Modeling Journey

Barbara Yaffe ends the year of 2007 with her column today about political challenges in 2008. She describes Bob Rae as a "cunning politician", and touches on one area which could be a huge political bonanza for the Liberals, and another which still poses problems for the LPC.

First, about Rae's political cunning:

" Which means Canadians will be charged with choosing new MPs either next spring or fall.

That, of course, is bound to clarify the situation for the beleaguered Grit leader. Worthy and earnest as Dion is, if he cannot catch a wave in coming months, he is likely to surf right into oblivion.

And in the coming year his most significant rival may prove to be, not deputy leader Michael Ignatieff, but Bob Rae. The one-time NDP leader, by 2008, will be more welcome within the Liberal ranks. And, as an orator, as a cunning politician, as an endearing sort, Rae has it over Ignatieff."

Then she talks of the issue with is ripe for the Liberals to use:

" Domestically, Ontario is well positioned to keep peddling the message in 2008 that it has become the piñata of Confederation.

Prospects are excellent for continuation of a major fuss over federal legislation that will shortchange Ontario by 20 seats as part of a shift of MP numbers in the Commons.

That issue, and pressure on Ontario's manufacturing sector, resulting from a strengthened loonie, will enable Ontario to cry poor with some legitimacy."

Yaffe is right: Ontario is a blind spot in the mirror of PM Harper, probably because he has never spent enough time in a big city to understand big city dynamics. His policies towards Ontario and the big cities of Canada are of death-wishian magnitude.

He and his fellow right wing "new" Tories just don't get that province, or big cities.

And that opens a big hole for the Liberals in the next election, if they are prepared to pounce on this issue and ride it all the way to a majority government.

But it will take more than simply admonishing the Tories for their bias; it will be necessary for the Liberals to offer Ontarians an alternative which means most Ontarian voters will choose the Liberal policy rather than the Tory one.

Liberals will have to spell out exactly what they want with respect to Parliamentary reform, and how this will benefit Ontario (fairness benefits that province), and affect the rest of the country.

Finally, the weakest spot in Liberal policies:

" The one confederation constant in 2008, of course, will be a continued attempt to appease Quebec."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=e4500ee9-6300-4201-b645-906d23f9eadb

It is in this area particularly that the Liberal Party as a whole - and not just Bob Rae - will need the utmost "political cunning". Despite having a leader from Quebec, the Liberal Party has no discernible traction in that province, and seems locked into a small Anglophone ghetto, with the mainstream Francophone constituency simply ignoring it.

The Liberals can form a government even with limited support from Quebec, but it is not politically healthy to have such poor drawing power in such a large province.

Fresh from decking the halls with boughs and holly, Canadians are now being asked to clear the decks to end Harper's folly. Stephane Dion says the "psychological" threshold (two years of minority government) has now been reached, and he feels Canadians are ready to go to the polls again this year.

Of course, it takes three to tango for this minority government to fall, and so the views of the other two opposition parties are equally important.

Jack Layton, fresh from quaffing eggnog, says he is ready for battle. Stuck in the polls at around 15%, with the Greens nipping at his heels, Layton now has a slightly different take on what voters will do. Right now, he says, the polls cannot be taken to reveal what the intention of Canadian voters are. Voters are "parking their intentions". I guess he hopes that they will slip their votes into first gear come election day, make a sharp left turn, avoid the Greens, and once again "lend" him their votes...

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/289170

Fat chance. Layton helped Harper bring down the Liberal government because he threw the dice, and lost. He thought he would end up with enough votes to be a player, the tail that would wag the Tory dog, but this did not happen. Having lent him their votes once before, voters are more likely to dock his tail and vote Liberal.

And the Bloc?

They are poring over a delayed Christmas shopping list, busily writing down a long, long list of goodies which they will present to Santa Stephen. We are for sale, says the sign they are preparing. Pay our price, and you can stay in power ...

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=35165e66-4936-4f0c-a029-05ea35f06a4d&k=50403

So, what will Santa Stephen do?

