# No good will come from this



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2007)

The opposition parties have opened a can of worms by demanding an investigation of former PM Brian Mulroney. As this blogger points out, if you have leave to investigate one thing, why should you stop there? There are plenty of similar events to investigate (and are demanding investigation). Given the "source" of these allegations is fighting extradition to Germany to face many charges, I would be very careful in accepting anything he has to say.

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2007/11/when-do-we-get-to-see-investigations-of.html



> Friday, November 09, 2007
> *When do we get to see the investigations of pseudochretien and dithers?*
> 
> Once again the Tories are being fair and open on an issue that should have been closed a long time ago. I am sure that HM PM Mulroney will be cleared and the grits will again have egg on their faces. I hope the grits will support probes into pseudochretien's dealings with the Business Development Bank, certain golf courses and his other shady dealings. Perhaps we will finally find out where dithers and pseudochretien hid the stolen adscam money.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2007)

I don't expect Harper to call for any other new investigations - I don't think it would be very good politics.  It will be up to others to take up the cry to push the government's hand on any other potential investigations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Nov 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an article about Mr. Mulroney’s _counter-offense_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071113.wschreiber13/BNStory/National/home


> Mulroney calls for public inquiry
> *Full judicial commission 'is the only way to prove to Canadians that I have done nothing wrong,' former prime minister says*
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> ...



I think Mulroney is trying to seize the _strategic high ground_ early in the war. Like it or not this is a *political* issue with, maybe, some legal, maybe even moral overtones. While I agree with Normal Spector that a public prosecutor ought to be appointed, with subpoena powers, etc, etc, I think that almost all concerned (except for Spector), led by Mulroney, have very little interest in getting the *‘truth’* our in front of Canadians, much less in restoring Canadians’ *’faith’* in politics. That’s why Mulroney wants a judicial inquiry: he hopes to turn it into a repeat of Gomery. His lawyers will be able to call all his enemies (and he has a bunch) beginning with Stevie Cameron and Jean Chrétien – both of whom will be smeared. (The fact that both *might deserve* a good smear is neither here nor there.)

I think a judicial inquiry effectively shuts down any parliamentary inquiry. I’m not sure about the legalities but Canadians don’t trust politicians and they do trust judges – Gomery saw to that!

Also: watch for calls for inquiries into _Shawinigate_ (again) and into Paul Martin and Canada Steamship Lines. (The former, I believe, does require further investigation, the latter seems to me to be more poor judgement than anything illegal or dishonest.) The Conservatives and, mainly, their friends, ought to be in full howl any time now.

I agree with a_majoor: nothing good will come from this. Reputations – of the guilty and innocent not so guilty, alike – will be tarnished. Much heat will be generated but little light will be shed on the whole affair. We, Canadians, will end up being more and more certain that *all* politics and *all* politicians are dirty.


----------



## GAP (13 Nov 2007)

I see the whole issue as the opposition parties pandering to find something, anything that will stick to Harper. 

It's a shill game, and I think most people see it for exactly that.


----------



## Staff Weenie (13 Nov 2007)

Of course, left out of Dionne's diatribe, is the fact that any inquiry will cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not over a million. In the end, it will probably prove little other than the fact that something may have happened, but that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with charges or recovery. Mulroney will then probably counter-sue again for defamation, costing more $$$. He probably has an even stronger claim for defamation, as this is clearly Liberal vexation.

The taxpayers will again be on the hook for the Liberal Party's whims......


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Nov 2007)

The fact that Mulroney and Harper were never even in the same party during this affair or after(unlike Martin Dion and Cretien during and after the sponsorship scandal) appears to be completely lost on the Canadian public.  : 

As far as scandal, hint of scandal and corruption are concerned when will our senior politicians learn that it is best to get to the problem right off the bat than to leave anything like this lying around to be used by your political enemies later.  Mulroney called for a public inquiry long ago, and it should have been done long ago.

An independent adjudicator should be appointed to look into every one of these types of issues so that the people we pay to run the country can actually _run_  the country instead of playing infantile games.  

Year after year our parliament becomes a forum for bread and circuses and IMO less and less governing is done. We should take the TV cameras out of the HoC, and make the crapslingers level their accusations outside of the house where libel laws can be brought to bear.  Then see how much grandstanding and slander there is.


