Finally we get some definitive information on the infamous Schreiber letter from non other than Marilyn MacPherson, who is Assistant Deputy Minister of Corporate Services for the Privy Council Office - PCO didn't forward Schreiber's letter:
I am writing to clarify several issues relating to Don Martin's Thursday column. Firstly, the headline of the column is misleading -- no letter went missing. All correspondence processed by the Privy Council Office is kept on file for the prescribed period of time. The statements attributed to a former supervisor in the correspondence unit of another government, to the effect that "all correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister is routinely forwarded to his office" is not accurate either. Due to the volume and nature of correspondence, in fact the vast majority of it is not forwarded to the correspondence unit in the Prime Minister's Office, but is processed by the Privy Council Office correspondence unit.
As we have stated with other media representatives, the Privy Council Office processes all incoming correspondence to the prime minister. In the case of correspondence from Karlheinz Schreiber, it was decided that replying would be inappropriate as a result of the author being the subject of an extradition hearing, as well as his involvement in other litigation.
Finally, I want to reconfirm here for your readers the accuracy of statements made by the Prime Minister's Office, that the Privy Council Office did not forward the March 29, 2007 letter to the Prime Minister's correspondence unit.
So the letter was indeed received, but not forwarded to the PMO, due to concerns about the correspondence seeming to be inappropriate due to ongoing hearings and litigation.
Don Martin claims:
The Privy Council Office did not respond to requests for an interview to discuss this possibility, even though they were asked to call by the Prime Minister's tight-lipped communications director.
Do you blame them, Don?
Just because you don't get an interview doesn't give you the right to therefore concoct your own story full of innuendos and spurious allegations.
* * * *
Update: More grumpy old men here - Call cops, Mulroney misled us: Chretien.
Two opposing Liberal views here - Wide or narrow? The Wudrick Blog has something to say about this too - The plot thickens.
Sandy at COTM - Who's running this country? Harper or Schreiber?
National Post on-line: Liberals appeal to Johnston for a stick to beat Harper with.
Two opposing Liberal views here - Wide or narrow? The Wudrick Blog has something to say about this too - The plot thickens.
Sandy at COTM - Who's running this country? Harper or Schreiber?
National Post on-line: Liberals appeal to Johnston for a stick to beat Harper with.
56 comments:
it's time a lot more people got sued for saying and writing stuff that they no nothing about.
Ruth - be careful what you wish for - the CPC have been using mistruths and untruths and anything but the truth against others for quite some time now - clearly purposely misleading statements - imaging how many legal suits would be placed against them?
Shudder.......
I don't believe a word of it that Harper didn't know - you know his personality - if someone didn't let him know - heads would roll - none are rolling.
Gullible or what here.
I'm going to pop open a cold one and watch this show with a big smile on my face.
The Liberals whined and bleated for an inquiry and they got one. Now all of a sudden that its going to be wide ranging, Liberals like this one want the inquiry to go quietly into the night. They can't say that they weren't warned. Obviously they are afraid of what will be found. It is no wonder they want to narrow the scope of this. They are shitting their pants right now.
"Just because you don't get an interview doesn't give you the right to therefore concoct your own story full of innuendos and spurious allegations."
A lot of newspaper columnists - including Don Martin - would be better off applying for the jobs presently vacated by striking Hollywood writers.
Regardless of how narrow or broad the focus of an inquiry will be, there will always be so-called political analysts who will invent their own scenarios about what REALLY happened.
It is also strange that NDP MP Pat Martin is believed when he says the NDP received a similar letter from Schreiber which was also discarded, yet the gossip columnists like Don Martin choose to "concoct" stories, as you so ably put it.
And talking about letters ... it had never dawned on me why Stephane Dion spent so much time writing letters to express his views. Having watched his performance on a daily basis in QP, I now understand.
Anonymous@9:23...
Not gullible, just partisan. Unable to give a sitting PM credit for honesty because he isn't a member of your political party.
You don't actually believe Stephane writes his own letters, do you?
Anony said - "don't believe a word of it that Harper didn't know - you know his personality - if someone didn't let him know - heads would roll - none are rolling"
Um Anony - do you honestly believe that the Prime Minister - or for that matter - the CEO of any company - actually has time to read every single piece of mail sent to him.
