"Mulroney Sinks to Using Clinton Defence"

I don't often just link to a news item or op-ed without further commentary on the content. This is an exception simply because I can't think of anything more to add to this excellent op-ed by Peter Bowal, UofC Law Professor. Oh yes one thing, full disclosure, Peter used to work for me as an Associate in my law firm more than a few years ago.


In a world were political integrity and transparency are touted, prevarication and deceit still trump the truth in context. If you want to go deeper into the "heart and science" of this behaviour an easy enlightening read is "Mistakes Were Made but not by Me."

Back to the Odds and Sods of Conservative Politics.

Bernier to Harper: "Look who I have as my 'official girlfriend' Stephen. What do you mean I can't keep her?"

Classy guy this Mr. Pierre Poilievre. Another Conservative caucus pit bull with no sense of occasion, fair play, manners or even nuance.

Good to see that Prime Minister Harper finally called the public inquiry into the Schreiber/Mulroney Affair. Eight months since he promised...justice delayed is justice denied Mr. Prime Minister.

The proposed new Canadian Copyright Law genuflects to the American pressures and could make Canada akin to China when it comes to controlling the Internet. I am a big fan of Jim Prentice but can’t support him on this one.

Mulroney Recalled to Commons Ethics Committee

The House of Commons Ethic Committee is also tired of waiting for Stephen (Godot) Harper to live up to his promise of last November for an inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber Affair.

They have voted 6-5 to recall Mulroney for June 12th. The issue is not going away and Harper's delays and excuses about calling the inquiry are shewing away at his integrity and accountability.


The former PM refused to appear at an early recall because the inquiry was supposed to be around the corner. It is not happening – at least not so far and not very fast. So the MPs on the Ethics Committee are tired of waiting and want to know if there was more to the Mulroney-Schreiber relationship.

The Siemens bribery trial in Germany, one of Schreiber’s alleged clients/funders will bring a new twist to an already sorry, sand and sordid story. The Ethics Committee vote to recall Mulroney was 6-5 and I imagine the Cons were against the recall. They are good at using their little book of committee tactics and political tricks to try to protect Harper more than Mulroney. Harper is reported widely to have consulted his mentor Mr. Mulroney on the Cons strategy to win over the hearts and minds of Quebecers. Mulroney is consedered to be the source of the Harper positioning by implying support for the soft nationalist strategy in Quebec.

First Mulroney and now Bernier – both Quebec based political embarrassments for the Harper Cons. It gets better, or worse, depending on your POV. Consider Harper’s obvious support for the falling star, the ADQ Mario Dumont and concurrently snubbing Quebec Prime Minister Jean Charest, a man whose star is on the rise now. Harper should be looking to Charest for advice and mentoring on how to successfully lead a minority government and get stuff done.

That snub of Charest was just another of the classic political cow pies the brain trust in the PMO has deftly stepped into. Now they just can’t seem shake the political consequences off its shoe in the province of Quebec.

Gomery Not Amused - Harper Delays Mulroney-Schreiber Inquiry

I see retired Judge Gomery, the man who headed the investigation into the sponsorship scandal, is musing about Mr. Harper's commitment to convening the promised inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

Harper promised the inquiry last November and has found excuses to delay taking action. The time for excuses is past according to Gomery.

Gomery was also not amused that the Prime Minister delegated the determination of the scope of such an inquiry to a private citizen when it is the central role of good government to determine such things. Paul Martin had the strength of character to call a broadly based sponsorship inquiry. Many will suggest the inquiry results cost Martin his political career, for sure his place as Prime Minister.

Harper's firing of Bernier this week was justified and the right thing to do. It also helped Harper solve the problem that was about Bernier's proven incompetence. But he was Harper's most popular Quebec minister and the Cons need Quebec to win the next election. Bernier's prervious blunders were minor compared to his five month long Cabinet security breach.

That one instance aside, there is no indication Mr. Harper is made of the same stuff and Mr. Martin when it comes to his mentor Mulroney and the cloak and dagger dealing of Mr. Schreiber.

Harper's insouciance on this ethical issue is further evidence that it is time for him and his government to go. That looks like it will not happen until the next fixed election date comes up in November 2009. Too bad!

Updating the Public Record.

More Comments on Free Speech Limitations:
The continuing saga of proposals for the Alberta provincial governments to impose limitations on free speech during elections has been reviewed in a Calgary Herald editorial today. I have previous postings on this unnecessary and dangerous policy proposal, here, and here and here.