----------



## Staff Weenie (13 Nov 2007)

No argument from me - after seeing how the House of Commons behaves, I can tell you that my 6 year old son's Grade 1 class are far better behaved, and show more respect for the rules of the classroom.

It disgusts me that these people make so much money to behave like idiots.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2007)

I have been, off and on, listening to/reading all the talking heads and it looks to me as though Stephen Harper walks funny because he has a horseshoe up his you know what.

The consensus seems to be that the public inquiry will have to go back to 1988 and will have to deal with Schreiber’s 29 Mar 07 letter to Harper – that means that the entire period from 4 Nov 93 until 6 Feb 06 will be _available_ for _examination_ and, as I have said before, not all, not even most of the _examination_ will be designed to elicit the *truth*. The parties with standing, and Mulroney will have lots of standing and something akin to a platoon of lawyers, will be able to probe, insinuate and smear at will. It is entirely possible that we will hear several more calls for public inquiries – into, as I said before, things like _Shawinigate_ and the $10 or $20 million that Schreiber *may* have thrown around to people in Ottawa – including senior civil servants and Liberal politicians and bagmen.

Here, for example, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is Jeffrey Simpson’s take:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071114.wcosimp14/BNStory/Front/home


> By demanding a public inquiry, Mulroney left Harper no choice
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...



Although I hope Mulroney will not turn out to have taken bribes while still in office, it doesn’t much matter to Harper how badly Mulroney is smeared. He was never close to Mulroney (he (Harper) started life as a Liberal (_circa_ 1975) but quit because of Trudeau and then quit the Conservatives ( 1986) because of Mulroney) – in fact he was a founding member of the old Reform Party. The issue of Schreiber’s letter is easy; Harper tossed off the right answer today in the House of Commons: letters like that are *never* sent ‘up’ when there is a legal proceeding underway, as there is with Schreiber’s pending deportation. Harper may have valued Mulroney’s advice, especially re: how to win in Québec but he can easily toss him aside. There are (Marjorie LeBreton excepted) few veterans of the Mulroney years in Harper’s inner circle. He’s probably bomb proof.

Not so M. Dion.

Raymond Chan, Ujjal Dosanjh, Hedy Fry, Keith Martin, Ralph Goodale, Mauril Bélanger, Carolyn Bennet, Maurizio Bevilaqua, Ken Dryden, John Godfrey, and, and, and were all in the Chrétien ‘team’ when some of the key decisions were made. One can imagine that Mulroney’s lawyers will not miss an opportunity to suggest impropriety here, there and everywhere.

The big losers will be the national media. It looks, to all those talking heads, as though Mulroney’s prime targets will be Stevie Cameron and the CBC, especially, I think _The Fifth Estate_ for the 1995 and 2006 stories. The media will run for cover – going to court to be allowed to protect their sources, etc. The Mulroney *and Harper* teams will claim that the media cannot be trusted to bring out the *truth* because they are promoting and protecting their anti-Conservative agenda. It’s sweet. If the courts side with the media we end up with a deeply flawed process in which, evidently, Mulroney is treated unfairly; if the media is forced to speak out then we see that there really was/is an anti-Conservative agenda. Either way Harper wins.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Nov 2007)

This proves exactly what the Liberals are trying to do here.  I hope that this whole thing blows up on them.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Nov 2007)

L.Ian Macdonald on CBC politics with Don Newman yesterday ref the inquiry into Mulroney doings.

"Anyone who wants to start a fight with him should never bring a knife to a gun fight."


----------



## Long in the tooth (14 Nov 2007)

This is a complete waste of the Government's time and our money.  Brian is supposed to be a big boy; if he has to depend on the current government to defend him he should be dismissed as a child.  The government footing the bill for an inquiry provides him with a high profile and free forum that very few of us could afford.  Let this fool pay for it himself - he does have $300,000 more than most of us do.   I once respected him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> L.Ian Macdonald on CBC politics with Don Newman yesterday ref the inquiry into Mulroney doings.
> 
> "Anyone who wants to start a fight with him should never bring a knife to a gun fight."



I smiled at that comment, too.