He has enough cash on hand compared to the Tories and Dippers to allow his party to swamp the others with TV blitzes come election time, but he must be a bit discouraged about the inability of the Reform Party in the Tory wolf clothes to persuade more than about 30% of Canadians to vote for them. Even worse, a lot of Tory votes are wasted votes under the first past the post voting system, because they have a huge chunk clustered in their rightwing bastion of Alberta, with much sparser penetration elsewhere in the country.

His best bet will be to hope that he can survive another year, and see what that brings. The risk is that the front bench of the Liberals is suddenly awash with talent once the by elections take place in March, and he will find it heavy going to best the formidable Liberal team he will face in Parliament later this year. His fear of the Liberal bench could stampede him into an early election, hoping to win a minority government with another 2 years grace ...

However, Harper is Harper, and he is the smartest man in the room, so the Cat thinks that he will be paying a lot of attention to the shopping list the Bloc is going to hand to him early in the new year, and give them most of what they want, so that he can cling to power for another six to twelve months.

Isn't it funny how Harper is faced in the new year with a cornucopia of advice from his outside advisers: some advice on Afghanistan, a little bit of advice from an independent adviser on the festering sore of the Airbus years which is gnawing at the foundation of Canada's democracy, and lastly, some advice from the Bloc on that to put in his budget.

Study those three pieces of advice well, Santa Stephen, because any one of them could bring down your government and relegate to a footnote in Canadian history.

Greg MacArthur in the October 31 Globe & Mail gives a very interesting summary of the relationship between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber. He says this about one of the visits Schreiber says he had with Mulroney (Schreiber's allegations have not been proven in a court of law):

" Feb. 2, 1998: Mr. Mulroney meets Mr. Schreiber in a private suite in Zurich. Mr. Schreiber says that Mr. Mulroney wanted to know if there was any evidence that could connect him to the cash payments."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071030.wmulroneytimeline1031/BNStory/National

The Committee should explore with Schreiber details of the private suite, in preparation for its questioning of Mulroney.

For example: where was it? Whose suite is it? What floor? What room? How long did they stay there? How long was Mulroney in Zurich during that visit? Who else was there? Did Mulroney travel alone? Was there anybody at the front door - or any guestbook that needed to be signed? What else did they talk about? What exactly was said at that meeting? Who set it up? How was it set up?

Oh, and perhaps the Committee could also explore with both Schreiber and Mulroney exactly what was said at these other meetings:

" June 25, 1993: Mr. Mulroney's last day as Prime Minister.

July 27, 1993: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $100,000 from his Swiss bank account — a Canadian funds account coded 'Britan.'

Aug. 27, 1993: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at a Montreal airport hotel and gives him $100,000 cash.

August, 1993: Mr. Mulroney rejoins his old law firm of Ogilvy Renault.

Nov. 3, 1993: Mr. Schreiber withdraws another $100,000 from 'Britan'

Nov. 11, 1993: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at the Queen Elizabeth Hotel's Gold Key Lounge and gives him $100,000

July 21, 1994: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $50,000 from 'Britan'

Nov. 21, 1994: Mr. Schreiber withdraws $50,000 from 'Britan'

Dec. 8, 1994: Mr. Schreiber meets with Mr. Mulroney at the Pierre Hotel in New York City where he gives Mr. Mulroney $100,000."

The Committee should pay particular attention to the conversations these two men had at these hotels.

How long did they talk? What topics did they discuss? Did either man refer to any reason why Schreiber was handing over wads of cash to the former prime minister? Did they discuss the pasta business in detail? What exactly did each man say about the pasta business? What exactly did each man say about other projects Mulroney was to work on? Did they discuss the progress of any transactions? What was said? Who else was present? Who set up the meetings?

The Committee needs these kinds of details because the Schreiber - Mulroney relationship is at the stage of a He said/He said point counterpoint dialogue; details are one of the ways to help the Committee decide where the truth might lie, given the conflicting statements.

And whether there are others who might corroborate the story of either man.

There is a lot of speculation about just how much was paid in commissions for the sale of aircraft by Airbus to Air Canada, who was paid a commission, whether these were cash payments or deposits into bank accounts, what bank accounts were involved, and other issues.

