The response of the Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan underscores what is essentially wrong with the Harper Conservative’s fitness for governing. Harper gets good marks for message management but not for managing the right message.
Claiming that a pursuit of facts not previously disclosed surrounding a lawsuit settlement as a vendetta against Mulroney is bad governance. For the Harper Cons this stance and characterization of the initiative as a vendetta is proof of bad judgement in government – and it is very bad politics too.
Mulroney got a $2.1 million dollars of taxpayer’s money but it now appears not all the known facts were disclosed when the settlement was negotiated. The bungling of the RCMP and the political overtones instigated by Prime Minister Chrétien on the events were clouding and confusing the issues. Now we are seeing some further allegations that never came to light in 1997 that should have before the matter was "settled."
Transparent accountable and open government demands full and frank disclosure – especially under the circumstances and emerging story as to the nature of the Mulroney-Schreiber dealings, the timing of them and some previously undisclosed information and allegations.
Mr. Harper touts his Accountability Act and a new standard of ethics and governance, even though a big swack of the provisions are not in force. Is that because he fails, refuses or neglects to proclaim them because he is not really serious about accountability issues or the provisions of the law he passed?
This issue is going to be a major character test for Mr. Harper and his minority government. Is he going to follow the old-school approach of obfuscation, bluff and blustering your way through the issue like Jean Chrétien would have? Or will he take the high road like Paul Martin did in Adscam and call an inquiry because it is the right thing to do regardless of the political consequences.
Canadians want good government that is trustworthy and competent and focused on serving the best interests of citizens. Leadership on this issue is much more important than the usual Harper tactics of media manipulation and message management. Leadership is especially critical given the serious circumstances and allegations that are just now coming to light.
Mr. Harper, this issue is a real confidence vote in you and your government because you will have to face judgment of the citizens of Canada and the consequences of that judgment. We will be asking ourselves if we ought to continue to have any confidence in you and your party to be open, honest, transparent and sustaining any semblance of integrity. Passing a law about accountability is one thing, acting accountably is another.
In reality, it is all mostly about you Prime Minister Harper. You going to be judged by voters by the way you handle this. Will it be ethical an governance issue for you - or purely a political one? We will be watching how you handle this and then asking ourselves if you are still fit for service in the highest office in the land and if you continue to be worthy of our consent to be governed.
Claiming that a pursuit of facts not previously disclosed surrounding a lawsuit settlement as a vendetta against Mulroney is bad governance. For the Harper Cons this stance and characterization of the initiative as a vendetta is proof of bad judgement in government – and it is very bad politics too.
Mulroney got a $2.1 million dollars of taxpayer’s money but it now appears not all the known facts were disclosed when the settlement was negotiated. The bungling of the RCMP and the political overtones instigated by Prime Minister Chrétien on the events were clouding and confusing the issues. Now we are seeing some further allegations that never came to light in 1997 that should have before the matter was "settled."
Transparent accountable and open government demands full and frank disclosure – especially under the circumstances and emerging story as to the nature of the Mulroney-Schreiber dealings, the timing of them and some previously undisclosed information and allegations.
Mr. Harper touts his Accountability Act and a new standard of ethics and governance, even though a big swack of the provisions are not in force. Is that because he fails, refuses or neglects to proclaim them because he is not really serious about accountability issues or the provisions of the law he passed?
This issue is going to be a major character test for Mr. Harper and his minority government. Is he going to follow the old-school approach of obfuscation, bluff and blustering your way through the issue like Jean Chrétien would have? Or will he take the high road like Paul Martin did in Adscam and call an inquiry because it is the right thing to do regardless of the political consequences.
Canadians want good government that is trustworthy and competent and focused on serving the best interests of citizens. Leadership on this issue is much more important than the usual Harper tactics of media manipulation and message management. Leadership is especially critical given the serious circumstances and allegations that are just now coming to light.
Mr. Harper, this issue is a real confidence vote in you and your government because you will have to face judgment of the citizens of Canada and the consequences of that judgment. We will be asking ourselves if we ought to continue to have any confidence in you and your party to be open, honest, transparent and sustaining any semblance of integrity. Passing a law about accountability is one thing, acting accountably is another.
In reality, it is all mostly about you Prime Minister Harper. You going to be judged by voters by the way you handle this. Will it be ethical an governance issue for you - or purely a political one? We will be watching how you handle this and then asking ourselves if you are still fit for service in the highest office in the land and if you continue to be worthy of our consent to be governed.
Don’t let us down sir. Call the inquiry.