Give me a frikin break - "gullible or what" seems to more aptly apply to yourself when you choose to believe a criminal because it suits your partisan mind.
When you see comments like anon @ 09:23:00, first off, you see why they post under anonymous, then you wonder why they refuse to believe the truth, no matter how solid the evidence presented to them.
The Schreiber-Mulroney scandal was all they had, and now that that is gone, what do they have left? Dion's leadership abilities? Yeah, I can see why they are so reluctant to let this go.....
I read the Sheila Copps article in the sun a few days ago about how things are done in the government communications offices.
She said it stretches credibility that Harper would not have known anything at all, though certainly the order could have gone out to sit on it and ensure he can truthfully deny having seen it.
She did say every piece of correspondence is tracked, and there is a trail of initials of every person that touched it.
Who decided not to forward this? It would have to be someone on the political side, not a mere civil servant. Whose initials are on the file?
The information exists. Why is it not public?
My point exactly, Lib supporter has the evidence right in front of him:
"the Privy Council Office processes all incoming correspondence to the prime minister. In the case of correspondence from Karlheinz Schreiber, it was decided that replying would be inappropriate as a result of the author being the subject of an extradition hearing, as well as his involvement in other litigation."
And yet refuses to see it, instead choosing to quote a Liberal about how it really went down.
Gotta get me a pair of them glasses....
==
====
And yet refuses to see it, instead choosing to quote a Liberal about how it really went down.
Don't know where you got that from, but your ad hominem is pretty artless.
So what "really happened" was they will not disclose who made that decision.
WHO DECIDED?
Gotta get me a pair of them glasses....
Yes you do, then you would have read my comment and not applied your smirking and sneering contempt for daring to question the party line.
And you wonder why people won't trust your leader. Here was a perfect opportunity to show some openness. But what do we get? Partisan stonewalling as usual.
Something I posted @ Nov 19, 10:53:00 AM EST seems to have been lost in the ether. Where did it go?
Gabby, I didn't delete anything. Try again.
gabby, you have a 10:53 in the "We have met the enemy" thread.
You are hilarious Lib supporter,
WHO DECIDED?
Who cares??
Is there a problem with the explanation of the decision?
No?
Partisan stonewalling?
Where do you get that from?
Yes, making a well thought out decision, based on information that I am sure even lib supporter would see as valid information, that would be Partisan stonewalling
would it?
Okay, gee I guess I better rethink this whole thing.
I'll give Sheila a call, I'm sure she can give me all the non-partisan facts.
Sheila's article outlined the process, as a former Cabinet minister would understand it. No Cabinet ministers in the current government are allowed to speak without permission, so we only have former ministers to describe the process.
She only found it surprising that something like this would not make it to Harper, at least informally.
But the main point, which you continually try to change the channel from, is the fact that there is a record of who made the decision. The government, after being accused of "losing" the letters, was forced to state that they did process them, and that a decision was made.
Now it is just a matter of finding out who made that decision.
What part of "WHO DECIDED?" do you not understand?
it's all that Liberals and LS have.
I say let's get this inquiry going sooner rather than later and watch the Liberals, CTV and CBC squirm some more.
Joanne, maybe you now have a filter that doesn't allow web links? I don't know, maybe that's what happened; that is what happens at some other blogs.
Please understand, that is not an accusation.
Here, I'm going to try again. And my comment has to do with the original thread, not lib supporter's unfounded accusations.
Here's further proof that many political "analysts" and/or their headline writers are concocting (I like the word) their own scenarios:
This from the National Post: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=70f0ca81-a18a-4c47-9de4-a90845f24467&k=0
**We believed Mulroney: Chretien**
Hubert Bauch, Canwest News Service Published: Sunday, November 18, 2007
Former prime minister Jean Chrétien yesterday suggested **he and his government were misled** by Brian Mulroney when they agreed to a $2.1-million lawsuit settlement 10 years ago.