The Looming Fed-Prov Showdown on Environment:
A year ago former Alberta Premier Lougheed mused that a looming constitutional crisis between the governments of Canada and Alberta over environment jurisdictions and standards gets a boost today from Jeffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail today. Lougheed is recently quoted as saying his earlier suggestion that this constitutional dust up will be 10 times more volatile than the National Energy Program was a bit extreme. Maybe not. Time will tell.


Siemans Slush Fund and Bribery Trial:
Newspaper reports note that Siemans has been investigated for bribery charges in a dozen countries and were fined the maximum of 1 million Euros for bribes in 77 cases between 2001 and 2004. Sieman's was part of recent the testimony in the Schreiber/Mulroney affair. PM Harper has promised an inquiry into those dealings but has yet to deliver. Time to get going on this Mr. Harper.

The Ethics Committee Should Stand Down and Lets Get On With the Public Inquiry

UPDATE: There is a piece in the Globe and Mail today Monday Jan 14/08 by William Kaplan - the man who wrote the book on this Schreiber/Mulroney stuff...literally. He concurs with my position on the emerging role of the Ethics Committee continuation of hearings...time to go to the Inquiry and for the politicians to get out of the way.

If the Ethics Committee is to continue to look into the Schreiber/Mulroney Affair will they be able to be effective, given their rules and the partisan nature of their procedures? For example the committee failed, refused or neglected to put Mr. Mulroney under oath but did so with Mr. Schreiber. Why?

Dr. Johnston’s report outlines 17 questions about former Prime Minister Mulroney’s business dealings with Mr. Schreiber. They are:

1. What were the business and financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney?
2. Was there an agreement reached by Mr. Mulroney while still a sitting prime minister?
3. If so, what was that agreement, when and where was it made?
4. Was there an agreement reached by Mr. Mulroney while still sitting as a Member of Parliament or during the limitation periods prescribed by the 1985 ethics code?
5. If so, what was that agreement, when and where was it made?
6. What payments were made, when and how and why?
7. What was the source of the funds for the payments?
8. What services, if any, were rendered in return for the payments?
9. Why were the payments made and accepted in cash?
10. What happened to the cash; in particular, if a significant amount of cash was received in the U.S., what happened to that cash?
11. Were these business and financial dealings appropriate considering the position of Mr. Mulroney as a current or former prime minister and Member of Parliament?
12. Was there appropriate disclosure and reporting of the dealings and payments?
13. Were there ethical rules or guidelines which related to these business and financial dealings? Were they followed?
14. Are there ethical rules or guidelines which currently would have covered these business and financial dealings? Are they sufficient or should there be additional ethical rules or guidelines concerning the activities of politicians as they transition from office or after they leave office?
15. What steps were taken in processing Mr. Schreiber’s correspondence to Prime Minister Harper of March 29, 2007?
16. Why was the correspondence not passed on to Prime Minister Harper?
17. Should the PCO have adopted any different procedures in this case?

I don’t think any of these are political questions but they all have political implications. My hope is that the Ethics Committee stands down on this and lets Mr. Harper and Dr. Johnston get on with setting up the Public Inquiry.

Kudos to Harper in His Handling of the Johnston Report and Calling a Public Inquiry

Mr. Harper strikes the right balance in the ordering of a Public Inquiry into the Schreiber/Mulroney Affair. Wait until the Ethics Committee has done its work and then get Dr. Johnston to deal more succinctly with the terms of reference of the public inquiry. That way we can focus on the real issues uncovered in the Ethics Committee work instead of going wandering into a dark room hoping to bump into the right issues that need to be inquired.

Sr. Johnston says “I (he) believe the inquiry can be efficient and focused, without the need for numerous interveners. The inquiry can and should steer clear of partisan political positions since the advance of such positions is not the purpose of the inquiry and would be contrary to the public interest.”

We know from Dr. Johnston’s report to the Prime Minister under his terms of reference that he believes Mr. Mulroney was not under oath when he appeared before the Ethics Committee and he left many unanswered questions regarding his cash payments from Mr. Schreiber.

Here is a damaging quote from Dr. Johnston’s report in that regard:
“In my work to fulfill my mandate under the Terms of Reference, I have concluded that the concerns of many Canadians arose from the fact that a former prime minister took large cash payments from someone now implicated in questionable transactions, and whose extradition for various charges has been sought and obtained by the Government of Germany. The suspicions raised by these cash payments were compounded by Mr. Mulroney’s silence on the matter. As Mr. Mulroney acknowledged before the Ethics Committee, taking those cash payments “created an impression of impropriety”. As the stories about the cash payments became more and more widely reported, and as they remained unanswered by Mr. Mulroney himself, suspicions among Canadians intensified. Mr. Mulroney told the Ethics Committee that the circumstances that led to this “impression of impropriety” amounted to a serious error in judgment on his part. Mr. Mulroney also acknowledged that it had been an “unwise decision” to remain silent on these matters.”