Leadership on this issue is much more important than the usual Harper tactics of media manipulation and message management. Leadership is especially critical given the serious circumstances and allegations that are just now coming to light.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about this ? i don't think so
http://vidsworld01.blogspot.com
Why not?
ReplyDeleteKen, you would be setting a serious and dangerous precedent. Should a sitting PMO be allowed to call investigations on previous PMs?
ReplyDeleteShould Harper be able to call an inquiry into Chretien and Martin for their involvement in the sponsorship scandal? I think not.
The liberals went on a witch hunt with Mulroney and it cost Canadian taxpayers $2 million for the lawsuit plus millions in legal fees and wasted time. It should be Liberals who reimburse us, Canadians, for their unwarranted legal action. Shame.
The lawsuit was clearly unwarranted at the time - there is a thing called no double jeopardy in Canada. You either go ahead with a trial with the evidence you have - but if you lose, you don't get second chance.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see the millions of dollars lost in the sponsorship scandal accounted for. Harper, don't let us down sir. Call an inquiry.
Ken, what would you suggest if there was some "new evidence" introduced regarding the sponsorship scandal? Should Harper initiate another public inquiry either against the LPC or Martin? Be careful for what you wish for!
ReplyDeleteAnon @ 7:05 absolutely the sponsorship scandal should be opened up if new evidence was found. If there was new evidence in any such matter it should be sent to the RCMP for review and if the evidence was relevant a prosecution or an opening up of the inquiry should happen.
ReplyDeleteWe see it happen all the time - where wrongfully convicted are found to be not guilty by subsequent evidence. There has been a rash of them recently.
Nothing to do with being careful of what you ask for...it is the right thing to do…you Cons don’t get that if you have to suggest the innuendo. It is the right thing to do if we are to trust the judicial system, the political system, the governance system and the people who populate it.
The Cons set up an investigation looking for other scandalous matters from the Liberal time in office. It was to take six month. That time has passed. Where is the report on the findings?
Is Harper blowing hot air or has he found something and holding it for election purposes. Let’s get justice to trump politics for one in Harper’s world.
Release your investigation's report publically and right away...before we get a phoney election ploy perpetrated on us.
Apparently you have not reviewed your criminal law textbooks for awhile. If an accused is found not guilty, the Crown cannot re-try that individual at a later time. This is actually protected in the Charter. Should the Liberals have to pay (rather than the taxpayers) for committing libel against Mulroney? What if, after this alleged new evidence, he is found completely innocent for the second time? Again, it is the taxpayers that have to foot the bill - I am guessing that there is a million things we could spend on rather than lawyer's fees.
ReplyDeleteWhat constitutes material new evidence to warrant an opening up of the sponsorship scandal? Who gets to decide? The PMO or Justice? Shouldn't Justice rather than Harper come to the conclusion?
You liberals just want another witchhunt - you had your chance while you were in power and the Canadians kicked your butt out. In fact, I haven't seen a Liberal in Parliament for quite awhile - they are not acting as the opposition and are not representing their constituents.
The Liberals cost Canadians at least $2.1 Million, not to mention all of the personnel hours that went into the investigation.
ReplyDeleteAt this stage, all of the government agencies and departments involved in this state that while new information may have surfaced, it remains supposition and heresay, and that very little - if any - tangible evidence has come forward.
Rather than do due diligence and wait until they had a complete understanding of the situation, they put politics ahead of the best interests of the country, gambled on the outcome, and lost. Their foolhardy political ploy cost Canadians $2.1 Million.
Now, desparate to change the channel away from sinking leadership and dismal performance, they latch on to an issue, insisting that the Prime Minister take the extraordinary step, never before used in the history of our nation, to launch a politically-motivated witch hunt against an individual who has been out of public life for 14 years, and who was already exhonerated once for crimes he did not commit, according to the courts.
You speak of doing the right thing - the Gomery Commission (called by the Liberal Government, lest they forget), noted that they were unable to trace where all of the money in that particular scandal went because it left their jurisdiction. Low-ball estimates place the amount of money stolen by Liberal party associates and agents still outstanding, at $40 Million - I would note that Liberals do not exhibit the same hue and cry for the Government of Canada to re-open this particular case and hunt down that money.
The Liberals gambled and failed once on the Mulroney file, and now they want the Government of Canada to do something absolutely unheard of in this country - launch a politically-motivated suit against the recommendations of its own Justice Department, because of speculative, unsubstantiated rumours.
That's always been the problem with the Liberals - the institutions and machinery of government are not extentions of the Liberal Party, and they can't launch witch-hunts to the change the channel off a flailing and failing leader.
