canadians never hear the end of it. Mulroney's affairs have been haunting Canadian public life for over a decade and distract from more important issues in the life of the nation. An inquiry will cost Canadians a whack of cash with no guarantee taxpayers will get even close to the truth.

Mulroney has already received $2.1 million from the Canadian taxpayer, and is now prepared to put Canadians through yet more years of this interminable circus.

What emerged from the earlier inquiry is troubling enough. On the basis of that alone Mulroney should offer frank and full disclosure rather than drag the country screaming and kicking into another public inquiry.

In 1995 Mulroney testified under oath that he never had any dealings with Schreiber - just coffee once or twice. Yet he admits to receiving $300,000 over the course of a series of meetings with Schreiber in Montreal and New York.

If this was an up-front business transaction why doesn't Mulroney simply reveal what the cash was for in a frank disclosure, instead of playing it cryptic while loudly protesting his innocence. His spokesman, Luc Lavoie, will only say it was "a retainer" with vague references to Mulroney's help with respect to Schreiber's German-Canadian business interests.

Images of people in hotel rooms handling stacks of bank notes, evokes thoughts of the Cosa Nostra. A recent Toronto Star column asks how Canadians would have reacted if during the Gomery inquiry it had emerged that Jean Chretien had been in a hotel room accompanied by "bagloads of cash". We would never have heard the end of it.

The handling of this affair should transcend political partisanship. It shouldn't matter that the main actor happens to be a conservative. It's about standards Canadians reasonably expect from a long standing Prime Minister - a statesman who represented the country to the world. Does a man who has held the position of the nation's top office holder voluntarily put himself into positions like this ... under any circumstances ?

Mulroney can't escape from the central image of a hotel room, piles of cash and a shady lobbyist. This is an image that has been lasered into the collective consciousness of Canadians. No matter how many explanations and justifications he musters in the course of the inquiry ... even if the verdict goes his way ... that image will remain indelible.

Related story - here

Stephen Harper has long been a man who has inveighed against corruption in high places. When he became Canadian PM he arrived in Ottawa with the steely eyed look of the reformer. He was hell bent on cleaning up government and demanded accountability across the board. A new era had dawned in Canadian politics with Captain Clean at the helm.

He was also the Adscam slayer. Conservative pundits were shrill in their denunciation of shady practices in Quebec ad agencies where invisible people were collecting salaries - possibly even dead people and their long deceased mothers. They also denounced the undercover game best known as the 'brown envelope express', that allowed sketchy players in Quebec to pocket wads of cash just for playing the old Canadian unity game.

But while Harper was hell bent on cleaning up corruption, he was also cozy with former Canadian PM, Brian Mulroney - a person who has allegedly handled a few brown envelopes in his time and who has singlehandedly managed to fuel a rumor mill with a smoke stack that has never stopped belching ... even with the passage of time. A strange choice of confidante for Harper, but perhaps to some extent unavoidable since there are still those in the conservative party who remain strong supporters of Mulroney. This loyalty is in part due to Mulroney's key role in the unite-the-right movement that was largely responsible for Harper's rise to power.

So why are the old suspicions and rumors that have long swirled around Brian Mulroney been gaining traction of late?

Since the Mulroney years the mug of a German businessman named Karlheinz Schreiber, has appeared on-and-off in Canadian papers - an oddly expressionless face, with the beaten up look of a pugilist well past his prime. For quite some time conservative allies of Brian Mulroney have been dismissing charges that the former PM did anything untoward in his murky business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber and have characterized attempts to probe into the business connections between the two men as "a witch hunt".

Until recently Stephen Harper seemed to be taking an equally high handed approach. When the Liberals called for a public inquiry into the affair, Harper rejected the demand while making the not-so-veiled threat that an inquiry into Mulroney's affairs could lead to similar inquiries into the business dealings of former Liberal PM's Martin and Chretien.

This is a wicket however that has very quickly turned sticky for Harper, and it's a situation he can't bluff or threaten his way out of. That became crystal clear when new revelations put him on the defensive.

In an affidavit filed in the Ontario Supreme Court this week, Schreiber claims that he made a $300,000 lobbying deal with Mulroney. This figure has been cited by others with knowledge of the affair, but what makes it a matter of renewed public interest, is the fact that Schreiber claims the deal was struck in June of 1993, two days before Mulroney left office. Moreover Schreiber claims the deal was negotiated at the PM's Harrington Lake retreat.

There is also the claim that one of Mulroney's advisers asked Schreiber to transfer funds associated with the controversial Air Canada purchase of Airbus planes to a Mulroney lawyer based in Switzerland. This simply adds fuel to a fire that has long been simmering, because in the 90's the RCMP alleged that Mulroney had taken bribes in connection with the Airbus deal.

The current allegations cast extreme doubt on claims by Mulroney in 1996 that he "never had any dealings with him (Schreiber)." Other aspects of the case also arouse suspicions. Why did Mulroney take large payments from Schreiber in the form of cash, and not by cheque for example? Why did he pass on declaring this money in his tax returns for 1993 and 1994? How come in his recent memoirs there is no mention of the association with Karlheinz Schreiber?