Dr. Johnston says that “one important element of the inquiry – perhaps the most important elements – was to let Canadians hear from their former prime minister about these suspicious dealings with Mr. Schreiber. …the concern is that the transactions involving cash payments that created an impression of impropriety could reflect adversely on the high office of prime minister.”

That the rub Dr. Johnson…you got it!

I go after Stephen Harper pretty hard in the Blog but when he does the right thing I try to be equally aggressive in my praise. This is on eof those latter incidences. The quick and wise decision by the Prime Minister to go to a public inquiry but after the Ethics Committee is finished and to once again refer the terms of reference for the inquiry to Dr. Johnston is very wise. That wisdom becomes very self-evident if one reviews Dr. Johnston's excellent report and thoughtful recommendations.

Johnston outlines the inquiry questions, issues and their relevancy in his report. The inquiry process is a finder of fact – not a trier of fact. That is for a Court deal with. The Ethics Committee is neither. Its work is pretty much done but if it has anything to add or uncover based on the Johnston report it should do so expeditiously. Otherwise since it can’t lead, and sure can’t follow – it should do the right thing now and get out of the way.

Chickens Come Home to Roost

This is a week of facing the music and the consequences of past choices and bad behaviours for some pretty high profile folks.

On the criminal front the convicted serial killer and pig farmer William Picton will be sentenced this week. The convicted fraudster and British Lord pinning to be Canadian again will be sentenced today

On the political front the Commons Ethics Committee has heard from Karlheinz Schreiber, aka the Artful Dodger. Now we are anticipating the testimony from Brian Mulroney, a former Prime Minister, aka The Eloquent Liar.

In Alberta the “colourful” Dr Lyle Oberg is reported to be announcing his “retirement” from politics today. Dr. Oberg was adept at sitting on political powder kegs and giving off sparks. Stelmach has run out of patience with the irrepressible Dr. Oberg. It looks like he is about to politically implode instead of explode as he goes out with a whimper and not much of a bang.

In theses examples we have some proof that the systems will actually work effectively on occasion.

Is the Ethics Committee Lobbying Schreiber?

I watched the Ethics Committee meeting last night on CPAC. My observations are that the committee members are in effect lobbying Mr. Schreiber looking for answers that fit their preconceived theories or their preferred outcomes of what went on between himself and Mr. Mulroney.

The weakest contributions were from the Bloc. They are ill prepared and only want to link Charest in some way. They are playing for the home crowd politically in Quebec and not really concerned about the larger issues here.

The Liberals are at sea, not sure what they want to ask and although Mr. Goodale was more focused and capable than most yesterday. He even gave the media the document reference from a 1985 policy on what politicians could or could not do after leaving office. Smart move!

The Cons are all about damage control and narrowing the focus of the process to keep the story short and away from Mr. Harper. They are trying avoid anyone using a “sniff” test to measure the appropriateness of these goings-on. They are single-mindedly out to distance Harper from Mulroney.

In fact Mr. Tilson, a Con on the committee, has already declared Mr. Mulroney exonerated based solely on one day of testimony in the disjointed and restricted questioning the committee process. And he has not even read the documents yet but is trying to convince us Mulroney is already off the hook. The Cons in committee are about damage control, sticking to the message and spin to innoculate thier leader from any infection Mulroney might bring. Expect them to be focused on being narrow and shallow and misdirecting attention to the bigger picture.

The NDP is doing the best job. Mr. Martin’s seething anger is genuine but not helpful at this stage of the proceedings. He wants to nail anyone and everyone involved and his rhetoric is getting away on him. I appreciate his zeal but it may let his quarry off the hook if he does not use a more calculated and less emotional approach.

The NDP’s Mr. Mulcair is new to the House of Commons, winning a recent by-election. He is also new the federal committee processes and rules but is by far the best and most effective interrogators so far. Finding out yesterday that the RCMP did not even contact Mr. Schreiber over Airbus and when the settlement of the defamation action with Mr. Mulroney was negotiated is astounding. That critical piece of evidence is thanks to Mr. Mulcair. I wonder where that will lead especially given all the other troubling incidences we have seen from the RCMP of late.

