Modeling Journey

The Cat agrees with Andrew Coyne's view regarding the Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber letter and what was behind it:

"Here’s the relevant section of his testimony, as best I could transcribe it. What did Mulroney promise he would do with the letter, he was asked. To take it to Harper, Schreiber answered.

And what was the outcome of that exchange? “The outcome was the message was very well received.”

There were no guarantees, he was told, and the courts would have to deal with the matter first, but after that the justice minister, Vic Toews, would look into it and “do the right thing.” It was, he said, “a shock” to hear Harper deny on television that he and Mulroney had discussed Schreiber at the meeting.

It could all be a lie, of course: Schreiber lying to the committee, Mulroney lying to him.

It could even be that Harper lied to Mulroney.

But if in fact there were such a deal -- Schreiber’s liberty in exchange for his compliance -- we would have a serious problem on our hands.

That Mulroney was anxious to obtain such a letter is suggested by the reported involvement of Elmer MacKay, the former solicitor general and friend to both Mulroney and Schreiber, in its drafting.

Schreiber claims that Mulroney put MacKay up to it: “he would never have been able to help me if this was not resolved.”

That Harper might wish to be reassured that Schreiber had patched things up with Mulroney is also plausible: we already knew by then about the $300,000 in cash, and it wouldn’t do to have Schreiber making fresh accusations against the former Prime Minister. But that he would offer that the minister of justice would stay his extradition? This cannot be."

http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071129_182431_4620

So Harper's new government has decided to try some new distribution of seats in Parliament, and in doing so, will give Alberta and BC more seats relatively than the biggest province in the country, Ontario.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=ba7addf7-be06-4039-9060-935c50aca99f&k=1292

And Harper's spokesman calls the Premier of Ontario a "small man" for protesting against the dilution of Ontario's democratic rights!

Anyone care to speculate just how many more asymmetrical measures Harper and his boys might have up their sleeves, waiting for the time when they have a majority government?

It seems this man's control of his revolutionary party is starting to slip a bit ...

Still wonder if he does not have a hidden agenda?

If not, then give him a majority and watch what happens: you ain't seen nothing yet.

Good news for those interested in protecting Canada's democratic form of government, and particularly for those seeking to protect and preserve the office of the Prime Minister of Canada (including PM Harper in the latter group): the majority of MPs on the Ethics Committee have voted to call Messrs. Schreiber and Mulroney to appear before them in order to answer questions about the tiff between Schreiber and Mulroney....

Ethics committee calls on Mulroney, Schreiber to testify

The Committee will also ask questions about the role of the Harper government with respect to the Schreiber letters addressed to PM Harper - the Lettergate affair.

The Tory MPs voted against any inquiry by the Ethics Committee into whether any of the rules of ethics - which applied to Mulroney as PM and as MP at the time Schreiber alleges (which allegation is not proven in court) that he cut a deal with Mulroney - were breached.

It is good to see the MPs representing the majority of the voters in Canada cooperate on investigating such a serious matter, especially after their rocky start to such a course.

Canadians might have answers to several serious questions within a week or two, especially as Parliamentary privilege will protect both Mulroney and Schreiber with respect to any statements they make to the Ethics Committee.

It is also good to actually see ethical behaviour taking place in Parliament, as compared to the lip service we seem to have been getting lately from the "new" Tory government.

If anyone wanted to know why PM Harper has muzzled his MPs, just think about what has happened in the past week or so, with Tory MPs opening their mouths on various topics.

First, we have the denial aspect with respect to the Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber fiasco: Nicholson says he doesn't want to talk about it ...

Then we have the "small man" slur of the Premier of the largest province, Ontario, with respect to that Premier's legitimate defence of the interests of Ontarian voters, and fight against a further dilution of their voting rights ...

And now we have Flaherty's brash statement to the cities that his "new" Tory government is "not in the pothole business" ....

Flaherty tells Cities to Shut It « apply-liberally.com

We have news for you, Mr. Harper: you might not consider yourself in the pothole business, but your party surely is in the middle of a sinkhole of voter repulsion right now with these revealing comments of the unseemly side of your "new" government ...

Better enjoy it.

Harper's government is once again offending voters in Ontario. This time the Harper spokesperson, one Peter van Loan, has called the Premier of Canada's largest province a "small man" for defending the electoral rights of that province.

globeandmail.com: McGuinty called small for bid to get better Commons seat deal

A small man, for asking for fairness for Ontario?

A small man, for daring to defend his province, as premier?

A small man, for daring to stand up to the Harper constitutional bullies?

If so, then that "small man" deserves the support of all Ontarians in his fight for justice for Ontarian voters...

And Harper has given Dion a priceless opening for showing that a Liberal government would strive for fairness for ALL voters.

It is time for Dion and his caucus to come out with a Liberal platform of electoral reform of the House of Commons, including the introduction - after a plebiscite with a majority of 55% in favour - of proportional representation in some form or other.

Go for it, Dion.

Make Canada a fairer place.

Remember the three monkeys? The one shuts its eyes so that it cannot see; the other shuts its mouth so that it cannot speak; and the third plugs its ears so that it cannot hear anything?