Compare the above headline to this one in the Winnipeg Free Press you provided: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/story/4079706p-4679422c.html
**Call cops, Mulroney misled us: Chretien**
Mon Nov 19 2007
By Hubert Bauch
MONTREAL -- Former prime minister Jean Chrétien suggested Sunday **he and his government were misled** by Brian Mulroney when they agreed to a $2.1-million lawsuit settlement 10 years ago.
Now listen to the CBC version AND Mr. Chretien in his own words: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/barton-2chretien-071118.mov
In this clip NOWHERE does Mr. Chretien, to his credit, suggest that Mr. Mulroney misled his government.
"Mulroney misled ..." is a figment of Bauch's & some headline writer's imagination.
Yoo-hoo ... Hollywood is calling you-ooo-ooo!
Likewise, Don Martin writes as though he was present in the PMO, in the PCO and everywhere else, including people's brains to ascertain their motivations.
Let's have the inquiry's scope as wide as possible. In other words, it should not only investigate Mulroney's dealings with the private sector, but also Chretien's (Shawinigate, Abscam, etc) and Martin's (his family's steam ship company). As kai_wolf has pointed out, it seems that the Liberals are discovering the truth of the old adage: be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
Liberals are discovering the truth of the old adage: be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
Then there's no problem, is there?
Why are you stonewalling a simple question?
Note that the quote says "replying" would be inappropriate due to the ongoing case. Replying would mean mailing back to Schreiber. Joanne then comments after the quote that it means it was not relayed to the PMO.
Who decided not to reply?
Who decided not to relay to the PM?
Why do you keep trying to change the channel?
L.S. is right, Gabby. You left the comment in a different post. ;)
Okay, LS, I'll try to reply to your question(s) (although they're one in the same, as far as I see it) directly, because it seems seeing the answer in the blog entry to which you're commenting isn't good enough.
ls asked:
"Who decided not to reply?
Who decided not to relay to the PM"
Marilyn MacPherson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Services, Privy Council Office wrote:
"As we have stated with other media representatives, the Privy Council Office processes all incoming correspondence to the prime minister. In the case of correspondence from Karlheinz Schreiber, it was decided that replying would be inappropriate as a result of the author being the subject of an extradition hearing, as well as his involvement in other litigation."
What has happened here, then, is that the PCO was following standard operating procedures, and that it doesn't really matter who didn't forward it--the policy within the PCO, so far as it's told above by Ms. MacPherson, is to stay out of any situation where there might be a problem with getting entangled in litigation. So the name of the person or people who didn't pass it on, although irrelevant, will likely come out sooner or later, but then what? They'll get kudos for doing their jobs right.
And talking about letters ... it had never dawned on me why Stephane Dion spent so much time writing letters to express his views. Having watched his performance on a daily basis in QP, I now understand.
That's right. And you can be sure that he has received lots of assistance with spelling and grammar.
"it should not only investigate Mulroney's dealings with the private sector, but also Chretien's (Shawinigate, Abscam, etc) and Martin's (his family's steam ship company)..."
If you have any evidence of any wrongdoing in either case then I would agree with you, but inquiries are not intended to be witch hunts.
The obvious and clear difference here is that there is evidence of Mulroney's dealings with Schreiber, corroborated by the fact Mulroney did in fact receive money, in cash, from someone who is facing charges of bribing public officials. While the inquiry may conclude there was nothing improper about this relationship, the fact is there was a relationship that was previously denied by Mulroney. In other words - there is an evidentiary foundation which justifies the inquiry.
If it is a fishing expedition you want, then I say we go back to when Schreiber allegedly funded the "dump Joe Clark" campaign, and that we also look into those unnamed donors to Harper's leadership campaign. Surely we have a right to know if the NRA funded the man who vows to get rid of the gun registry???
In other words, do not ask for a fishing expedition unless you are prepared to face the same scrutiny based on rumour and innuendo.
TangoJuliette sez:
Tempest in a teapot troops. What did Harper know, and when did he know it? lessee. . .
This is about a case where a $300,000 payment is in question, and currently before the courts, from what I understand. This is all compounded with a $2.1 million liberal government payout, with our tax dollars, for their "hounding" of Brian.
Compared to the hundreds of millions of tax dollars gone missing under the Liberal government, where we're all supposed to believe that NOOOOOOBODY but Chuckie Guite had any clue of what was going on?