Finally the best performance by a country mile is the Chair, Mr. Paul Szabo. Fair-minded, respectful, tempered and generous of spirit, he is doing an excellent job. Reading the apology into the record yesterday over the shabby and disgraceful treatment Mr. Schreiber received is the measure of Mr. Szabo. He took the time to carefully detail the disgraceful treatment Mr. Schreiber suffered while going to his home to retrieve documents he remained handcuffed, surrounded by police and was not given his belt back. Those circumstances caused a affront to Mr. Schreiber’s personal dignity on national television. The apology by Mr. Szabo to Mr. Schreiber for that embarrassing and humiliating incident on behalf of all Canadians was appropriate and necessary.

Why is Rob Nicholson Abdicating His Responsibillity to Serve Justice in the Mulroney Schreiber Affair?

UPDATE NOV 29/07 - the government of Canada has agreed to push back Mr. Schreiber's extradition to Dec 10 but Schreiber's lawyers' refused this offer saying the matter is before Ontario Court of Appeal to decide this matter. Schreiber is seeking a stay of the extradition order pending a Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court. That is likely to be the end result in my opinion which means that Schreiber will be in Canada long enough to prepare and appear before the Commons Ethics Committee pursuant to the Speaker's Warrant.

On what basis is the Honourable Rob Nicholson, the federal Minister of Justice saying he has no authority to delay the extradition of Karlheinz Schreiber? The Extradition Act is clear that he such discretionary powers. The law clerk of the House of Commons says he does as do other legal experts.

The Ontario Court of Appeal says “…the ultimate decision” in extradition matters is political. Ah yes! There is the rub. Our Honourable Minister of Justice is appearing to be playing politics and preferring that goal instead of using his discretionary power for the purposes of good government.

Mr. Harper is a master tactician and is no doubt behind this Minister’s attitude. One can even speculate that when Harper called for the public inquiry in the Mulroney/Schreiber Affair he intended that Mr. Schreiber would never be available to testify because he would be in a German prison by then. If that is not the case, Mr Harper needs to tell his Minster of Justice that he should be serving the purposes of justice and not purely partisan politics.

What else can you conclude except the Cons are treating this situation as all about politics and not the greater goal of good government? Given the intransigence, indifference, insouciance and insolence of the Minister of Justice to appropriately exercise his discretion Canadians have to be thankful the Cons are a mere minority.

The time to end the pilot project of the Conservative minority government is coming to an end. The time for an election is not now but it is fast approaching.

Did Alberta Try to Get Quebec to Change Policy on Kyoto by Offering "Billions of Industry" Money?

I have bought but not yet read William Marsden’s book “Stupid to the Last Drop” about the Alberta oil sands. I don’t expect to get to it until after Christmas but I may have to fast track my plans.

This CanWest news piece suggesting Guy Boutilier, when he was Alberta’s Minister of the Environment, may be enough to convince me to get into the book sooner. Apparently Mr. Boutiller tried in 2005 to influence the Quebec government to change its support for the Kyoto Accord in exchange for “billions of Alberta industry” dollars to help finance the Montreal Stock Exchange.

This is an interesting allegation given that Mr. Boutilier admits to writing the note and circumstances of the event. He berates Mr. Marsden for “sensationalizing something that is totally imaginative.” What was so imaginative about this ploy? Trying to buy Quebec loyalty and failing to do so is hardly imaginative.

Many past federal Liberal governments were masters at it and Chrétien was perhaps the biggest failure at it. Just look at Adscam for proof of that statement. Even the current Con government under Mr. Harper is playing the lets buy Quebec's loyalty card. He is into the “Quebec Nation” notion and has done some pretty serious federal spending in Quebec with the strategic advice of former Prime Minister Mulroney. Remember it was Mr. Mulroney who managed to get an impressive string of majority governments out of his application of this “imaginative” lets buy the Quebec loyalty tactic.

This is hardly an imaginative approach to nation building or cooperative federalism. It is nothing even close to the effective tag teaming Lougheed and Lévesque used to employ against Ottawa from time to time. Those events were marked by Alberta and Quebec sharing a mutual respect for the division of powers in the Canadian Constitution at a time when Ottawa was buying influence from all other provinces.

Hard to judge from what we know for sure about this event as to what Mr. Boutilier was really up to in offering billions of Alberta industry money to Quebec. On what basis Mr. Boutilier thinks he can offer billions of private industry money to Quebec in the first place is confusing enough. What was he thinking?

Claiming it was about being "imaginative" is not likely to pass any sniff test as to what his motivations really were.

Federal Leaders All Found Wanting and Out of Touch With Concerns of Canadians

What is going to happen to Harper’s Quebec strategy now that he can’t talk to Mulroney – the mastermind behind it all?

