Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney: A no longer convenient marriage

The Mulroney saga continues to dominate the headlines, helped along mightily by today’s revelation that Mulroney himself now wants the Harper government to skip the third-party investigation into the need for an inquiry and go straight to a full blown inquiry. You might say he’s mad as hell, although I doubt he’ll be launching a cross-country tour to remind us.

There’s certainly lots of interesting stuff to chew on for politicos in this story. While I’ve usually been agreeing with Garth Turner of late, I disagree with him when (before the Harper announcement) he regularly asked what the big deal was about here.

I’d think it’s pretty clear, but to me, the deal is the $2.1 million settlement the feds paid to Mulroney under Jean Chretien and Alan Rock a few years back. The (as yet unproven) allegations that have come to light recently about the alleged payments by Karl Heinz Schreiber to Mulroney raise the question whether or not that $2.1 million payment was appropriate, and perhaps should be recovered. Given that’s $2.1 million of taxpayer dollars, I definitely think that’s something the government should be looking at. That’s what the big, or at least moderately, sized deal is.

That, however, was last week.

...it’s the cover-up

There’s an old saying that’s it’s not the crime that will get you, it’s the cover-up. Not to suggest that a crime has been committed here, I’m not suggesting that, in case any libel lawyers are reading. It’s just an expression. And it’s often a particularly pertinent one in politics.

As it is in this case. While the issue of the validity of the $2.1m payment is an important issue, you could argue this isn’t an issue that impugns the integrity of the current Harper government. And, while there are many key links between the Harper government and Mulroney that I’ll get to later, largely you’d be right.

What is directly relevant to the Harper government however is the issue of this letter from Schreiber (maybe two letters?) to the Harper PMO, containing the very allegations that caused Harper to launch his investigation into an inquiry, that was apparently sent months ago but supposedly never made it to Harper’s desk.

Garth does agree with me on this point, crystallizing it well today:

Did he brief Stephen Harper? No idea. If he did, our prime minister has a problem, since Mr. Harper took no action until found out. If he did not, the prime minister still has a problem, since Mr. Brodie allowed the public Mulroney love-in to continue, knowing what he knew. Knowing Mr. Mulroney might be charged. Knowing the implications.

This is the question that brings this whole issue into new territory, and lays it squarely at the feet of Stephen Harper and his PMO.

A marriage of convenience

Back to what I’d originally intended to write about though, which is the Harper/Mulroney relationship. Now, I certainly don’t want to do Harper a favour by attempting to minimize it. The links are clear, from folks like Senator Marjorie LeBreton, Senator Hugh Segal, Peter McKay and his dad Elmer and Rob Nicholson. And of course Harper has saddled-up closely to Mulroney himself over the past few years, regularly tapping him for advice and feting him in public.

In their orgy of weekend coverage on the Mulroney saga however, I thought the Globe went a bit too far with a headline describing Mulroney as Harper’s political mentor. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

The truth is, the Harper/Mulroney relationship was always one of convenience. They don’t particularly like each other, but they needed each other. There was something in it for both of them, so they kissed and made nice.

Brian Mulroney needed rehabilitation. He was (is) in danger of being remembered as one of the least popular Prime Ministers in Canadian history, certainly a big blow for a man of his considerable ego. He needed a Conservative Prime Minister to help restore his reputation, a Conservative government to allow him to play the role of elder statesmen, to bring attention to the positives of his record, and being him back to public consciousness in a positive light. Harper delivered that.

Stephen Harper needed to unite the Progressive Conservative and Reform wings of his party. He needed Mulroney’s help to do that, as the man still holds considerable loyalty and sway amongst many members of his old party. He needed the political experience and wisdom of Mulroney loyalists like LeBreton. Otherwise, government would always remain out of reach. Mulroney helped bring the restless PCs firmly into the Conservative fold, helping deliver Harper his government.

The two certainly weren’t bosom buddies though, nor was Mulroney, by any stretch of the imagination, Harper’s mentor.

While Harper gets little mention in Mulroney’s biography, and certainly no negative attention, I find it unlikely that Brian has forgotten Stephen’s role as one of the architects of the Reform Party, and the role he played in destroying the old Progressive Conservative Party he so loves.

As for Harper, it was the policies of the Mulroney government that drove the former PC member and Hill staffer Harper into the arms of the movement that would found Reform. Read books like William Johnson’s Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada and you’ll see the widely divergent views the two held on the issues, and Harper’s lack of love for Mulroney.

Ironically, as he began to saddle back up to Mulroney in the past few years, trying to form a government, Harper would begin to espouse some of the same Mulroney views that drove him away in the first place, ie. pork for Quebec. The difference between former Conservative principle and current Conservative action is by now well documented.

This would seem to further illustrate the thawing of the Harper/Mulroney was driven purely by political expediency. As soon as the negatives outweighed the positives for Harper, he dumped Mulroney over the side. Wholly unsurprising really. And not the actions of a ‘mentor’ to be sure…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers