Travel plans...

Maybe we need to send him to Poland, via a long plane ride, with no food or water...then point out to the Polish border control officers and police that he's from Canada upon arrival?

Order of Canada

If we do manage to convict Mulroney of purjery, can we also retract the Order of Canada that was awarded to him. I almost puked when he was awarded that honor.

lets get hangin' judge Simms into it

Lets try Mulroney in the kangaroo court of a parliamentary committee and have him sue us and win again... boy some people just never learn by their mistakes.

"all I could think was well, shouldn't Mulroney also be in jail," TTTT

"Cry me a river - this guy was shady every moment he was PM " G West

"I'd like rich fat cats to pay the back taxes and late penalties on illegally gotten gains " Sharingisgood

"The whole goddamn country is on the take.""
Grumpy

And who ever said due process was important when dealing with those you don't like! Its one thing to dislike Mulroney and his policies, its a whole other matter to prove wrongdoing , and if its wrongdoing we are looking for, the committee is the last way of finding any. Its a bunch of politicians looking to score brownie points under parliamentary immunity from libel.

Schreiber is making fools of our opposition parties.

Daveyy said,

Daveyy said, and if its wrongdoing we are looking for, the committee is the last way of finding any. Its a bunch of politicians looking to score brownie points under parliamentary immunity from libel.

Daveyy, your probably a decent sort of guy, but, you know not what your talking about, in regards to this ethics committee.

Davyy

Perhaps you'd like to explain why there were dozens of Mulroney appointees investated and charged during the 90s and why, without certain changes that the Mulroney government itself made, there would have been a lot more.

Actually, I think the committee is a clunky way to go at this problem but Harper hasn't left anyone much choice now has he? Perhaps David Johnson will do the right thing and suggest the appointment of a Special Prosecutor with complete independence to charge anyone and everyone who should be charged on the basis of a full-scale investigation.

On the other hand, a lot of people forget David Johnson was also a Mulroney appointment too when he chaired the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy.

But then Nicholson too was once a Mulroney appointee and should have recused himself at the start.

Not Schreiber, I'm afraid

Schreiber didn't make anybody anything. If Mr Mulroney took money improperly, or lied through his teeth that was, sorry to say, just who the guy really was.

The following Liberals who "spent" $2B on a handful of computers and useless software, then even more millions on a few hundred thousand dollars worth of cheap publicity.

The various provincial ministers who found more important places to be and people to do as their aides come to trial.

All the tawdry cheap stories that circulate everywhere except in Asper's journals, these just reflect who these people really are.

Nobody makes you crooked. You either are or you aren't.

Fools they may be, but not Schreiber's fools particularly. Just plain old poor fools, full stop. It must feel very bad to come to realize that you sold your honour so cheap to people like these.

Daveyy

I think you need to carefully reread all of my last post.

Also, I think that it is pretty evident to all who have been watching the MSM news, Mulroney has been talking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to what he has done with, (and taken from) Schreiber. There has to be a lie in there somewhere, and it is too late to cover it up. I've never trusted Mulroney since the first day I saw and heard him.

west

who is this?

There was an André Harvey but I don't think he made cabinet.

Andre, Harvie (mispelled his first name R/Man)

Andre, from Edmonton, was appointed to the Cabinet after the 1984 election. He was Minister of Supply and Services until 1985 when he became Associate Minister of National Defence. From 1986 to 1989, he was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and then Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion until 1990. In addition, in 1987 Mulroney gave Andre responsibility for the then Canadian Post Office Department.

During the final three years of the Mulroney government, Andre was Government House Leader. He did not run for re-election in 1993.

Or was that

Before your time R/man?

If you really want to get into chapter and verse...that can certainly be arranged.

Airbus

Here's a different take, from a column I wrote in the Globe and Mail last month:

In November of 2003, three days after William Kaplan broke the story of Karlheinz Schreiber's cash payments to Brian Mulroney in this newspaper, I happened to meet Stephen Harper in Victoria. The pain and bewilderment on his face when – before we had even sat down – he asked what he should say publicly suggests The Globe and Mail had not “buried the lead” – as some have contended in explaining why the astonishing news quickly fizzled out.

I demurred from offering any advice, of course. And shortly thereafter, having given a sworn statement to the RCMP about one of the three projects in the so-called Airbus affair with which I had been involved as chief of staff to Mr. Mulroney, I agreed to contribute an afterword to Mr. Kaplan's book. That book, too, quickly disappeared from the radar screen.

Here's why.

With the National Post's having killed what would have been an extraordinary scoop, Mr. Kaplan's book ended up being ignored by most CanWest newspapers. In Quebec, Mr. Mulroney has always enjoyed the benefit of the doubt, as well as the support of influential friends in command of major chunks of the media. In Ottawa, many reporters were looking for reasons not to write about the book, having been embarrassed that Mr. Kaplan, a lawyer, had broken a story that, by inference, made them out to have been duped when the Chrétien government forked over $2.1-million to settle Mr. Mulroney's libel suit.

And to top it off, Mr. Kaplan was even ignored by CBC programs that make it a practice to interview Canadian authors – perhaps because of misplaced sympathy for the second target of his book, journalist Stevie Cameron, who, it was later confirmed, had been a confidential informant in the RCMP's investigation.

[url=http://]http://members.shaw.ca./nspector3/globe309.htm

Airbus

Here's the follow-up column

[url=http://]http://members.shaw.ca./nspector3/globe310.htm

Agreed completely - the fact Mulroney spent hours

The fact that Mulroney spent hours every week on the phone with William Thorsell didn't hurt his status at the Globe either.

I've often wondered, Norman, if the story in Stevie Cameron's book about how distracted Brian was when his staff asked him to deal with policy briefings was true?