Schreiber did not really answer questions asked on Thursday about what payments he made during his dealings regarding several matters, nor did he name any names.

The attached article covers some ground as per Macleans of those heady days when the RCMP was sued by Mulroney for sending a request to the Swiss regarding certain accounts they thought were being opened for the purposes of commissions being paid. In the article, reference is made to several people, and to several banks.

The article quotes Mulroney's assertions at the time that he did not influence Air Canada in the decision to purchase any aircraft from Airbus:

" Mulroney's dramatic action followed a series of media inquiries and reports last week. First, on Thursday, Maclean's sent a letter containing detailed questions about Mulroney's alleged involvement in the Airbus scandal to his Montreal law office. The next day, his lawyer, Fred Kaufman, issued a statement to the magazine saying that the former prime minister flatly denied any wrongdoing. "Mr. Mulroney states unequivocally that he did not in any way influence or try to influence Air Canada's decision to purchase aircraft made by Airbus," Kaufman wrote. "Nor was he ever a party to any agreement to influence this decision or to receive any consideration, directly or indirectly, for so doing." The statement went on: "Mr. Mulroney states unequivocally that he does not now have, nor did he ever have, directly or indirectly, a bank account in any foreign country.""

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010517

Perhaps the Ethics Committee should read the article, talk to the journalists who wrote it, and consider calling the persons named in the article.

The article also mentions some speculation by a German newspaper that the commissions made for various transactions might have reached $46 million. It also mentions - but does not name - a "former business partner of Schreiber's" who gave the RCMP information about bank accounts. Be interesting to find out who that person was, and whether he or she is available for questioning by the Ethics Committee.

The article also contains this very interesting quote from Frank Moores (which Schreiber might not agree with, perhaps the Committee could ask him about it?):

" Moores also denied that he ever lobbied for Airbus, a statement he has made several times since 1988. "There is not a darn thing that I can say at this time except to say what I've said for - what, two or three years now - that is, that it is totally inaccurate," he said."

The article has some information on Moores stint on the Air Canada board:

" In March, 1985, Mulroney fired the entire Air Canada board of directors and replaced them with a group that contained many of his political associates, including Moores. When news reports revealed in July, 1985, that Moores was lobbying for other airlines, he was forced to drop them as clients. But a few weeks later, he was also forced to leave the Air Canada board because of his involvement with the Airbus consortium, which was then seeking the Air Canada contract. It was that same year that Airbus signed the contract with IAL. Then, in 1986, with the deal done between Airbus and IAL, Schreiber and Moores opened the two bank accounts in Zurich."

Interesting reading that old article by Stevie Cameron. I wonder when she will appear before the Ethics Committee?

Karlheinz Schreiber does not give clear answers to questions; that we know now. But sometimes, hidden deep inside his rambling answers, we might spot nuggets which might be gold ...

One of the central issues facing the Ethics Committee is whether two prime ministers of Canada, Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper, met at Harrington Lake, and discussed what to do about a Canadian who was facing extradition.

Schreiber says he wrote a letter to Harper which he gave to Mulroney to hand deliver to the PM at Harrington Lake. He is on record as saying that he was told that the letter was indeed handed over or discussed with Harper, and that he was to wait until after the court case dealing with his extradition before, perhaps, the Minister of Justice would do something.

Harper denied receiving the letter from Mulroney. He also denied having received any messages from Mulroney on behalf of Schreiber. It seems that he also denied having discussed Schreiber at all during that Harrington Lake meeting.

Schreiber was shocked by Harper's statement, because he was told - by a nameless "friend", according to Schreiber's Tuesday testimony - that his plight was indeed discussed between Harper and Mulroney.

http://davidakin.blogware.com/Dec_2004_ETHI_BLUES.doc

What work awaits the Ethics Committee in order to clarify and resolve the issue?

Simply this: ask Schreiber who the "friend" was, then call that person and explore under oath - in proper detail - the conversation that friend had with Schreiber, the reasons why the friend made those statements, if they were made, and where the friend got the information from ...