Ol' _Fibber Muldoon_ appears to be spoiling for this fight. He holds some deep grudges, I guess. It appears to me that he either:

1. Actually intends to prove that he is *innocent* and is, indeed, the victim of decades of unfounded rumour mongering by dishonest journalists, etc; or

2. He is confident he can escape any *criminal* charges, etc, and he will be happy to smear his enemies more than they can smear him.


----------



## Bane (14 Nov 2007)

I don't have any care for Dion, Mulroney, Harper, Chretien or Dithers. I hope the very small sum of money that this will take nails a whole array of butts to the wall. It is also the oppositions DUTY to throw mud, attack, dig up skeletons and out maneuver the government. All sides do it, it's their job.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> I don't have any care for Dion, Mulroney, Harper, Chretien or Dithers. I hope the very small sum of money that this will take nails a whole array of butts to the wall. It is also the oppositions DUTY to throw mud, attack, dig up skeletons and out maneuver the government. All sides do it, it's their job.



And there's a suitably cynical view.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2007)

As noted, Brian Mulroney is coming out swinging, and his call for the proposed inquiry to investigate elected officials, journalists and virtually anyone who had a pulse in Canada between 1988 and today will certainly stir up a great deal of mud to stick to everyone involved. I am sort of curious as to why the Liberals would risk the potential blow back (especially given how clever Prime Minister Harper has proven to be in deflecting opposition shots back into their own benches).

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2007/11/who-is-responsible-for-plot-against-hm.html



> Wednesday, November 14, 2007
> *Who is responsible for the plot against HM PM Mulroney.*
> 
> I am pretty sure that HM PM Mulroney will once again be vindicated and we can see the exposed liberal media exposed. The liberal media and gutter rats like stevie cameron, have never been made to pay for their campaign against the former PM. It will be fun to watch pseudochretien and the rest of the libranos who thought they could use the levers of power to persecute Mulroney forced to testify.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2007)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071115.wcomartin15/BNStory/Front/home


> While they're at it, why not reopen Shawinigate?
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



Despite The Ruxted Group’s critiques of Martin (when he strays out of his lanes and into foreign/defence affairs), he is well connected in Ottawa and, as one of Chrétien’s biographers (see: http://www.amazon.ca/Chretien-Will-Win-Lawrence-Martin/dp/1895555957/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195137979&sr=1-4 and http://www.amazon.ca/Iron-Man-Defiant-Reign-Chretien/dp/0670043109/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195137979&sr=1-6 ), he is uniquely _qualified_ to suggest that there is more to _Shawinigate_ than we learned back in the ‘90s and up until 2004.

I will not be at all surprised when (not if, I think) _Team Mulroney_ starts agitating for the RCMP to reopen the _Shawinigate_ file.

I think PM Harper was serious when he said, essentially, “we (politicians, even all Canadians) don’t want to go there” (public inquiries into politicians) because it will lead down all manner of unpleasant roads. I suspect we’re headed that way unless David Johnston proposes very restricted TOR – something he may find hard to do.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2007)

> ...he is uniquely qualified to suggest that there is more to Shawinigate than we learned back in the ‘90s and up until 2004.



This article has to qualify as my surprise of the week.  It is something I would never have expected from Lawrence Martin.  Either there is more to the man than I have given him credit for (always a possibility) or else there is something else.... IS this a warning from one Liberal to the others to heed Harper's words “we don’t want to go there” because, potentially, they have more to lose than either the Tories OR Mulroney.  The only problem, for Mr. Martin, in my view is that no matter how loudly he yells, he is speaking to the tone deaf, if not the stone deaf, Stephane Dion.


----------



## TCBF (15 Nov 2007)

If Mr Dion himself has an inkling where some of the skeletons in the closet are kept, he may see this as a puritanical act which may rinse out the corruption stench of the 90s and CONCIDENTALLY remove some of his detractors/competitors from play within the party.  If the PM remains squeeky clean and former PM BM gets to pad his bank account again at the taxpayers expense (and good for him!) then perhaps that is fine for Mr Dion, as long as he gets to secure his flanks and rear.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Nov 2007)

TCBF said:
			
		

> If Mr Dion himself has an inkling where some of the skeletons in the closet are kept, he may see this as a puritanical act which may rinse out the corruption stench of the 90s and CONCIDENTALLY remove some of his detractors/competitors from play within the party.  If the PM remains squeaky clean and former PM BM gets to pad his bank account again at the taxpayers expense (and good for him!) then perhaps that is fine for Mr Dion, as long as he gets to secure his flanks and rear.