You know the one about reducing the heavy sledding to a few cartoons with the 'not suggested' options marked with an "X".

very intelligent people on this panel

I think people in general are going to be quite pleased with the ethics committee. There are some very intelligent people on the panel. e.g. MP Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont. Quebec. I agree with G West, the Conservatives forced this committees hand with their antics, stalling, additionally their lack of action on the prevention of Schreibers deportation to Germany. This ethics committee, will not interfere with the possible up coming inquiry, if anything it will enhance it.

that second column by Mr Spector

was quite surprising - first because I did not expect Norman to be ao upfront about a former colleague and even more so for

2. Why the hell didn't anyone else in the so-called mainstream media make such an obvious point - make a deal with herr schreiber - and why did so many of them also want it swept under the rug as being "ibnt hte past" or "not significant to the current gov" or "he's making dupes of parliament"

pathetic

Spector did everyone here a great service with that column..

but that doesn't give him a free pass on everything....

Norman, Norman

I knows you is impotent, I mean important. However, even you, yep you, could learn a little bit about the internet and URLs and links. Really it won't hurt, and you will still be important. Like either write the URL out correctly, so someone can past it in to the address bar, or actually create a live link, don't pretend to do both.

BTW, Norm, do you think more people saw your column here than at the Gob and Maul? I wouldn't have seen it there, though I do allow myself to read your columns when Canned Waste prints them here on the best coast. That is when I bother to even look at Canned Waste and notice that you are even there.

Just cause you know lots, don't mean you know it all - after all you were a top aide to a major sleaze ball - do you feel tempted to leave that part off your resume???!!!

(No subject)

LOL

Its a simple cut and paste, kootcoot. Get over it.

It makes me laugh to see Mulroney defenders or those who take offense to criticizm against an an obvious liar in court and a just as obvious defrauder of 2.1 million from the federal government... plus interest... not to mention, taking bribes while in public office.

Rafe, after all, makes an excellent point. He should be paying it back and doing time for his "white collar crime".

And was Mulroney any less crooked with ADM and his 30 plus directorships for "this that and other" and a "few cups of coffee?"

Nice input, Norman and G ;-)

Charge Molroney and others

Looking for bribery? We should start from investigating loss of billions od dollars during the watch Trudeau as Petrofina-PetroCanada ex-dividends fiasco, Hotel loans to Chretien, "sponsoring" - money laundering by Martin and fast ferries of Glen Clark, following the money would uncover thieves from all political spectrum with Socialists leading the pack.

Mulroney - Schreiber Redux

Why am I not suprised to find our Brian was lyin' about how close he was to Schreiber.

Once a crook, always a crook.

Too bad Mulroney will never be held to account on Canadian soil and Schreiber will be deported back to Germany where he will be held to account for his crimes perpetrated there.

I'm certain more read him on the Globe, kootcoot

than here.

mULBALONEY

WHAT A SHAME, A SHAM AND A SLAM BAM - the very man that the conservatives want to get rid of Schrieber will end up, disgracing them all who like Mulroney lied, deceived and did a wink wink, nudge nudge and thought all would be well - boy did they misjudge that man in ornage with handcuffs who came to let Canada know what really happened when Brian put his hand into the cookie jar - Harper's conservatives are in big trouble - Baloney did them in!

Frank Magazine and Muldoon

It's great to see Muldoon's face all over the "unreal" news.
After years of reading about this story in Frank Magazine, I've almost forgotten his real name. Frank has a continual sidebar on Page 2 listing number of days Mulroney is still unindicted.

I remember coming home from working overseas, a friend asked if the police over there needed bribing. After hearing No, he said that "They must have the high up corruption like here".

I hope this story keeps its legs, it will validate Frank as a real news source, maybe even sell some subscriptions for them.

Corrupt politicians

are easy to find -- they're a dime a dozen, as Yogi Berra might have said. And people like KarlHeinz Schreiber are the experts who can sniff them out, like pigs find truffles in the woods.

And isn't it strange, to say the least, that the slightest smell of corruption can bring the conservatives boiling out of the woodwork to defend their boys by the simple-minded expedient of exposing the clay feet worn by liberals and socialists. Sort of like the Wizard of Oz telling Dorothy to "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, pulling all the levers!"

Everyone in politics plays the game by his own rules, the same as posters here do. The difference is simple - the socialist goes for the best deal for the community, the liberal goes for 'balance,' and the conservative blesses the crowd while filling his own pockets.

As for myself, I would rather have a politician chokehold me in a face-to-face confrontation, than have a shiv slipped neatly between my ribs when my back is turned. $2million plus.

Mulcair an example ??

"There are some very intelligent people on the panel. e.g. MP Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont. Quebec. " Woody

You are obviously not from Quebec where the jury is still out on Tom "let the limelight shine on me" Mulcair, he has a record of zero accomplishments vs. a very large vocabulary of politically correct saying the right things. Mulcair is the example of whats wrong with trying Mulroney in the three ring circus passing for a parliamentary committee. He is throwing mud around hoping it will fall somewhere and he will get the credit for destroying an enemy of the NDP.

Example: Mulcair to Schreiber: " Did you ever pay any money to former LIBERAL minister Marc Lalonde? A: " yes he was my lawyer" QED Lalonde is just as bad as Mulroney, another crook ( not of the NDP).

And you are telling me that this committee will get to the bottom of things, don't make me laugh, Schreiber will make a monkey out of Mulcair, just watch. Oh , and while you are praising him, just go ask the people of Orford Quebec what legacy Mulcair left them when he was minister of the environment. The answer just might make you reflect.

I think this, from Canwest, is far more to the point Daveyy

Schreiber is being humiliated: lawyer
Mike De Souza, CanWest News Service
Published: Monday, December 03, 2007

Karlheinz Schreiber's lawyer says federal politicians are trying to humiliate his client while the federal government attempts to ship him out of the country as fast as possible.

"The notion that [Schreiber] was taken from Toronto to Ottawa in an orange jumpsuit, not only in handcuffs but in leg irons is really unpardonable," lawyer Edward Greenspan said in an interview on CTV's Question Period yesterday.

"I was very distressed at watching him going into his home the other day and his pants fell down. His pants fell down because he can't have a belt, because they think he's going to commit suicide, which is the furthest thing from the truth."

Schreiber is believed to be the star witness in a public inquiry that could be called in 2008 regarding his relationship with former prime minister Brian Mulroney. The inquiry could also re-examine the federal government's $2.1-million settlement with Mulroney in the mid 1990s for damaging his reputation. Mulroney has admitted that he accepted $300,000 in cash payments from Schreiber after leaving office.