Has this Calgary Conservative captured the hearts and minds of the Quebec people to the extent that without Mulroney pulling his strings he will still have support in Quebec? Will they still believe Harper when he says he understands the Quebec Nation in the same way they do? Will they still believe that Harper really means it and get it without the Mulroney influence to reassure the soft nationalist support in Quebec?

Once thing for sure there is not going to be a federal election coming anytime soon under these circumstances. With the emerging reality of another public inquiry involving another Quebec based prime minister Dion will gladly wait out the time for this issue to mature before he will want an election. Quebec is a battle ground in the next election. Is the Harper support in Quebec a mile wide and deep as a dime? Without the reassurance of a continuing Mulroney influence on Harper - will the Quebec support last?

Besides the polls show Canadians are less than enamoured in any meaningful way with any of the federal parties and their leaders right now. My reading is the public sees Dion as very beige, Harper is very grey and Layton is too red. None of them are known commodities and some are seen as less trustworthy than others. Be it the Adscam overhang on the Dion Liberals, the Bush-league conniving tendencies of Harper or the ill-defined opportunistic political and policy ploys of Layton. What Canadians want is someone who is truly and comprehensively green in economic and ecological terms.

The successful new political leaders will be someone with an integrated green agenda that has to be able to embrace and articulate issues of environmental protection and sustainability as well as responsible economic growth and be able to clarify the societal impacts all at the same time with authority and authenticity. Not that tough to do right?

No media-trained, pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped, messaging mouthpiece with a patina of manufactured charisma will cut it anymore. And now we see we have to revisit the recurring issue of honesty, integrity, accountability and transparency in our political culture too.

How much of this crap can the long suffering citizens of Canada take - and how long will they tolerate it?

Mr. Mulroney Best Advised to Stifle the Rhetoric and Bluster in the Schreiber Affair.

Lots of thoughts and themes emerging out of the Mulroney/Schreiber affair that is worth noting and tracking as this story evolves. One key concern is the recent conduct of Mr. Mulroney.

Mr. Mulroney was in a full-court press while speaking at a fundraising dinner in Toronto recently. The always quotable Mr. Mulroney said “I, Martin Brian Mulroney, 18th prime minister of Canada will be there before the royal commission with bells on because I’ve done nothing wrong and I have absolutely nothing to hide.”

The tendency to want stake out a position early and often for some one in Mr. Mulroney’s shoes is understandable but the credibility of the parties is a key issue here. His media-messaging and very crafted quote sure sounds like what we would expect as the opening lines of his testimony just before he goes oath, doesn’t it. Strikes me also as being right up there with the now famously inaccurate “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

Also, who said this was going to be a “royal commission?” It might be a judicial inquiry. It might be bumped off the rails by criminal proceedings that will be pre-empting the inquiry. It has to be considered in the light of the extradition proceedings happening in the Ontario Court of Appeal. There is a matter of a possible perception of bias by the current Conservative Justice Minister who has extensive discretionary powers around the extradition of Mr. Schreiber. He also served under the past Mulroney government and he is no doubt weighing his roles and responsibilities in the extradition process and these pending proceedings as well.

Who knows what is going to be the end result at this point in time? So, Mr. Mulroney lets stifle the histrionics and posturing and pre-framing of the issues in the media while Professor Johnson is peeling back the layers of this onion. Lets not presume or pre-position anything and lets not try this matter in the media first either. You are likely to get your inquiry so please respect the process that has been undertaken by the current Prime Minister and let the process do its job.

Harper Moves Fast and Well on Independent Advisor Appointment

Mr. Harper has moved quickly and well to appoint the independent advisor on the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. The appointment of Professor David Johnson, President of the University of Waterloo is an excellent choice.

I also like the mandate and the flexibility and discretion afforded Professor Johnson.

a) specifies the duties of the Independent Advisor as to conduct an independent review of those allegations respecting financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., and to submit to the Prime Minister by January 11, 2008 a report in both official languages, which shall

(i) make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a public inquiry into those allegations, including the specific issues that warrant examination, under the Inquiries Act,

(ii) state whether the Independent Advisor, in the course of his review, has determined that there is any prima facie evidence of criminal action; in that case, the report shall make recommendations as to how this determination should be dealt with, and what should be the appropriate mandate and timing for a formal public inquiry in those circumstances, and

(iii) make recommendations as to whether any additional course of action may be appropriate;

(b) authorizes the Independent Advisor to adopt procedures for the expedient and proper conduct of the independent review, including reviewing relevant records and documents and consulting as appropriate;

(c) fixes his remuneration as set out in the attached schedule, which per diem is within the range ($1,200 - $1,400); and(d) authorizes the payment, in accordance with Treasury Board policies, of the following expenses incurred in the course of his duties:

(i) travel and living expenses while in travel status in Canada while away from his normal place of residence in accordance with the Treasury Board Travel Directive and Special Travel Authorities,

(ii) expert staff, as required, and

(iii) any other reasonable expenses as necessary to conduct the independent review.