Did the Harper government decide on a three-monkey strategy with respect to the Mulroney-Schreiber relationship? Seems that Stephane Dion is wondering it this happened, based on his call for the inquiry into Schreiber's latest allegations in the now famous Schreiber affidavit (which do doubt made Harper swear as well):

"In the letter, Dion asked Johnston to include the following:

The management, follow-up and response to correspondence sent by Schreiber to Harper, his staff and members of his cabinet;

The Department of Justice's decision not to proceed with an internal examination into the possibility of setting aside the Government of Canada's settlement with Mulroney;

The possibility of conversations or correspondence between the current Prime Minister or any of his staff or cabinet ministers, and Mulroney or his representatives, relating to this file; and

The possible politicization of the process surrounding Mr. Schreiber's extradition case."

See CTV.ca Dion wants Harper's office included in inquiry

Justice Minister Nicholson has an answer for one of Dion's questions:

"But in 2006, senior Justice Department officials explored the possibility of re-opening the settlement after news reports revealed that German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber paid Mr. Mulroney $300,000 in cash, and related some of Mr. Schreiber's version of events.

"Research would be required to evaluate whether this new element justifies any attempt to set aside the settlement," Brian Saunders, then assistant deputy minister of justice, wrote in a Feb. 14, 2006 e-mail obtained by the CBC under the Access to Information Act.

Yesterday, Mr. Nicholson would not say what happened to that effort, or whether he was briefed on it.

"What information, what advice, what papers and letters that we have within the Department of Justice are in the form, generally of legal advice, and I treat them as such.
"And I don't get into a discussion [of that]," he said.

"I don't discuss what I get briefings on. I get briefings every single day in my capacity as Attorney-General and Justice Minister of this country." "

See globeandmail.com: Ottawa tight-lipped on Mulroney settlement review

But all is not lost. Perhaps the Ethics Committee might be able to explore some of the issues should it decide to call Mulroney and Schreiber to appear before it within the next two weeks - a kind of gift for conspiracy political junkies, no doubt:

"A parliamentary committee is debating a motion Tuesday to summon the two deal-makers in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair to state their cases before the probe into the corruption charges even opens.

While it has yet to be decided how the public inquiry will be framed, the House of Commons ethics committee wants to call former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney and German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber as witnesses as soon as possible."

See Schreiber, Mulroney could be called to testify ahead of inquiry

This story - that of Envelopgate and of Lettergate - is not over by a long long shot ...

The Liberal Party has tabled a motion calling for an examination of the strange case of the "missing" letters sent by Karlheinz Schreiber to Prime Minister Harper:

"Therefore, the Liberal Opposition today put forward a motion to Parliament stating: That, in view of the fact that the Terms of Reference provided to Dr. David Johnston in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair may not provide the scope for Dr. Johnston to consider many serious and important matters, including the actions of the current government, this Committee undertake to study the handling of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair by the government of Canada between January 2006 and present. Mr. Thibault criticized the Prime Minister’s attempt to evade scrutiny by placing restrictions on the terms of reference for a full public inquiry. “For a man who claims he knew nothing about Mr. Mulroney’s involvement with Mr. Schreiber, it seems strange that he is so determined to prevent any public investigation into his possible involvement in the affair,” said Mr. Thibault."

Liberal.ca :: Media Releases

This is the correct thing to do, and Dion and his caucus should be congratulated on not letting this issue die. If there is a "parallel government" making decisions of the kind which were made regarding the serious allegation in the Schreiber letters, then the Canadian public needs to know who is making those decisions, what criteria they are using (the interests of Canada, or of a political party), when they made the decision, and why the Prime Minister was not advised of these significant decisions.

Congratulations!

Talk about bombshells!

The Harper-Mulroney-Schreiber saga just gets better and better!

No former PM Mulroney has been reported to call on Harper to skip the preliminary independent advisor part and go for a full public enquiry!!!

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/275877


" Mulroney said he will meet with the adviser but he will come to that meeting with a message.
"I have come to the conclusion that in order to finally put this matter to rest and expose all the facts and the role played by all the people involved, from public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to police authorities, as well as journalists, the only solution is for the government to launch a full-fledged public commission of inquiry," he said in a statement.

The statement was read to The Canadian Press by longtime spokesman Luc Lavoie."

With the NDP, LPC and now Mulroney calling for a full public enquiry, why should PM Harper not do it?

It would clear the air, give Mulroney and Schreiber a chance to say their say to the enquiry, and perhaps enlighten the Canadian public as to just what in hell has been going on in Ottawa over the years with the Tory governments ..

The Cat supports Brian on this one!

Today we had a sharp-edge contrast placed before the voters of Canada: a Prime Minister assailed by the Premier of the largest province for turning his back on the problems of Canadian municipalities, and the leader of the Liberal Party unveiling the principles of the Liberal Party's policy on poverty.

What a contrast!

A man who prefers tax cuts to helping the municipalities to cope with their funding crisis, versus a man who has given the voters a commitment to reduce poverty, with set targets and within a set timeframe, and who is prepared to be held accountable by voters for not reaching those targets.

Accountable. That word which Stephen Harper bandies about, but does not necessarily actually apply in his own life.

This is what the Liberal Party should be doing: setting out practical policies, letting voters know what it means to have a Liberal government in Ottawa.

Now we need some more, Mr. Dion. Let's have one on the problem of global warming, with timeframes and hard targets for emissions reductions. Look at what Prime Minister Brown is thinking of doing back in merry olde England ...

A very good start, indeed. One worthy of congratulations by all Liberals.