Morning Will - thx for the comment. I agree that Jean Chrétien was politically motivated in pursuing Mulroney around the Airbus incidents. That was wrong.
ReplyDeleteHowever - where was the candour and openness of Mr. Mulroney at the time and was the whole truth told at that time?
If these new facts prove to be true, the court decision you say should protect Mr. Mulroney was taken without the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. That is the heart of the oath a witness takes - including former Prime Ministers - who become involved in judicial proceedings.
We know cash payments in envelopes usually means something is fishy...Gomery proves that. So why will Mr. Mulroney simply provide an affidavit as to why he received the payment, what it was for, why he paid the taxes late and dispute allegations that he tried to suppress the facts of such payments.
It would either clear the air or focus the need for a non-political non-witch-hunt investigation.
Who in Justice has recommended against pursuing the veracity of further fact allegations?
Mr. Mulroney is a seasoned politician and an experienced lawyer. He needs no protection from the Harper government from a fair trial process where all the facts are presented.
What Canadians need to be assured of that the trial dealt with and tested all the facts and the credibility of all the witnesses.
That appears not to have been the case. Clear the air Mr. Mulroney...otherwise Mr. Harper - do the right thing and get it cleared it in spite of him.
And Mr. Harper, while you are at it - why not look more carefully into the hotel that was partly owned by Chrétien’s and the loan deal from a federal government agency.
We need to have the air cleared on that one too.
Anon @ 8:05 pm - Since when is new evidence a defence from reopening an issue and protection from prosecution?
ReplyDeleteThe other side of the coin is that many Canadians like David Milgard, who were wrongfully convicted, would still be rotting in prison if new evidence could not be brought to bear on these issues.
I hear language about an inquiry - not a trial anyway. This is about good governance not politics.
Lets get the facts...Schreiber is hardly a credible source but the fact that his allegations have not been effectively rebutted raises concerns.
Witch-hunt? Hardly - read my comments back to Willblog - don't stop with Mulroney - go after Chrétien too if there is prima facie evidence to pursue it.
This is not a witch hunt, and it doesn't have to hurt the PC party at all, unless Harper tries stopping an inquest.
ReplyDeleteThis is about Mulroney lying under oath when he sued the government. This is about explaining the 300k and why he didn't claim it on his tax form right away when there were no accusations.
As far as double jeopardy, I don't think that Mulroney went to trial for this. He sued, and won because he lied.
He could be charged with perjury though.
He could be charged with taking bribes too.
I don't think he had a trial for either.
This is about someone who thinks he is above the law and he should be punished, I don't care if he was PC, Liberal, or NDP or Conrad Black or Martha Stewart.
Harper will kill his political career if he tries to stop an inquest.
The news articles that surfaced several days ago noted that while Mr. Schreiber has made a lot of inferences and accusations, they remain just that. From the perspective of the DoJ, the available evidence hasn't changed, according to the news articles posted on this file (I believe it was a CTV story). My information on this comes from the media, so I can only take what they say is true.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, were their grounds for future work, I would also believe that the armslength agency mandated to move forward on this, the RCMP, would be taking the appropriate steps.
It is also not for the Government of Canada to direct Mr. Mulroney to do anything - Mr. Mulroney is not associated with the Conservative Party of Canada, and the constant media speculation that he plays some role is just that, speculation.
As Jean Chretien believed during his tenure as Prime Minister, let the RCMP and the courts do their jobs, without political interference from the Prime Minister - suggestions that we should deviate from that norm are dangerous.
Will - I agree with averything you said above. The proper approach is for the RCMP to review this and see if there is any susbstance to the "new evidence" and if anything further should be recommended to the DoJ to consider laying charges.
ReplyDeleteI merely think Mr. Harper is well advised to not try and politicize this process by saying any investigation of the allegations need not happen. Let the process do its job independent of politics.
Nor does Mr. Harper need to call an inquiry if the RCMP are free to do their work without political interference.
I have to wonder about the level of independence of the RCMP when I recall how timely it was that they called for an investigation on allegations of Income Trust leaks in the middle of an election making it look like political wrong doing. Then finding only one bureaucrat had borken the law for personal gain and disclosing that much later and after the political damage had been done.
An RCMP Commissioner stepped down because of this and the Arar scandel. The new Commissioner is outside the RCMP ranks so we can only hope he is more independent than the last one.
I also agree the Mr. Mulroney is not associated with the CPC as a result of his past political service. He is however, an advisor to your leader and by Mr. Harper's own admission.
I believe I saw a clip of Mr. Harper acknowledging that relationship with Mr. Mulroney on CTV so it must be true ;-}