But Greenspan added that he was disturbed after federal MPs grilled Schreiber and attempted to score political points in a circus-like atmosphere at a parliamentary committee. He also questioned why Schreiber is being forced to ask the courts to delay his extradition to face charges in Germany when there have been 45 other Canadian cases in recent years where this was not required.

"The minister of justice (Rob Nicholson) is doing everything in his power to make sure he's not here for a public inquiry," Greenspan said. "This is not Nicholson's government, it's [Prime Minister Stephen] Harper's government. So it strikes me that Mr. Harper has to be behind this. On the one hand, they say they want an inquiry, on the other hand they want to get him out of here as fast as they can."

It's not just people here at Tyee and in the committee who are saying these things my friend.

The disconnect between normal practice and what Pee Wee is trying to do in this case is bizarre.

jail him any way

...just for placing the country in debt so deep it'll never be paid off !
He's such an arrogant bas****.

Rafe

Rafe is right, Mulroney lied about his relationship with Schreiber in order to get $2.1 million from Canada. Even right-wingers should admit he's a crook instead of ignoring that lie and trying to make bizarre claims that what he did was fine.

G West, this is way more to the point

"It was a principle agreement that we work together but at that day it was completely unfair for me to say anything else -- we did not speak about money," Schreiber told the committee.

He later denied that he paid Mulroney a kickback in the Airbus deal.

So why are we going through all of this again, seems like its case closed to me. All the Mulroney haters on this blog will have to invent another imaginary scandal , but I hope the government will stop wasting my money on chasing shadows.

Daveyy

I could use $2.1 million too, feel free to send it to me via PayPal anytime.

Frank

I guess you will just have to be falsely accused of some crime, publicly and clumsily investigated by the RCMP and then get yourself an expensive lawyer and PR firm ( thats where the 2.1 M went) to sue the government.

Daveyy

And also lie to a judge and say I had no relationship with a guy aside from a cup of coffee, including not taking $300,000 in cash from him.

If Mulroney isn't charged I think its safe to assume government will strike the crime of perjury from the books.

Frank

Assuming he lied( rather than omitted to mention) about receiving payment for services rendered that had nothing to do with Airbus, why would we get our money back for falsely prosecuting him. According to Schreiber, the two were unrelated.

Do we need a royal commission to charge someone for perjury?

In any event, Schreiber is suing BM for not having done anything for the $300k, how could he then maintain that BM actually did something for the money?

Daveyy

It doesn't matter if the lie had anything to do with Airbus, he perjured himself and benefitted from doing so.

After all, how would we know whether we were falsely checking up on him since he lied about the dealings in question?

Omitted to mention

Daveyy, the whole inquiry was about those payments...'omitting to mention' is just a little bizarre under those circumstances.

What I think REALLY happened is that Brian thought he had Karlheinz in a box in his corner and he could, very carefully and with malice a forethought, parse the questions in such a way that he appeared NOT to be lying. Lawyers do that kind of thing – it’s part of their training – if not their philosophy.

And the rest of his friends and enablers - so used to doing what the "Boss" wanted - just simply went along with it.

A few didn't and a few told the truth ...you might want to do a little refresher course on the Mulroney years. From sending condolences to the Indian government for the Air India tragedy (when the vast majority of victims were Canadians) to the way he played media whore to CNN for Larry King when Yeltsin met Clinton in Vancouver - Brian only ever cared about one thing...and that was Brian. We need to clean out the refrigerator – this stuff is rotten.

If you're interested I'll prepare a reading list for you.

G West

Its quite obvious by your numerous posts that you hate Mulroney and everything he has done, its your opinion and you are quite entitled to it. Far be it for me to try and convince you of the contrary, my only comment is opinions are not facts. We don't prosecute individuals based on opinions.

I didn't see or hear anything that would make me spend taxpayer money to further prosecute Mulroney, least of all an expensive commission of inquiry. Thats my opinion based on known facts.

Cheers

Oh really...

... why does anyone think this is news. What is news, only, is that someone somehow, found a way to get this into the media oligarchy. And that happened not because of the truth of the matter, but because a snake wanted in Germany spewed enough poison to fill the opposition erectile tissue with enough blood to engage in the phony outrage we are subjected to on the T. Parson's editorial hour. That the corporate media played this long enough for Herr Schrieber to have his 15 minutes is the only story here. The Canuck public information system is in worse shape than that of our friends to the south.

Daveyy

Nothing could be further from the truth.

a) I don't hate Mulroney, hate is an irrational emotion and my analysis of his record is, I believe, entirely rational.
b) I've pointed out to you several examples of why I think Mulroney is and has been:
(1)Dissembling, dishonest and greedy;
(2)An exceedingly poor leader;
(3)A bad manager
c) I've offered (and given in short form) several examples of what I think the former Prime Minister has to answer for; and
d) I've offered to provide you with a list of books, which will provide ample information to support what I've said. That is, FACTS.
e) In the long run, the real victim of Mulroney’s approach to politics (which was certainly only different from what the Liberals had done except for degree and pervasiveness – in my view) is the Canadian people.

Because of Mr. Mulroney’s fixation upon himself the whole edifice of the Progressive Conservative party was eviscerated and we now have, lurching across the national stage, a kind of Golem or homunculus which has arisen under Stephen Harper to take its place.

I happen to have deep prairie roots and while I’m proud to call myself a left winger, I’m not afraid to say that there are many good things – especially from a prairie point of view that came from that party – not least of which Mr. Justice Emmett Hall’s Commission on Universal Health Care, Kenneth Carter’s Commission on Taxation – being the two most important.

I think we need a real conservative party in this country – partly because it would force the liberals to be honest about what they believe and partly because I think that, especially in times when we are in danger of losing site of certain fundamental values about this country as a whole. I think confronting the reality of what Brian Mulroney did during his years in power (and since) as an influential person in this country is an important prerequisite to moving on.

For your part there has been a consistent refusal to engage with any of this material and a near constant recitation of a refrain which amounts to 'I don't care what the facts are - I don't want to spend any taxpayer money on this and, as quickly as I can I'll change the subject to something else.'