What makes this a matter of pressing public concern, isn't just the suspicion that Mulroney engaged in under-the-table dealing while occupying the office of Prime Minister of Canada, but the fact that he received hefty financial compensation for being 'wronged'. In 1997 he received $2.1 million from the Canadian government headed by Jean Chretien to settle a lawsuit over the RCMP handling of the Airbus affair. This is a payment that likely would never have been made if current information relating to the case had been available at that time.

Stephen Harper's name also showed up in court documents in association with a letter which Schreiber claims to have written at Mulroney's urging. This was a letter that Mulroney allegedly wanted to show to Harper during a Harrington Lake visit. The contents of the letter are a bit perplexing because they offer a positive spin on the Schreiber/Mulroney relationship with affectionate phrases addressed to "dear Brian" such as "I have always been your friend" and "I am happy your health is fine again".

It seems though that Schreiber wrote the letter in a self-serving capacity. He believed it would help get Harper on his side in his battle to avoid extradition to Germany. The Germans want to have him return to face trial in Bavaria on tax evasion charges.

For the record, Stephen Harper claims Mulroney never showed him the letter from Schreiber.

The recent revelations have forced Harper to quit stonewalling on the affair. In a dramatic volte-face, he announced that his government will have no further dealings with Mulroney until the air is cleared. Harper has also called for an independent review of the relationship between Schreiber and Mulroney, and has signaled that a public inquiry into the affair may be necessary.

This is certainly a surprising reversal, but Harper had no choice. When you present yourself to Canadians as the corruption buster you can't sweep allegations of this sort under the rug just because it happens to involve an old mentor.

The Liberal opposition leader, Stephane Dion, is less than impressed with the Harper move and claims the PM is just buying time. Time is fast running out. The Canadian public have been given the runaround on this affair for far too long - they deserve to know the truth.

Few people can throw darts like ex-Canadian prime minister, Brian Mulroney. He has a deep attachment to his grudges and likes nothing more than taking the time, as he did in his recent memoirs, to haul them out for a bit of spit and polish.

Mulroney has always been big on playing up his Irish credentials. As an emigre Irishman I have to confess that I felt uneasy when Mulroney got up on the stage with Ronald Reagan at the Shamrock Summit in Ottawa and began to croon When Irish Eyes are Smiling. He looked more happy than might be considered natural. At the time I thought the drinking song Whiskey in the Jar might have suited his mood better.

Mulroney’s love-of-the-grudge isn’t really typically Canadian. Of all the places I’ve lived in my life, Canada is one of the least hate-centric. One of the great gifts of Canadians is their tolerance and their ability to broker a compromise. If there is a hell, I’m confident Canadians who end up there will be able to broker a power sharing arrangement with Beelzebub and his minions.

Mulroney could broker alright - mostly by schmoozing and arm twisting. There is no question he had the deal maker instinct going on. That is an Irish talent also, especially though when combined with a long fertile memory seeded with an extensive grudge history, so that when making the deal you inadvertently manage to screw a few undesirables in the process.

Unsurprisingly, number one on Mulroney’s grudge list is Pierre Trudeau. The reasons he presents for his deep loathing of PET seem rational at first glance. Trudeau’s great abomination as stated in Mulroney’s recent memoirs, was to oppose the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. But Mulroney’s dislike of the man goes deeper than mere political differences. It is visceral even after a lot of time has passed and with Trudeau ten under. Why such animus after all these years? Well I'm sure it's in part because Pierre Trudeau is still the pre-eminent Canadian icon, loved and respected at home and abroad. A deceased Trudeau is regularly accorded higher popularity ratings in polls than an alive-and-kicking Mulroney.

Lucien Bouchard is another exhibit in the Mulroney grudge museum. He is branded a traitor for founding the Bloc Quebecois. Writers Stevie Cameron and Peter Newman are skewered for having the temerity to question his veracity and in Newman’s case for “betrayal”. One of Newman’s crimes was revealing ‘phoneman’ - one of Mulroney’s less public personalities that surfaced when engaging in intimate wired chats with people he believed to be reliable confidantes.

Mulroney’s grudges even extend to members of his own party. Especially those who had the gall to vote for Joe Clarke back in the day. Then of course there is Jean Chretien who is also given ‘the treatment’.

Mulroney can be very entertaining. Another Irish gift. He’s the kind of punter who would be great at the craic back in the oul sod - tweed cap shoved back on his head quaffing a pint of Guinness in a Dublin bar. If he had been around in James Joyce’s day, I have no doubt that Jimmy’s ear for well oiled blarney would have perked up and resulted in a short story or two. The gift seems to have been passed to his son Ben Mulroney who is actually an excellent host on Canadian Idol.

For a man who is deeply concerned about fame and acclaim, Mulroney may have been happier if he had gone into a different profession. I think he would have made an engaging stand-up comedian who I’m sure could have had them lining up at Yuks Yuks. In that capacity his popularity rating might even have exceeded that of Trudeau’s.

Related story - here