You could be right; I like your analysis.

Dion has a squeaky-clean reputation - it seemed to me that the _*dirt*_ from the _Sponsorship Scandal_ stuck only to Chrétien, Pelletier, Gagliano, Guité, Corriveau and a few others. Other Quebec MPs - including Paul Martin, Stéphane Dion and Pierre Pettigrew – escaped without too much tarnish. Maybe the cabinet meetings were so boring that they slept through the juicy bits!

Dion straddled the wall between the _Chrétienistas_ and _Martinis_ and finished up on top of the heap. It’s still not clear, to me, that he was _intimate_ with either camp. His _speciality_, we will recall, was the intellectual challenge to separatism and separatists.


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Nov 2007)

Dion's leadership is a democratic accident fueled by bitter internal party politics.  His handling of the job so far is a demonstration (I think) that he doesn't have the political chess playing smarts to think and make his moves that far ahead. He's one of the guys playing checkers while PMSH _is_ playing chess.

Dion is a one trick pony who can only formulate singular policies and not an entire game plan.  Take a look at Kyoto.  Lots of "what we should do" and practically no doing.  His recently announced poverty purge is another example of noble intentions(?) and no substance. Expect more of the same, singular "policy pieces" and no coherent plan to fit them together or make them work.

It is an intellectual schism that some people are so damn smart in the theoretical and, to use a military analogy, could plan the invasion of Normandy, but could not practically lead a two man rush to a three hole outhouse.


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Nov 2007)

Brian Mulroney is another guy that plays chess. ;D


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2007)

Looks like Mulroney is going to do a "slash and burn" campaign. No one is exempted from his ire....


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Nov 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Looks like Mulroney is going to do a "slash and burn" campaign. *No one is exempted from his ire....*


Should I retain the services of a barrister now?   ;D


----------



## GAP (15 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Should I retain the services of a barrister now?   ;D



Only if your standard is red and you are kissing cousins with Karl baby..... ;D


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Nov 2007)

The Liberals are digging deep on this but I don't think they've thought this through to it's possibly nasty conclusion.  

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/276677

This seem to imply PMSH can rely on an effective majority in the HoC.


----------



## RangerRay (15 Nov 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This article has to qualify as my surprise of the week.  It is something I would never have expected from Lawrence Martin.



Ditto.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Nov 2007)

SDI has some good links

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

A tidbit from the links

_And yet it's in paragraph 41, where Mr. Schreiber suddenly makes reference to demanding repayment of the $300K paid to Mr. Mulroney in connection with Mr. Schreiber's dissatisfaction with Mr. Mulroney's apparent poor performance in connection with Bear Head and Reto Pasta, not Airbus.

Mr. Schreiber can't have it both ways. On the Fifth Estate, the $300K is reportedly in connection with Mr. Mulroney's alleged role in greasing the Airbus wheels, yet in Mr. Schreiber's most recent Affidavit it's for greasing the wheels of light armoured vehicles and pasta processes. Which is it?_


----------



## Greymatters (15 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Brian Mulroney is another guy that plays chess. ;D



If he is going to target people for libel and slander lawsuits, why didn't he start with Mr. Schreiber?  Or has he done this already?


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> If he is going to target people for libel and slander lawsuits, why didn't he start with Mr. Schreiber?  Or has he done this already?



I'm not certain, but perhaps it is that Mr. Schriber doesn't have the cash to make it worth his money.

Also if I were being hounded by certain people who are elected to, and doing the slander through government avenues I'd damn well bring the fight to them before some ex-businessman, has been, crook awaiting deportation.


----------



## Greymatters (15 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I'm not certain, but perhaps it is that Mr. Schriber doesn't have the cash to make it worth his money.
> 
> Also if I were being hounded by certain people who are elected to, and doing the slander through government avenues I'd damn well bring the fight to them before some ex-businessman, has been, crook awaiting deportation.



True, but that implies its about the money, instead of saving his good name.