That is, as far as I can tell and as fairly as I can explain it to you how I see the issue.

Now, if you want that list of books, let me know - otherwise, let's drop the subject.

I don’t think, in all honesty, I could be much clearer.

Daveyy

You're a big fan of Mulroney, hate hearing how he took $300,000 in cash from a guy he wasn't working for, hate hearing about how he then lied about it when he sued Canada for $2 million.

I have no problem with that. But somehow I don't think you'd be so sure this needs to be swept under the rug if he wasn't an ex Conservative PM.

Bias

I concur, Frank. Daveyy must have voted for Mulroney in the past or something and could never come to terms with being wrong in voting for a man who took $300 thousand in cash from a corporate lobbyist due to his position as a politician, and then lying about it to defraud the Canadian taxpayers of $2.1 million dollars!

I sure wish I had 2.1 million bucks right about now... but I'm not going to steal from the average Canadian for it with lies. Minimize it, deny it, call it unimportant, not worth pursuing, defame it, smear it, or whatever else Daveyy wants to do with it, but Rafe's point is very well noted. Mulroney lied to defraud our nation of 2.1 million dollars and he should pay it back and face charges for purgery.

Er...

its spelt "perjury". :-)

Norman Spector's input!

BTW, Norm, do you think more people saw your column here than at the Gob and Maul? I wouldn't have seen it there, though I do allow myself to read your columns when Canned Waste prints them here on the best coast. That is when I bother to even look at Canned Waste and notice that you are even there.

Just cause you know lots, don't mean you know it all - after all you were a top aide to a major sleaze ball - do you feel tempted to leave that part off your resume???!!! Kootcoot

The things we have to put up with when we have to be ourselves and tell it like it is.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071129/spector_schreiber_071129?s_name=&no_ads=

Norman Spector, being a top aide to Brian Mulroney, seems like a good witness in the future to come in cleaning up this mess. These links offer a better perspective.

Essentially, what it means is that Schreiber is telling the truth with Mulroney so far as we know. Mulroney was paid to lobby for Shrieber's armoured car factory while still a PM and MP. It means, to anyone paying attention, that Mulroney was bribed and recieved $100,000 while still sitting as an MP!!!!

Hey, hey, lets wake up, that's a bribed politician right there. And thats a $2.1 million dollar lie in court and as a tax paying citizen, I want my money back!!!

http://members.shaw.ca./nspector3/globe309.htm

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071118/schreiber_germany_071118?s_name=&no_ads=

Did anybody listen to Schreiber?

Here is how one journalist interprets Screiber's testimony :

"The former lobbyist's testimony cleared former prime minister Brian Mulroney of accepting bribes on the age-old Airbus scandal, denied money was even discussed with Mr. Mulroney while he was still prime minister and said the only cash handed over was in his final weeks as an MP, which may not have been illegal at the time.

Mr. Schreiber confirmed the exiting prime minister didn't promise him anything more than some lingering influence once successor Kim Campbell was elected prime minister, an over-optimistic prediction as it turned out.

As for Mr. Mulroney's alleged perjury in testifying under oath in 1996 that he hadn't done business with Mr. Schreiber, well, the man of the moment admits that may well be true. After all, Mr. Mulroney's failure to do business with Mr. Schreiber is why he withheld $200,000 in potential payments to the cash-strapped departing prime minister. " Don Martin NP

Somehow this doesn't seem to square with comments above about just how guilty Mulroney is. If you like wasting public money, please go ahead and spend millions on commissions of inquiry, but the conclusion is now becoming pretty clear.

"Minimize it, deny it, call it unimportant, not worth pursuing, defame it, smear it, or whatever else Daveyy wants to do with it, but Rafe's point is very well noted. Mulroney lied to defraud our nation of 2.1 million dollars and he should pay it back and face charges for purgery." The Brain

You keep alluding to the facts to prove your case, G. West mentions the dozens of Mulroney books proving his case, yet when any of this gets in front of an impartial judge, its case dismissed. Quoting Steevie Cameron, an avowed RCMP informer, is a little rich too.

But go ahead, tear your shirts off your back, hate Mulroney till the day you die, you still have a case to prove before a judge and the star witness for the prosecution has pretty much confirmed Mulroney's version of events.

A Deal is a Deal

What's missing here is the fact that KHS is a lobbyist doing his job. To convince politicians to use their influence to further the lobbyist's employer's interest's, money is a better grease than facts. Whether a sitting politician or a retired politician makes no matter to me: You make the deal, the clock starts running. You get paid now or later, you do the job, now or later. BUT if you renege, take the money and don't do the job--- What is the penalty.
Blustering Brian is finding out. As are we all.
Who's the criminal here? The lobbyist or the politician.

So Daveyy, I take it you're not interested

I take it you're not interested in actually looking at the facts and prefer your own version of events to that of several other writers and researchers (not least among them Stevie Cameron).

Oh, and btw you should look a little more carefully at the circumstances surrounding that bogus claim of her being a police informer.

You might want to start your reading here:
http://steviecameronblog.blogspot.com/

But if you're not interested that's fine with me too.

But please, don't misrepresent what I wrote or misapprehend what I believe.

As for that old saw about hating Mulroney, c'mon, give it up.

Either read what I wrote and contend with what I'm saying or fuggedaboutit. It's up to you - but claiming I 'hate' anyone just makes you look foolish.

i watched schreiber's

i watched schreiber's testimony last night and there's no doubt that he's been cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever. even the liberals were very sheepish after the hearing and it has virtually disappeared from the newscasts. if they continue to insist on a public hearing at great expense they will add mammoths to the hole they've been digging for themselves for the past several years. as for chretien's recent statements about the $2.1 million; as usual the guy's a moron looking for headlines and glory, but the history books will set the record straight.

bad pronoun referencing; 'no

bad pronoun referencing; 'no doubt that mulroney's been cleared...'.

this sounds vaguely libelous to me

oh my god no!! i'd better

oh my god no!! i'd better recant asap.
and you'd better run for your high school law text book and do some research.

