Will Karlheinz Schreiber talk to the parliamentary committee?

I'm with those the people who say Karlheinz Schreiber won't say a word:

Author William Kaplan, an expert on the Brian Mulroney-Karlheinz Schreiber affair, predicts upcoming hearings by a parliamentary committee will be a "gong show."

Schreiber -- facing extradition as early as Dec. 1 to Germany over corruption-related charges there -- is scheduled to appear before the House of Commons ethics committee starting Tuesday and may make up to three appearances. The committee has also called on Mulroney to testify in early December.

"They are seriously misinformed if they think ... Schreiber is going to tell them everything he knows," Kaplan said.

"He's not going to tell anybody anything until the minister of justice informs the government of Germany that Karlheinz Schreiber, Canadian citizen, will not be returned to Germany."

Karlheinz Schreiber won't just be holding out for a guarantee against extradition. He'll demand immunity from procecution for perjury. The Parliament of Canada Act defines testimony in front of a parliamentary committee to be equivalent to providing testimony in court:

12. Any person examined under this Part who wilfully gives false evidence is liable to such punishment as may be imposed for perjury.

Perjury is a serious crime. It is not sufficient for Karlheinz Schreiber to be truthful. He must also be consistent:

136. (1) Every one who, being a witness in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence with respect to any matter of fact or knowledge and who subsequently, in a judicial proceeding, gives evidence that is contrary to his previous evidence is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, whether or not the prior or later evidence or either is true, but no person shall be convicted under this section unless the court, judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused, in giving evidence in either of the judicial proceedings, intended to mislead.

The original investigation never progressed past the police investigation, so Schreiber could contradict what he told the RCMP thirteen years ago and not be charged with perjury. Only his credibility would suffer.

But for Schreiber, the difference now is that he is expected to speak in front of the parliamentary committee and then again in front of an inquiry, assuming there is an inquiry and Schreiber doesn't refuse to testify. Both are equivalent to judicial proceedings, and contradictory testimony would immediately expose Schreiber to charges of perjury. It seems to be Schreiber's plan is to dribble out bits of pieces of what he knows in order to avoid extradition to Germany. He might be asked direct questions about events that he would prefer not to answer for fear of giving away all the good stuff. If he answers the same question differently during an inquiry, he's in a world of hurt.

Schreiber's problem is that he might not get an assurance that he won't be extradited until some point between the two inquiries. The nature of his testimony is likely to change, since his goals are different -- in the one case he's trying to tease authorities enough to avoid extradition without telling too much, in the second case he's trying to tell a credible story, which means some consistency with previous statements.

Given that the first investigation based on his statements ended in Brian Mulroney's exoneration, he's in a bit of a bind.

If his statements change too much between the two inquiries, even as much as "I can't recall we met that day..." to "I now remember the exact thing he said...", Schreiber could face 14 years in a Canadian prison for perjury. More likely, though, any deal to not extradite him would be torn up and he'd be back in Germany.

I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to send him back now. Given the complex situation we're in, there is just no way to know if Karlheinz Schreiber is ever telling the truth. Being honest is simply not an important motivation for him. That's not a criticism of his personal character. It's just that there are so many ways honesty could work against his best interests that simply expecting him to be honest would be naive.

Check out other entries from the Karlheinz Schreiber category
Results will open in a new window.