About events that precede, by at least fifteen years, Harper's election to power, my guess is that Harper today, knew a hell of alot less, for a far shorter period of time than the lib biggies knew about their rip-off gambits. Like the Auberge, The Development Bank, Shawinigate, the Fountaians in the River, Adscam etc etc etc. And I'm betting that they not only knew about it, knew more about it, for a much longer period of time and did all they could to direct the operation and finance their regime with purloined funds. Not to metion the BBBBBILLION$
of boondoggled bucks.
Now. $300,000 - cold hard cash. Most of it somehow brought into this country? Probably illegally - or - was it all electronically depositited from foreign sites? Or was there some "laundering" invovled.
I'm with Ruth - in spite of whatever silly innuendoes and bogus legal bogeymen, "anon Mon Nov 19, 09:23:00 AM EST" is trying to conjur and whistle up.
Bring it all on! Clean out them Agean Stables on the the muddy banks of Bytown otn the Ottawa.
tj
t.e.&o.e.
What has happened here, then, is that the PCO was following standard operating procedures, and that it doesn't really matter who didn't forward it--the policy within the PCO, so far as it's told above by Ms. MacPherson, is to stay out of any situation where there might be a problem with getting entangled in litigation.
I would suggest that the above is a fair answer to L.S.'s demands/questions.
The other thing I might point out is that the NDP apparently had the same information for months and disregarded it until recently.
So let's not tar & feather the PCO here until we know all the facts. There likely is a protocol of some kind set up, and it looks like it was followed. If the protocol needs to be changed, I'm sure that that will be addressed appropriately.
The desire of the Liberals to tie this one on Harper would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
To L.S.:
Perhaps it was the same "rogue" civil servants from Adscam who decided to hide the letters from Schreiber to Harper. The PCO received letters from civil servants about adscam. Mr. Cutler for one said he repeatedly tried to make the PM and ministers aware of what was going on. Soooo, if you use your logic, Chretien and Martin must have known about the scam.
To Gayle:
Actually the case with Chretien and Shawinigate is quite similar to this. Chretien denied approaching the head of the BDC to approve a loan for the buyer, even stated as much in HoC, and 2 years later recanted his story. In fact, Chretien and his cronies were later found in court to have tried to destroy Frances Bedouin for having outed Chretien, wherein another lawsuit was paid out. Not to mention the fact millions were spent around Chretiens property prior to the sale, making it more attractive.
He knew it was wrong
The fact Chretien had even approached Beaudoin was wrong, especially considering that Chretien was a former part-owner of the inn and a neighbouring golf course. At the time, Chretien hadn't been paid for his shares in the golf course and was seeking a new buyer. Chretien's own actions indicated he knew what he was doing was wrong. Why? Because he lied about them.
Between January 1999 and November 2000, Chretien and his aides repeatedly insisted the BDC operated on its own, free from political interference. Finally, on Nov. 16, 2000, Chretien was forced to admit in the middle of an election that he had lobbied Beaudoin repeatedly.
By then, two Chretien cronies, Michel Vennat and Jean Carle, were making Beaudoin's life a living hell.
Vennat, the BDC's chairman, had been appointed by Chretien.
Carle, the bank's senior vice-president of public affairs, had previously been Chretien's director of operations. From 1999 to 2003, Vennat and Carle presided over a vicious smear campaign against Beaudoin for defying Chretien. Quebec Judge Andre Denis would later describe the two men's actions as "an unspeakable injustice" designed to "break him and ruin his career."
First, Beaudoin was effectively forced out of his post when the BDC loan to Duhaime was approved over his objections.
Seeing the writing on the wall, he negotiated a severance and retirement package in the summer of 1999 and left the bank.
But Vennat and Carle weren't finished. Soon after, Beaudoin was accused of "irregularities" by the BDC and lost his pension.
He was smeared in the media. His cottage and home were raided, not by police, but by BDC lawyers and accountants. Incredibly, a judge had authorized the search. Meanwhile, Carle was on the phone to Chretien's office, co-ordinating statements in the media and the Commons. Judge Denis would later describe this as "incredible ... Carle was convinced the prime minister is the only shareholder of the BDC. They are no longer looking like a corporation should, to give the media just the facts ... but only to repeat the position of the Prime Minister's Office."