Moron - I think not

I think the politicians who have had their hand out to Karlheinz for so long now wish he was more of a moron, like they themselves, perhaps. Sleazy, tricky, pushing the legal envelope and oily are all words that could be applied to our star witness (Until the Monumental Jaw takes the oath - will it mean anything?-)moron seems totally inappropriate other than used as an antonym in relation to Karlheinz.

Brain, I'm not losing sleep over the Spectre's lack of intertoobz savvy, I'm used to arrogant types who feel that such techie stuff is below them.....the same technology that so often helps crumble their feet of frozen sewage.

My main question to Normie was did he think it proper/appropriate to take pride in having served the arrogant Jaw whose Sleaze knew no bounds? Or is it more in the category of GWB's drunk-driving and cocaine related run-ins with the law, kinda not "talked" about. And if you don't get me Mr. Brain, you and the horse you rode in on, eh?

Though it would seem that here we tend to agree:

They can give the 2.1 mil to the kid if he'll promise to stay off TeeVee for all I care - the US runs up 1 mil a minute (or second) of interest - what's a mil between friendly crooks?

ok G West you win

I get it, you actually like Mulroney, only you have read too many accusations to believe he could be innocent. Because I don't see any reason to spend more tax dollars flogging a dead horse, that must make me an abetter to the criminal.

Here's another journalist's take on Shreiber's testimony, but not some Mulroney hack, this is Susan "anybody but Harper" Riley of the Ottawa Citizen:

"Is the Mulroney-Schreiber affair another of the amazing shrinking scandals that have consumed so much valuable air time in recent years?....Schreiber further disappointed committee members by testifying that the $500,000 he set aside decades ago to promote a light-armoured vehicle plant in Cape Breton did not come from 1988 Airbus commissions. That money was available to Mulroney, Schreiber said, if the departing prime minister successfully convinced his successor, presumed to be Kim Campbell, to back the Bear Head plant..... Parliamentary committees are neither administratively, nor temperamentally, suited to a dispassionate pursuit of the truth. Public inquiries are cumbersome, expensive and intended to look at systemic problems, primarily, not isolated instances of petty crime."

No I have not read every bit of material about the Mulroney years, but I am a taxpayer and I still don't see charging Mulroney based on Schreiber's testimony. I also know that the RCMP investigated for years and found nothing.

despite great promise for

despite great promise for the desperate and barren liberals this is now a non-story thanks to yesterday's hearings. everyone now knows it and the public inquiry will be called off. unfortunately for the liberals they'll now have to try to come up with some actual policies to run on in the next election. fat chance.

Daveyy

Look, I agree that the committee isn't the place to deal with this...in fact, if you recall I already acceded to that point some time ago here at Tyee.

You'll remember the excerpt I posted from Eddie Greenspan's statement about the 'exceptional and unique' handling of Schreiber's extradition case which, in effect, meant that if Schreiber was going to be kept in Canada that the committee was going to have to play a role. There is a whole level of suspicion around the current Prime Minister and his advisors on this score that I haven’t dealt with in any detail. Not because it won’t, and isn’t having a significant impact on his Party’s fortunes.

I'm no fan of Schreiber either - but there is no doubt in my mind that the former PM has questions to answer.

Schreiber and Frank Moores and a whole lot of other high-profile Tories and businessmen (both in and out of Parliament) were involved in all kinds of dubious dealings all through the Mulroney years. It taints public affairs to this day.

It's that stuff, as much as the case against Mulroney (which I don't think is trivial either) that I want to bring everyone's attention to.

Unless you're willing to take the effort to actually spend some time on this then I can't hope to have you change your mind.

This isn't a Political Science seminar.

If you don't want to take the effort to evaluate what I've been writing about - so be it. I think (and I wrote quite clearly) that a special prosecutor should be appointed to look at all of this - or, failing that, an independent judge with subpoena powers along the lines of the Gomery commission needs to take it in hand.

If, after everything has been put on the table to the satisfaction of a special prosecutor and there are no charges to be laid - so be it.

As for your claim about the RCMP having had the freedom to investigate that stuff at the time - that is simply NOT true. And, the suggestion that they found nothing for which charges were appropriate is equally untrue.

If you really care about this country and its future I think you owe it more than blind allegiance to some kind of concept of political correctness.

Slow down folks

Slow down folks, be patent, as the ethics committee chairman stated today, they have lots to look at, and, with their mandate, their unsure as to where this investigation will take them. Sit back, put your feet up, relax ,and lets let things evolve to wherever it may go.

innuendo

"As for your claim about the RCMP having had the freedom to investigate that stuff at the time - that is simply NOT true. And, the suggestion that they found nothing for which charges were appropriate is equally untrue."
G. West

I said the RCMP investigated for years and came up short, that's a fact, no? If they found something, they sure kept it quiet and are in breach of their duty to prosecute offenders. What is a fact is that BM sued the gov'T and an impartial judge found in his favour.

"Schreiber and Frank Moores and a whole lot of other high-profile Tories and businessmen (both in and out of Parliament) were involved in all kinds of dubious dealings all through the Mulroney years. It taints public affairs to this day." G. West

Again innuendo, none of them, including Schreiber, has ever been charged with anything in Canada. It may taint your perception but it is not based on any verifiable facts. You can't charge a former PM with "stuff" and innuendo, you need facts and quite obviously the RCMP couldn't find any. Now all of a sudden out of the closet pops Schreiber with vague allegations, he testifies yesterday and virtually corroborates Mulroney's version. Mulroney is not going to be convicted of anything , least of which any Stevie Cameron allegations. If you insist on an expensive commission to confirm this, yet again, lets just agree to disagree, some time in a few months one of us will be able to say I told you so.

No it's not

It is not innuendo at all.

And there lies the problem.

I know more about this era and its goings on than you do.

That's just the way it is.

SO you're reduced to little more than repeating things like the comment just above and ignoring the facts of the matter - which you admit you know nothing about.

Even your reference to an 'expensive' commission indicates to me that you haven't been reading what I was writing.

SO be it. Apparently, all you care about is the money...which puts you in a certain class of people these days, I suppose. And about the ethics and behavior of our democratic “servants” – not so much, it seems.