----------



## E Tenebrus (15 Nov 2007)

Here is another interesting piece from that Liberal mouthpiece, James Travesty that perhaps is another warning to the Liebrals.

http://www.thestar.com/article/276700


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> True, but that implies its about the money, instead of saving his good name.



Those are my words not "the Chin's" ;D

Besides, this is being pushed from inside the HoC.  Schriber's allegations (which could have been leveled at any time in the last decade) should have been resoundingly ignored by one and all, and they probably would have been had the good ship Liberal not been circling the political drain under Capitan Dion's helmsmanship.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Nov 2007)

If there was any wonder exactly why Herr Schreiber was leveling these allegations this makes it all clear.



> "Not one fucking word would I say," Mr. Schreiber said from the Toronto West Detention Centre. "Not one word," he repeated.
> 
> "Why would I care about the country any more? ... Why would I care any longer?"



Care about the country, any idiot that believes Schreiber is doing this for the good of the country is, well an idiot.

I have to admit though, a lot of people are going to buy his line of crap.  He's whipped up a media feeding frenzy which in turn is stirring the populace and now he's threatening to clam up and _not tell_ about all the secret stuff he knows... Nudge, nudge wink, wink, if, oh wouldn't you like to know...

Seems to me that the Government will have little choice what to do with him.  The optics of eliminating a "star" witness would prejudice the proceedings from the get go and tar the current government as covering up for the Mulroney government.  This would negate the current governments ability to say that it didn't occur "on our watch".


----------



## Long in the tooth (16 Nov 2007)

Has anyone else thought that Mulroney and Schreiber might still be colluding?  Should Schreiber be extradited he will spend his last miserable days in a German jail.  In Canada he lives in a nice condo in Toronto.  Immigration has his extradition underway, but the Inquiry will put that on hold.

I say extradite him, let the inquiry wither on the vine, and save the public $$$.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2007)

With the wonders of video conferencing and the Internet, Schreiber can provide evidence from his cell block in Germany just as easily as if he were in Ottawa...


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Nov 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> With the wonders of video conferencing and the Internet, Schreiber can provide evidence from his cell block in Germany just as easily as if he were in Ottawa...



Ah, but the problem is that he says he won't if he's extradited.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Ah, but the problem is that he says he won't if he's extradited.



That's a _problem_?

If, when the Commissioner calls him, he refuses to testify then all the Commissioner need do is say: "OK, boys and girls, that's it. Mr. Mulroney: please go back to your retirement with the thanks and apologies of Canadians. Journalists: please crawl back into your dark, dank, dirty holes. Lawyers: sorry, free lunch is over - back to _"honest"_ work. Canadians: move along now, nothing to see here."


----------



## TCBF (16 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> If he is going to target people for libel and slander lawsuits, why didn't he start with Mr. Schreiber?  Or has he done this already?



- No point in killing the goose that lays the golden eggs!

 ;D


----------



## Flip (16 Nov 2007)

It's weird to watch this all going on, and I'm left wondering.....

Why is this making so much noise?
Simple
There isn't any REAL news.
The only news here is Schreiber will do anything he can to avoid extradition.


My guess is that the enquiry uncovers nothing relative to today's government.
But then........The gloves are off........Shawinigate lives!
The liberals suffer two or three more years of blowback.

I almost regret the lack of anything else to see on the National.
This public enquiry stuff is kind of boring.


----------



## Reccesoldier (16 Nov 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's a _problem_?
> 
> If, when the Commissioner calls him, he refuses to testify then all the Commissioner need do is say: "OK, boys and girls, that's it. Mr. Mulroney: please go back to your retirement with the thanks and apologies of Canadians. Journalists: please crawl back into your dark, dank, dirty holes. Lawyers: sorry, free lunch is over - back to _"honest"_ work. Canadians: move along now, nothing to see here."



Politically its a problem Edward.

As I've already alluded to, I believe Herr Schreiber is playing the system in order to avoid prosecution in his own country.

The problem is that politically the opposition will turn this into a shit sandwich for the government no matter how it is handled.

The *only exception* being if the commission is laboriously and painfully allowed to snake its money wasting over sensationalized and partisan way to an exoneration of Mulroney and a condemnation of Schreiber and all who called for the damn thing in the first place.