I applaud the swiftness, quality and the mandate behind this decision by Mr. Harper.

This review process is not a witch hunt and never was. It is the beginning of a hunt as to which version of the truth we will believe, that of Mr. Schreiber or that of Mr. Mulroney. That is the ultimate question and it is still an open question waiting for an answer

Mulroney Himself Calls for a Public Inquiry into the Schreiber Allegations.

Mulroney calls for a public inquiry and says by pass the investigation stage. Finally a statesman steps up for the good of the country and perhaps even to enhance the public's confidence in the state of our democracy in the process.

As I said in an earlier post Mr. Harper should call an inquiry. I also supported his decision for an independent investigation as first step. I also hope Schreiber can’t prove his allegations because our respect for most of our political institutions has been severely shaken as of late. We don't need that trust to be tried and tested further right in the office of the Prime Minister.

Given Mr. Mulroney's recommendation, go directly to the pubic inquiry route Mr. Harper and lets get this cleared up. It is time to get this behind the players, the parties and the country.

Was Prime Minister Harper Really Out-of-the-Loop on the Mulroney/Schreiber Affair?

Can you believe that Prime Minister Harper, the master of micro-managing-message-control, was out of the loop for seven months on a letter sent to him from Karlheinz Schreiber alleging serious wrong-doing by former PM (and current Harper mentor) Brian Mulroney?

Given that the letter was accusing former Prime Minister Mulroney of serious abuses of the highest political office in the country, can you believe the Privy Council Office’s characterization of the letter’s content? What were they thinking when, according to media reports, the CPO decided the Schreiber letter to Prime Minister Harper as merely dealing with a civil suit between two private citizens and therefore Harper need not even be advised of the letter's existence, never mind the content?

Mr. Harper’s recent threats in response to the opposition parties (and many Canadians) saying they want him to investigate this matter saying we had “better be careful what we ask for” in demanding a sitting PM investigate a former PM. This attitude was pure unvarnished and unscripted Stephen Harper at his most insinuating, intimidating and threatening best. He implies with such a request to investigate the Mulroney/Schreiber affair there could also be other investigations of other former PMs. Scary stuff.

If further investigation of other PMs is warranted Mr. Harper, then that sir, is exactly what I and other Canadians would expect you to undertake. Your insinuation that this may bear some “consequences” to other politicians and other political parties is damaging to your own reputation as PM and brings into question your own fitness for service the highest political office in the land.

The last time Harper launched such an investigation it was politically motivated and over certain communications, polling and advisory contracts with former Prime Minister Martin and a consulting firm. That firm was also heavily involved in Martin's bid for leadership of the LPC and in his last two election strategies. The investigation mandate Mr. Harper set then was to look for any wrong-doing and skullduggery by the contractors and Mr. Martin. That appointee was seen by most as more of a political provocateur than an indifferent and independent investigator. He was supposed to report back on his findings in 6 months and that time has long since past without any report being released by Mr. Harper. We don’t even know if Harper has actually received such a report as yet. Not an encouraging record Mr. Harper.

Mr. Harper indicates he will appoint an independent third party to investigate the issues and allegations around the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. He says that appointment announcement may come as early as this week. Mr. Harper needs to prove, through this action, that he has the character and capacity for service in the highest political office in the land. If he aspires to a majority government with virtually unfettered control that would bring to him, and as was enjoyed by Prime Ministers Mulroney and Chrétien, he can do much toward ensuring that outcome in the next election by the appointment of a truly independent person to do this review.

Be careful who you appoint this time Mr. Harper and be very open and transparent with the mandate and terms of reference and be generous with the resources you afford this investigation. We are talking about the integrity of the highest political office in the land and not some clever political out-of-season campaign ploy like your series of “who-is-not-a-leader” negative TV ads against Mr. Dion. Please do not politicize this situation Mr. Harper.

Our faith in our democracy demands that we look to you Mr. Harper as our Prime Minister and as the leader of our government to ensure the necessary accountability is extant in dealing with these difficult circumstances.

While you ponder the appointee and the nature of the assignment please put a stay on the extradition of Mr. Schreiber for a while too. We need him in Canada to be examined under oath surrounding the various allegations in his recent affidavit on this matter. The Germans can wait a bit longer to pursue their tax evasion and fraud charges against him. Right now Canadians need to know if he can prove his allegations or not.