As I said, this isn't a polisci seminar and I'm not prepared to spend any more time pointing out to you how little you really know about the way politics is 'done' in this country.

I wish Norman Spector would stop in again - he was there for at least some of the time as Mulroney's chief of staff.

No doubt he could confirm a lot of this - not least the fact that Mulroney's administration was seldom one where anyone could argue vigorously for a point of view at variance with the Boss's.

So, you’ll forgive me if I leave it at that.

I want justice, not bias

Thats just amazing, all. Whether its a former PM or MP or MLA of any political stripe, facts are facts.

Mulroney took a bag of cash from a known corporate lobbiest while still sitting in the house of commons.

Refresh my memory, G... didn't Mulroney sit as an MP for another 6 months or so before Kim Cambell went down in defeat? In other words, didn't Brian Mulroney take a bag of cash close to 7 months away from his tenure as MP of our fine lands?

Whether its airbus or bearhead or ADM or Quebecor or Barrick Gold or any other corp Mulroney has done favors for to earn his directorships and share options and bags of cash, a crooked politician is a crooked politician.

And thats a story.

Its a story worth pursuing so that the average voter wises up to just what a corporate lobbyist is, and how to keep from electing them.

I want you all to think about this one real hard... does it make sense to elect known corporate lobbiests into power? Does it make sense for the voting public to elect politicians who put corporations ahead of the people they are supposed to help govern?

While opponents of transparency balk and talk of wasted dollars with investigations, the sad fact is that its money well spent. If it leads to 2.1 mil coming back to the coffers of this country and 3.2 million in potential lawsuit awards to former MP Oulette, I'm all for it. Thats justice, folks. Especially, if it leads to education of the masses to prevent corporate lobbiests from handling billions of our tax paying dollars to suit their own money grubbing crooked agenda's.

The Liberals, safe to say, don't own a franchise on crooked politicians. And nor does the Conservatives. Thats just how it is. I want justice without the bias... and if it costs a bit of money, what, are Canadians broke? We can no longer afford to find the truth, is that where this is going? Truth is, Mulroney lied and scammed us for 2.1 million and he should pay it back, regardless of how many friends and apologists he has.

And one last thing...

What it is to say is that the facts clearly indicate that this serious issue must be tried and that requires that the Attorney-General of Ontario to lay charges of perjury against the Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney, former prime minister of Canada. - Rafe Mair

This isn't over. In fact, as Rafe Mair makes a most excellent point, its just beginning. Stay tuned, same bat time, same bat channel.

Lorne Mccuaig
Revelstoke, BC

Dates and times

Mulroney resigned as Prime Minister on June 25 1993 and Kim Campbell (who won the leadership on the 13th of June) became Prime Minister as of that date.

Campbell "called" the election on Sept 8 and voting took place on October 25 of that year.

From June 25 until the election call in September (when all seats become vacant by protocol) Mulroney remained as the PC member of parliament for Baie Comeau.

Mulroney spokesman Luc Lavoie [who, interestingly enough has just resigned within the last couple of weeks] said "Mr. Mulroney accepted the first envelope of $100,000 in cash from Mr. Schreiber while still an MP for Baie Comeau, Que., about one week before an election was called."

The discussions that led up to that exchange of cash took place earlier; Schreiber has testified that they began on June 23 at Harrington Lake and in the company of Fred Doucet - while Mulroney was STILL PRIME MINISTER.

If we accept Lavoie's word for it then it's absolutely clear that Mulroney got his first cash installment while he was a member of parliament. PERIOD.

And that, as they say, is where the problem starts.

The following matters pertain:

The Parliament of Canada Act reads at sec. 41: "No member of the House of Commons shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered or to be rendered to any person, either by the member or another person..."

And further, at section, 41.1: "No member of the House of Commons may, directly or indirectly, accept any benefit or income from a trust established by reason of his or her position as a member of the House of Commons."

Does that answer your questions Lorne?

I believe Karlheinz just made bail by the way. He'll be glad to have his belt back.

Thanks, G

I've got the dates wrong, but the facts don't change. Mulroney received a bag of cash while still an MP, bartered for it while still a PM with Mulroney's own spokesman's admissions as well as Schriebers, and then there is this little tidbit...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071129/spector_schreiber_071129?s_name=&no_ads=

Heres an excerpt:

"In 1990, Norman Spector says, the prime minister handed him a tiny white paper and told him to move ahead with a plan to build military vehicles in Nova Scotia."

This link, is worth a read to anyone who somehow thinks Brian Mulroney is still an honest politician during his political career and suggests that Schrieber is in fact, lying about the dates, and the negotiations leading to Mulroney's corporate lobbyism on behalf of Bearhead began in 1990 and continued on, with Elmer Mackay being directly involved.

In other words, if Norman Spector is telling the truth and he is likely a far better witness under oath than Schrieber, Brian Mulroney was lobbying on Bearheads behalf for years, not days as a PM and 3 months as an MP, and was paid with cash just before he left office by Schrieber himself.

Even without Norman Spector's testimony, Mulroney is inditable on a number of counts for breaking laws while holding office. I simply cannot see the Ontario courts not moving to indite Mulroney on a number of charges over this. A full scale RCMP and/or OPP investigation is needed into not only Mulroney's finances, but Elmer Mackay's upon reading this link, for starters.

utter nonsense. watch the

utter nonsense. watch the testimony. it's very clear and comprehensive. i've never seen such spin. what a load.

Now rousseau

I'm beginning to understand why Frank thought you were an reincarnation of Elliot.

Insead of actually addressing the issues, you, like him in all of his several guises, resort to ad hominem and rude comments without a moment's hesitation.

Perhaps you'd care to address the actual debate instead of bringing down opprobrium on your own head by implication and association.

OMG

http://steviecameronblog.blogspot.com/

Just read your link, G. Appears as though Mulroney was on the take as early as 86', 87'. I'm kind of blown away that bloggers could call it, "utter nonsense", especially after reading this link.

Lorne

I wish Norman Spector had stayed around for a little longer when he was here a couple of days ago.

He brings an insider's perspective to this question that is sorely missing in the political hothouse of the ethics committee room and the fevered reactions of the Ottawa press corps.