And as we both know there's a fat chance of that!!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Nov 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> ...
> The *only exception* being if the commission is laboriously and painfully allowed to snake its money wasting over sensationalized and partisan way to an exoneration of Mulroney and a condemnation of Schreiber and all who called for the damn thing in the first place.
> ...



Actually, if the thing lumbers along, that's the *primary* outcome I expect.

I believe Mulroney knows there is *nothing* which can even remotely connect him to the $10-20 million Schreiber _*says*_ he passed around to ensure Air Canada bought the Airbus aircraft way back when. But Mulroney will use that 'line' to hang Stevie Cameron, _et al_, including Alan Rock.

I also believe that Mulroney will say, "Yeah, Schreiber hired me to lobby for him, and I didn't do it the way he thought I should. Because of my office I refused to ever lobby the federal government - that's why I never registered as a lobbyist, I never was one. I tried to use my influence on his behalf in other areas but he isn't satisfied. That's why he's suing me. Anyway, I regret I ever agreed to help him, it was an error in my personal judgement but I never did anything wrong - except to ponder what to do for too long. In the end I decided I did enough for the money so I kept it, paid taxes on it and will defend myself against his lawsuit." He will use that 'line' to hang the CBC/_Fifth Estate_. 


Edit: inserted "use" in "... he will use that 'line' to hang the CBC ..."


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2007)

I am guessing that Herr Schreiber has disappointed "customers" back in Germany that probably ponied up a lot more cash to Herr Schreiber than he ever offered to Mr. Mulroney or Air Canada or the Liberals.

He sold himself to the Germans as an Agent of Influence.  What if it turns out that Airbus won the contract within the rules of the game (not necessarily fair and square, IRBs and Offsets preclude that possibility)?  Then they didn't have to pay Schreiber.  What if it turns out that Schreiber had no more access to the PM than any Lawyer buying a ticket to a Chretien Garden Party?  Would that suggest that Schreiber sold his "influence" under false pretences, voiding his contract and requiring the return of all funds advanced to him?

Schreiber has to demonstrate to his "employers" that he was working in good faith in their interests.  That seems to be a problem, judging from the German court cases.

The original deal was worth $1,500,000,000 US dollars in 1988 according to the New York Times article  of the day.  It was lucrative enough that Boeing bought the DeHavilland/McDonell-Douglas/Bombardier plant at Malton to secure a better bargaining position (and promptly sold it after the contract was lost).  

So how much was Mr. Schreiber advanced for his services. How much did he spend and where? And to what effect?  How much does he owe his previous employers?

Just Askin'.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Nov 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, if the thing lumbers along, that's the *primary* outcome I expect.
> 
> I believe Mulroney knows there is *nothing* which can even remotely connect him to the $10-20 million Schreiber _*says*_ he passed around to ensure Air Canada bought the Airbus aircraft way back when. But Mulroney will use that 'line' to hang Stevie Cameron, _et al_, including Alan Rock.
> 
> ...



Doesnt that contradict some (or many) of his earlier statements on the subject?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2007)

I think the problem, if there is one, is not with what _Fibber Muldoon_ said, rather it's with what he *didn't* say.

Back when he was suing the government of the day over the _Airbus affair_ he said he knew Schreiber _slightly_ - he never mentioned that he had entered into a $300,000 (cash in brown envelopes) _business_ deal with him.

Now, arguably, since Mulroney must be assumed to have had nothing to do with the Airbus contracts, his other _business_ with Schreiber may not have been germane. Some (mainly journalists) would beg to differ.

I think Mulroney will try to keep the two issues quite separate: Airbus ≠ Schreiber’s $300K. If he can, if there is no relationship, except the slimy Schreiber, then he ‘wins,’ in so far as anyone can ‘win’ anything in the coming fiasco.


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Nov 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... in so far as anyone can ‘win’ anything in the coming fiasco.



A perfect summation of the whole sorry mess.

I'm angry that I'll be paying for this fiasco - is there NOTHING I can do about that?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2007)

If the PM gets his way and the scope is kept very, very narrow (1993 to 1996) then Mulroney is, most likely, _officially_ exonerated even though his all important reputation is ruined ... yet again.