I'm not taking bets on if Schreiber can prove his allegations or not. I am hoping, for the sake of the confidence of the country in our political institutions, that he can't. Time will tell.

Harper Distances From Mulroney and Starts a Review Process Based on Schreiber Affidavit.

On November 2nd in this blog I called on Mr. Harper to call in inquiry into the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. I have not kept current on developments on this front as I have recently been out of town at a fascinating conference on blogging and new media…more on that at later date.

I am pleased to support the steps announced by Mr. Harper and reported in the Globe and Mail last Friday that there will be an independent third party review of the Mulroney/Schreiber affair. In my earlier post I said this incident was a character test for Mr. Harper. I believe this situation should be used as “a measure of the man” and citizens can thereby pass judgment on Harper’s personal capacity to govern as a wise statesman and not merely as a clever political tactician.

I am a serious critic of Mr. Mulroney and while it is rare, I have applauded him in the past a number of significant occasions, like the decision on income trusts. Today I am pleased to applaud Mr. Harper again on this decision to call for an independent third party review and to advise the Prime Minister.

Given the complexity of the fact situation, the history of the past Airbus fiasco where former Prime Minister Chrétien inappropriately politicized and personalized the matter that resulted in hindering the RCMP investigtion and causing Canadian taxpayers to pay a libel suit settlement to former Prime Minister Mulroney and the RCMP not being able to get to the bottom of the matter as a result. Add in the dubious reliability of Mr. Schreiber’s credibility who is currently in custody and facing extradition to Germany for fraud and other charges.

This is serious stuff and weighs heavily on the player, not the least of who are the current Prime Minister Stephen Harper and former Prime Ministers Mulroney and Chrétien. Because of the allegations in a sworn affidavit of Mr. Schreiber, it is now also about the integrity, honour and respect of the highest political office in the land, the Prime Minister’s Office.

Perhaps a judicial inquiry is justified but I think Mr. Harper is correct to initially have an independent third party to conduct a review of the facts and circumstances. This will effectively amount to a de facto preliminary inquiry used in criminal proceedings to see if there is enough evidence of sufficient reliability to proceed further.

Stephane Dion and the NDP are calling for a judicial inquiry now. That may be warranted but today, given the history and the circumstances surrounding the allegations and the source of the allegations that may be premature. Let’s get a truly independent third party with experience, wisdom as well as judgment to review the file and advise the PMO.

The test of character issue for Mr. Harper is still extant and we will judge him on who he selects to do the review, terms of reference he gives and the openness he allows and the resources he makes available for the review. Any shortcomings in any of these matters will be viewed as a whitewash.

Mr. Harper is doing the right thing…now he must do it the right way.

Mr. Harper - Call An Inquiry Into the Mulroney-Schreiber Affair.

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.

Don’t let us down sir. Call the inquiry.

Quebec By-Elections Herald Change and Uncertainty

What Happened in Quebec Politics Yesterday?

I watched the by-elections last night and had to wonder what is going on in Quebec. For the most part I think it is healthy for democracy and could be good for Canada. The reality is these events were by-elections. Personality of candidates often means more in those events than party or policy or leadership. There is a reality of the timing of these by-elections too. The current minority government could be brought down any given day the House is sitting and now the NDP alone can save the Conservative’s bacon in a confidence vote. So the consequences of a local constituency “getting it wrong” are not too damaging. So why not send the powers that be a message?

Enough context (excuses???) Here are the messages I got from the result in Quebec last night. Dion and Duceppe are damaged and personally deflated by these results. Layton is the big leadership winner by making a breakthrough in Quebec for the first time and very decisively.

The personality issue played well for the NDP with Mulcair but he also had some fascinating political manoeuvrings at play in his victory too. He attracted a large segment of the Bloc voters (Ouch Mon. Duceppe – that has to hurt) and what were those Bloc voters saying? Were they ticked with the Bloc and wanted to “block” the Liberals. Don’t forget Mulcair was a Charest Liberal Cabinet Minister who resigned and turned Dipper. His election as a Dipper sends a message to the federal and provincial Liberals and bruises them both badly.

The Conservative win by Lebel in Roberval was stunning. Not only was the margin of victory impressive it was in separatist country. This Conservative win was by a guy who, a few short months ago, was also a Bloc party member and presumably a separatist himself. Did Mr. Harper’s Quebec Nation sentiments trump his stance on Afghanistan? One can’t help wonder if Lebel is eventually going to be to Harper what Bouchard was to Mulroney.

Duceppe had something to smile about winning St Hyacinthe “comfortably” and over a Conservative…who will no doubt be breathing down the Bloc’s neck come the next election.