Of course, for someone with a background in prairie politics like you Lorne, the suggestion that politicians sometimes actually do end up going to jail for sticking their fingers too far into the pie is hardly news.

Here in BC the tradition of convicted criminals continuing on in power for years is more of a commonplace.

Thought you'd find that interesting

And there's lots more where that came from.

there's nothing to discuss

there's nothing to discuss gwest. schreiber said quite clearly and definitively that he had never given mulroney any money for anything he had done until august of '93, and that they had never even discussed money until then. in fact he said the $100k had not even been arranged and mulroney was surprised by it. if you watch the testimony there's no room to spin. give it up guys, it's over.

rousseau

Might I remind you that Schreiber's lawyer is Eddie Greenspan...you can be quite confident that everything Mr. Schreiber has said has been carefully vetted by his attorney.

Anyone who thinks this is over and has ANY IDEA about what went on in the Langevin Block during the Mulroney years is smoking something other than Player's Filter.

As I pointed out above, even if the payments didn't start until August of 1993, he was in clear violation of the Parliament Act.

And, as I and others have illustrated several times previously, you and others who are so determined to defend this man ought to do a little more homework and research.

Being a believer, but actually knowing nothing about the circumstances frequently leads to overly confident conclusions such as the one you’ve made above.

I really couldn’t care less what your opinion is if you can’t defend it with something more than that reaction.

Whether or not Mulroney will ever be convicted is a moot point. His reputation as a 'Great Canadian' is and always will be, in tatters from this point forward. And that, in my opinion, is a good thing for Canadian history and the state of democracy in this country – not to mention the educative value of promoting honesty and openness.

That's what happens when you deal with cronies and sycophants instead of people with real talent and the chutzpah to criticize your ideas.

G West stated

G West stated,
even if the payments didn't start until August of 1993, he was in clear violation of the Parliament Act.

From what I recall hearing, what G West says, is along the same lines that, the Hon. Ralph Goodale, stated to the media on tuesday, after the Ethics committee hearings.

Shills and lobbyists

I've never been either a shill for private business nor a government lobbyist willing to sell my soul for a bit of filthy lucre.

But if I were, I would not be so foolish nor so egotistical as to discuss remuneration before I wielded my influence. All the same, I would know beyond any reasonable doubt that money would be changing hands eventually and that I would be richer for it.

And, of course, if a better deal, like $2.1 million, came along, it would bother my conscience not one whit to dump the final payment from the first deal to pursue the greater goal.

I would rely on my "reputation" to carry me along, above the fray, and on the naivety of some of the public to make my brass shine like gold.

woody

Now there's a prospect to give one pause - must be the first time ever that Ralph Goodale and I have agreed about anything.

My Queen City friends have always told me, convincingly, that the reason Ralph keeps getting elected to the Common House, come hell or high water, is that having him occupied in Ottawa keeps him off the streets of Regina.

G West

"I know more about this era and its goings on than you do.

That's just the way it is." G West

Why aren't you testifying instead of Schreiber who has all but corroborated Mulroney's version ?

Why do you insist that the RCMP did not investigate? If not, how come BM sued for damages caused by the investigation and won?

"Anyone who thinks this is over and has ANY IDEA about what went on in the Langevin Block during the Mulroney years is smoking something other than Player's Filter." G West

Is this what you call facts? most people I know would define it as innuendo.

"I really couldn’t care less what your opinion is if you can’t defend it with something more than that reaction." G West

One could reciprocate by pointing out your numerous posts filled with opinions. Besides, in our justice system, the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt and not the accused to prove innocence.

"Whether or not Mulroney will ever be convicted is a moot point." G West

Whats the point of prosecuting somebody when there is little chance of winning, most crown prosecutors refrain from such cavalier practices motivated by not wasting taxpayers money.

"wish Norman Spector would stop in again - he was there for at least some of the time as Mulroney's chief of staff." G West

I got the two journalist quotes ( see above posts) from Mr Spector's web site , under columns worth reading. Both of these recommend dropping the whole thing, Mr Spector seems to think they have a point.

What ARE you talking about?

First of all, I never said the RCMP didn't investigate. Kindly read what I write.

Mr. Spector, with whom I'm very familiar, could say a lot more than he has...I'm quite sure he'd be glad to drop an investigation about affairs of which he has some very intimate knowledge.

I made my point eminently clear in the numerous comments I've already provided.

But, one more time, ...It is my view that Brian Mulroney and his administration are responsible for bringing the level of trust in the propriety, ethics and morals of the public sphere down to a level which is so compromised that the Canadian public - as a class - no longer expects anything more from their elected representatives than a kick and a promise and a period of narcissistic greed at the expense of the public purse to the detriment of the real interests of the majority of hard-working Canadians .

In fact, almost 50% of citizens in many parts of the country have reached the point where they don't even vote for fear of encouraging them. Either that or out of total hopelessness that anything can possibly change for the better.

I think there is a prima facie case that can be made against former prime minister brian mulroney for violating the PARLIAMENT ACT....I spelled it out clearly yesterday. Ignore it if you like – but don’t pretend that I haven’t made a basic case against the man ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AS WE KNOW THEM.

I think he should be prosecuted. Is that plain enough?

If the Minister of Justice doesn't have the balls to go to his boss and tell him what's necessary that isn't my fault.

The committee isn't the best vehicle for this - I told you that at least 3 times - remember?

However, in the face of Prime Ministerial intransigence it's the best we have now so I'll take it.

The future of the country, in any kind of a decent and representative fashion for all Canadians and not just a sub-group of the business and finance friends of a tiny political elite is at stake.

In my view.

That's the last thing I'm writing on this story - either read what I've written or ignore it and its impact. I think my words speak for themselves for anyone who takes the time to read and understand exactly what I've said.

I'm not attacking Mulroney so much as trying to address the mess he's made of public life.

I think the thousands of readers who stop in at Tyee every week have a very good feeling for both this story and the 'role' of ‘Boss’ Brian in the emasculation of a once-proud country.

There is one question I do have for you: Why do you think it's necessary to defend a man who obviously cared more about his wealth and reputation than he did about truth, openness and the good of all Canadians?

that makes more sense than

that makes more sense than trying to crucify a man because you disagree with his politics.