If the terms of reference are as broad as the Liberals want then I'm guessing that mud will fly at random, random with duck and it'll hit Jean Chrétien, Jean Pelletier, Jocelyn Bourgon and Stevie Cameron – and some of it will stick, too. The *rumour mongers* - mainly in the media and in political party offices - will have brought this on themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2007)

This is extracted from an article in today’s _Globe and Mail_:



> Technically, subpoenas issued by a Canadian inquiry have no force in a foreign country, although German authorities can agree to issue similar orders there. Whether that would have an effect on Mr. Schreiber once he is in Germany is another matter, however.
> 
> One legal expert, British Columbia lawyer Gary Botting, said delaying the extradition could allow Mr. Schreiber to evade prosecution – although other experts disagreed.
> 
> ...



There is a contradictory opinion, of course, but if Gary Botting is right then it must be impossible to do anything but let the law take its course: i.e. extradite Schreiber when his appeals are exhausted and hope that the Commissioner can get something useful out of him from his (presumed) German jail cell.


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 Nov 2007)

Well, in my opinion we already have proof that Schreiber is just doing this to stay in the country and now Dion has just proved that the Liberals want a witch hunt not an honest inquiry into the events of 13 years ago.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2007)

Here, as a public service, are extracts from the _Executive Summary_ of the forthcoming *Inquiry into Certain Allegations Surrounding former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney*:

----------

The Inquiry was focused, mainly, on the actions Mr. Mulroney may have taken while in office and subsequent events related to those actions. The Inquiry also dealt with the settlement of Mr. Mulroney’s suit against the Government of Canada regarding Air Canada’s decision to purchase Airbus aircraft. 

There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Mulroney had any involvement in Air Canada’s decision to purchase Airbus aircraft. He did replace the Air Canada Board of Directors with Conservative Party loyalists, but this was fairly normal practice in Canada. Mr. Schreiber alleges that some of the money he paid out must have found its way into Mr. Mulroney’s hands. The Inquiry, while not doubting that there is some truth in some of Mr. Schreiber’s testimony, found that, in the main, it was a tissue of self serving lies. There is no paper trail pointing anywhere near Mr. Mulroney.

With regard to the subsequent RCMP investigations: the Inquiry finds that the investigations were triggered by a politically motivated but decidedly personal ‘suggestion’ of wrongdoing by Ms. Stevie Cameron. The government of the day, especially Messers Chrétien and Rock should have seen Ms. Cameron’s campaign for what it was; that they did not suggests either poor political instincts or an inability to resist a chance to ‘get’ Mr. Mulroney for purely partisan political purposes. In any event the RCMP found no evidence to support any of Ms. Cameron’s false allegations and the Government of Canada, rightfully, apologized and paid Mr. Mulroney’s legal and PR costs.

Although the Inquiry has some doubts about some of Mr. Mulroney’s testimony it is impossible to conclude that he entered into any agreement with Mr. Schreiber *before* he left office in 1993. He did, indeed, meet with Mr. Schreiber at Harrington Lake but he testified that he set aside time for farewell meetings with several people. Weighing the relative credibility of Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber we conclude that there is no evidence that Mr. Mulroney did anything other than, as he said, have a pleasant chat with Mr. Schreiber and agree to meet with him, a few weeks later (after he was no longer Prime Minister of Canada) to discuss possible business deals.

Mr. Mulroney’s political instincts were also poor. In his defence he pointed out that Mr. Schreiber was all well connected charmer and he notes that Herman Chancellor Helmut Kohl was also fooled by Mr. Schreiber – to the detriment of his reputation. Only former Albert Premier Peter Lougheed seems to have seen through Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney, inexplicably, failed to heed his warnings. Mr. Mulroney claims that Mr. Schreiber ingratiated himself by offering a ‘solution’ to a perennial Canadian political problem: Caper Breton economic development. Mr. Schreiber, in the ‘80s, represented _ Thyssen Industries_ and he was touting a plan to build military vehicles in the region. Mr. Mulroney and some of his ministers were interested and that is the origin of the relationship between the two men. Mr. Mulroney admits he found Schreiber a “charming rogue” and, despite continuing failures to produce any useful results, he enjoyed Schreiber’s company and his stories about business, businessmen and politics and politicians.