Dion is the sacrificial lamb in all of this. Quebec is still smarting and clearly unforgiving over Adscam and about being “played” by the cynical Chrétien government. It was the Chrétien government who tried to buy Quebec’s loyalty with flags and banners scam perpetrated by a Quebec Liberal party arm that was infected with culture of fraud and favouritism.

Quebecers were insulted and still unforgiving of the Liberals and Dion has to wear it. Such is the reality of the Liberals in Quebec...and for a while yet obviously. And while all this is not technically not Dion’s doing or fault – as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada he has to carry that baggage. It is proving to be a heavy load. That past party baggage is not a new phenomenon nor unique to Dion. Harper had to live through the disaster that was Stockwell Day when he took over the Conservative Party and on his way to 24 Sussex Drive. All this is as it should be.

The larger question is what doe this mean for Quebec politics and how does that impact Canada? Quebec is no longer a fight between Liberal federalists and Bloc Separatists. Quebec’s feelings and political aspirations are much more unclear, uncertain and consequential for Canada since yesterday. Is the Quebec-Canada Cold War over? If so what political relationship within Quebec and between Quebec and Canada fills the vacuum? Is the Rest of Canada ready to deal with the Harper declaration of the Quebec Nation as a reality? Is Mr Harper the new voice for Quebec aspirations or just a means to an end in Quebec – that end being power or at least access to it?

Will Harper “play” Quebec or will Quebec “play” Harper for power and which “player” wins in such a power-game? What happens to the Harper’s western political base in either event? Wasn’t this the kind of Quebec Problem that Mulroney dealt with in his efforts around Charlottetown and Meech Lake? Wasn’t all of that the stuff that lead to the formation of the Reform Party in the first place? Interesting time ahead – interesting times indeed.

In summary – here is how I saw last nights by-elections. Duceppe had some cold water poured on his Quebec sovereigntist torch last night. Dion’s Quebec torch was all but blown out last night by winds of change in those three by-elections. Both of these parties and their leaders were sent strong and angry messages by the Quebec people last night.

Layton has found a small candle in the Quebec winds of change and will have to tend it carefully if he is to keep it lit. One candle does not make a torch…but it can light one.

And as for Mr. Harper, well he was seen as the new and emerging de facto torch carrier for Quebec’s national aspirations. Last night Harper was handed the Quebec Nation’s torch and we shall see how high and well he carries it…or if it ends up burning him and his political carrier in the process.

Bon chance Prime Minister Harper as you move to bring Quebec into nationhood and lead the rest of Canada into a better understanding and an abiding acceptance those unique francophone aspirations. The eyes of an uncertain and a hesitant nation(s) are all upon you.

Wrap-Up of an Interesting Week

It and been an interesting week where issues posted in this Blog have changed and evolved.

Why Trust Harper?
Harper flaunts his campaign promise to set up a public appointments commission to take patronage and partisanship out of federal appointments (see Aug 30 post). This past week he rigs the Bank of Canada replacement process and follow that up with Conservative and former Mulroney MP and PEI Premier and loyal Harper election campaigner, Mr. Pat Binns as Ambassador to Ireland. Tacky Mr Prime Minister …very tacky!

Feds Face the Supreme Court on Allegations of Breach of Trust for First Nations.
The SCC has agreed to hear an appeal by a number of Bands over mismanagement and breach of trust over oil and gas revenues belonging to the from reserve lands. (See posting August 30).At least three actions are involved in this matter. By the time this get to court Harper will realize just how much he needs and misses Jim Prentice in these issues. Expect the new Ministers involved, the Hon. Chuck Strahl to make stupid comments any day now.

Harper’s Version of Ad-scam is Getting a Life of Its Own.
The Globe and Mail Editorial Board is writing today about this Harper hypocrisy and in the same context as our postings of August 29 and 30. This election advertising scheme and the litigious response by Harper is a crystallizing moment. He is going to pay in public trust and credibility. He has also abused volunteer campaign workers by putting some of them at least as parties to a law suit they did not even know was happening. Arrogance they name is Harper.

Peter Lougheed Predicts and Defines a New Alberta/Ottawa Jurisdictional Fight.
Citizens are looking for statesmen with courage, conviction and character and with a concern for the nation. Peter Lougheed and Preston Manning have emerged as those kinds of people (Brian Mulroney not so much). Expect the Lougheed speech to the Canadian Bar Association AGM this week to be a milestone in the evolving reality of and integration of the environment and the economy. If it turns into a pissing contest between Ottawa and Alberta we will all be the lesser for it.

It has been quite a week. I can't wait until the next one starts.