Which is, if you go back and read

Which is, if you go back and read everything I've offered on the subject, never what I was interested in...

If you see Daveyy around rousseau - maybe YOU can talk some sense into him!

I've stopped trying.

are you employed as a spin

are you employed as a spin doctor by a political party gwest? iff not you should be. you'd make a fortune.

RCMP investigation hindered?

"Mr. Spector, with whom I'm very familiar, could say a lot more than he has...I'm quite sure he'd be glad to drop an investigation about affairs of which he has some very intimate knowledge." G West

Innuendo: - an indirect expression of derogation, an insinuation

"As for your claim about the RCMP having had the freedom to investigate that stuff at the time - that is simply NOT true. And, the suggestion that they found nothing for which charges were appropriate is equally untrue."

G West

So you're saying that you know what Mr. Spector knows and it ain't pretty. Now you are a mind reader !

As for the RCMP investigation, I believe you are playing with words, you deny they had the freedom to investigate but acknowledge that they did in fact investigate. Well which is it Mr West? They either did or didn't, since we all know they did, you claim they weren't free? Again, based on what facts? Innuendo again, because you disagree with their findings, you claim that they weren't free to properly investigate. Why, how, who, when ?

Believe what you like Daveyy

I neither wrote, nor intended, nor is the meaning you infer in any way implied by my words - all of which were very clear and capable of one interpretation.

I don't deal in innuendo...you do.

And I don't play with words. I told you days ago that I'd provide you with a list of material to read if you cared to take the trouble.

You didn't, and as I ended my post to you yesterday, I'd like you to answer the question I posed.

I'll post it again:

Bye!

facts please

I question spending upwards of $ 20-30 million on an inquiry based on the sole testimony of one Karlheinz Schreiber. During the past week we have learned virtually nothing new from him that hasn't been public knowledge for years now. As a taxpayer, I have already contributed several million dollars in RCMP investigations, law suits and ultimately compensation to Brian Mulroney for wrongful prosecution. When does it end?

I am not defending Mr. Mulroney but defending his right, as that of any other citizen, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. There is no proof positive of criminal activity on his part other than a lot of innuendo, please look up this word in a dictionary-. It is the accuser who bears the burden of proof in our system.

Whether or not Mr. Mulroney is vain, selfish and secretive is of no consequence in this matter. I'm not defending his reputation, only his right to be judged fairly and not be subjected to unnecessary witch hunt.

A lot of people have invested a lot of time and money in their own investigations, Stevie Cameron and Lyndon MacIntyre come to mind, and they have a vested interest in ensuring Mulroney is found guilty of something. Otherwise, they will have a lot of egg to clean off their faces.

Your motherhood statements about evil Mulroney illustrate my point. The question you ask is totally irrelevant as far of accusing BM of wrongdoing. Why can't you accept the RCMP investigation and leave it at that?

I offered you facts - I gave you facts

You're not interested and you still haven't answered my question in any kind of satisfactory way.

As I pointed out above - you seem to be the one determined to bash the questioner with personal remarks.

Now why would that be?

Just possibly because you haven't got a leg to stand on - to mix a metaphor?

The person making motherhood statements about Mulroney certainly ISN'T me.

If Stevie Cameron and Linden McIntyre were the only people who'd said nasty (and evidence-based) things about the former Prime Minister you might have a point. They aren't and you haven't.

Believe me, for a man steeped in the virtues and efficacy of litigation like our former Prime Minister, you can be sure that he'd have sued if he had a case.

He doesn't, and he didn't sue.

Now, why not just answer MY question?

I've been completely up front with you, offered you information you're not willing to even look at and responded to your ad hominem attacks with equanimity.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to answer the one query I've directed to you.

The current Prime Minister seems to have misplaced $1.5 billion spent on THIS program: http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/trust-fiducie-eng.cfm

Pardon me if I don't light my hair on fire at the expense associated with getting to the bottom of L'affaire Mulroney-Schreiber.

"...you can be sure that

"...you can be sure that he'd have sued if he had a case.

He doesn't, and he didn't sue." G West

Since when is not suing someone an admission of guilt? Since when do journalists decide who is guilty, I thought we lived under the primacy of the law.

If the case you allude to is so airtight, why did the RCMP not gather the proof and put him behind bars instead of creating a diversion and getting us the taxpayers sued? I suspect because there is and there never was a case. You bring up all sorts of other unrelated Mulroney crimes against humanity, again where have the police and crown prosecutors been ? If you can be so sure of his guilt after reviewing available evidence, surely the police would follow suit, no?

Or maybe they saw it as a waste of time, because let me tell you if Mulroney gets off, Ms Cameron and Mr. MacIntyre's reputation as investigative journalists won't be worth much.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume our law enforcement agencies have read all your material and did not see a compelling reason to act on it.

You state : "It is my view that Brian Mulroney and his administration are responsible for bringing the level of trust in the propriety, ethics and morals of the public sphere down to a level which is so compromised that the Canadian public - as a class - no longer expects anything more from their elected representatives than a kick and a promise and a period of narcissistic greed at the expense of the public purse to the detriment of the real interests of the majority of hard-working Canadians ."

I'll assume for argument's sake that this statement is true,even though we both know its unprovable at best, what crime has been committed ?

I already spelled out quite clearly what I object to

Tell me, why do I have to make the same comment again and again and again?

My problems with Mulroney and his ‘legacy’ have been spelled out above in clear and unambiguous prose.

He abrogated his democratic responsibilities and enshrined the ethos of personal reward and overweening selfishness in the place of public responsibility. He’s still doing it today when he pretends he was somehow entitled to live and bring up his family according to an elitist paradigm that he neither earned nor deserved on the basis of his performance as an utterly failed politician and public servant.

Remember those two seats?

Would you like me to continue?

You still haven't answered my question.

Not that I'm surprised.

By the way, when you want to quote someone simply select the item, copy and paste it in the comment composing pane then select it again and click on the small happy face with the quote balloon above and to its left.

You can add italics and bold text the same way - the blue ball allows you to embed a link.