There is no doubt that Mr. Mulroney accepted cash payments totally $300,000.00 from Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Schreiber’s testimony about the purposes of these payments is troubling but, finally, too tainted to be given any great weight. Mr. Mulroney’s testimony is self serving but, finally, believable. He says that he agreed to “help” Mr. Schreiber with several business dealings. Mr. Mulroney claims that he never intended to lobby ministers or officials in the Government of Canada. It would be, he says (and the Inquiry agrees) quite inappropriate for a former Prime Minister of Canada to do so. That, he says, is why he never registered as a lobbyist. He claims that he planned to help Mr. Schreiber with other “players” in Canadian and global business and with some (not Canadian federal) government leaders. The Inquiry believes that Mr. Schreiber believed otherwise. Inexplicably, he believed that a Progressive Conservative government, headed by Kim Campbell, would be re-elected in 1993. He also believed Brian Mulroney would be his _entrée_ into the “corridors of power” of that government. He was mistaken. What Mr. Mulroney did or did not do to “earn” Mr. Schreiber’s $300,000.00 is a matter to be settled by civil courts.

The Inquiry finds that Mr. Mulroney made significant errors in _*moral* judgement_. He explains that he sacrificed potential earnings in the millions of dollars serve Canada as a politician and that he was eager to start earning money for his family’s future as soon as he left office. The Inquiry accepts that _rationale_ but finds that he erred, grievously, in so doing – with Mr. Schreiber’s brown envelopes stuffed with cash.

The Inquiry finds that Brian Mulroney has brought disrepute to Canadian politics but he did nothing illegal or, even, improper. He displayed poor judgement – political and moral judgement – but that is neither criminal nor even “wrong.”

The Inquiry finds that Karlheinz Schreiber has lied in an effort to frustrate the proper and lawful efforts of the Government of Germany to extradite him.

The Inquiry finds that Jean Chrétien and Alan Rock abused their political power by initiating an unjustified RCMP with hunt based on baseless allegations by Stevie Cameron.

Finally, the Inquiry finds that its own work has been a colossal waste of money. There never was much in these allegations and the Inquiry found little new. Reputations have been tarnished – some deserved to be. Nothing else has been accomplished.


----------



## Greymatters (19 Nov 2007)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Inquiry accepts that _rationale_ but finds that he erred, grievously, in so doing – with Mr. Schreiber’s brown envelopes stuffed with cash.



Nope, nothing suspicious about that.  People give each other cash in envelopes all the time.  Why, just the other day we sent our niece some cash in an envelope...    :


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2007)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Nope, nothing suspicious about that.  People give each other cash in envelopes all the time.  Why, just the other day we sent our niece some cash in an envelope...    :



So what happened to _MY_ envelope?   >


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Nov 2007)

Ummm...Arthur...you have to first win an election.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2007)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ummm...Arthur...you have to first win an election.



 :rage:

Next time, my UN friend.................................


----------



## Boxkicker (26 Nov 2007)

Bane said:
			
		

> I don't have any care for Dion, Mulroney, Harper, Chretien or Dithers. I hope the very small sum of money that this will take nails a whole array of butts to the wall. It is also the oppositions DUTY to throw mud, attack, dig up skeletons and out maneuver the government. All sides do it, it's their job.



  The question is to what does it have to do with the current government, I will tell you what JACKSH*T. So why is that idiot Dion trying to waste more of our money, I know Mulrooney asked for this but it is the Liberals that are trying to get the blood of PM Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2007)

Dion, Duceppe and Layton all hope they can tarnish Harper by trashing Mulroney - a fellow Conservative no matter how much Harper tries to keep him at a distance. That's why we're having the HoC Ethics Committee hearings. Nothing said inside the committee room is subject to libel/slander laws.

But, watch for the _blowback_. I think it will be obvious that Schreiber will be playing the committee as a _ship of fools_ as he endeavours to use it to stay in Canada. Equally, I suspect, Mulroney has many arrows in his quiver and he will do his expert best to blacken everyone in the unholy Bloc-Liberal-NDP _axis_.


----------



## TCBF (27 Nov 2007)

They are about to enter the Lion's cage without a chair.
This is all going to be so much fun to watch!

 ;D


----------