Vennat then wrote two letters to RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli asking the Mounties to investigate Beaudoin for "misappropriation" of bank property and as the source of a "forged" document related to Shawinigate that had been leaked.
Home raided
Six months later, the Mounties showed up at the Royal Montreal Golf Club, claiming there were investigating the membership of Beaudoin's wife. At Christmas, they raided his Montreal home. Before Beaudoin could reach his lawyer, the attorney was contacted by a reporter who'd been tipped to the raid by the PMO. The RCMP found nothing. In April 2003, the Crown said no charges would be laid after concluding the case against him was absurd.
Finally, in September 2003, Beaudoin had his day in court.
Judge Denis ordered that Beaudoin be paid his full severance and pension. He denounced the BDC, saying he didn't believe some of Vennat's testimony and that Carle had lied. The publicly owned bank had spent four years and $4.3 million hounding Beaudoin. That's what things were like when Chretien was "da boss." And the Grits are nostalgic for this? God help us.
And you can be sure that he has received lots of assistance with spelling and grammar.
I have read that his spelling and grammar in English are letter perfect. He mispronounces words, and can choose the wrong word in spoken English, but the mechanics of his written English are fine.
Here is Sheila's article from November 14th's Sun
She says: "Harper's claim that junior staffers did not refer the documents to appropriate senior advisers does not ring true."
And explains why: "But no rerouting decision would be made without political input."
To clarify: "When in doubt, bureaucrats always seek advice from their political masters. It is unthinkable that Schreiber's letters would be redirected without political input."
Then the tracking system: "Every single piece of prime ministerial correspondence is set up in a docket with a tracking system including the dates and initials of every single official involved in the response."
She points out: "It would be simple for the prime minister's tracking documents to back his claim that he never saw Schreiber letters. His silence on the issue speaks volumes."
She speculates: "More likely, Harper issued an early directive to reroute all Schreiber/Mulroney documents to the justice department in a deliberate decision to avoid political oversight."
So we still have no indication of who, from the political people, decided not to let Harper know.
TangoJuliette sez:
liberal supporter said... "I have read that his spelling and grammar in English are letter perfect." Mon Nov 19, 02:19:00 PM EST
Hey, LS: Just exactly where did you read this contention? Dion - like almost all of the members of the lib machine, are virtuallty all unilingual.
Mind, there are some stunning examples of exception. Though all mdeia reported that it was a striking gaff that most of the backroom warriors in Martin's cortege, were anlgos , who, for the life of them, couldn't safely order a plate of fries with chees curds and gravy without confusing it for an order of hookers.
Yes. THAT "poutine" vs "putaine" conundrum.
For a party that claims to be the Party of the Charter, of Bilingualism and of Biculturalism, another of their "liberal party's dirty little secrets," to borrow a phrase from Axworthy's report, they are probably not too far ahead of any of the other parties in parliament, regarding fluent bilingualism.
Hopefully, for Steffi's sake, the next election, when it come, will be blessed with "debates," carried out in written format. Manual. Electronic. Pen. Pencil.
THEN, PMSH just might be in a bit of a quandry. Then again, the Govt. of Que. has already reported that most French Canadians [read:Quebec citizens,] don't do well in written French.
'Twould certainly prove to be rather boring Telly fare, dontcha think, wazir?
So, now - please...your citation claiming to prove Dion's "letter perfect" English, in written format, at least? And if there is a citation, what is the proof underlying it?
tick-tock.
tj
t.e.&o.e.
Gee L'S.. you printed that lengthy post never once stating how Liberal PM's , cabinet minister. and MP's never received any of the info trying to make them aware of Adscam.
Surely all those letters were accounted for, initialed by all those who touched them, right? And according to Sheila Copps there is no way Chretien could not have seen those same letters, warning of fraudulent contracts where millions were going to be paid for work not even being done.
OK, lets try this. Why is it Shreiber sent letters to the Conservatives and NDP but not the Liberal's at the same time.Is it:
1. He already thought he had bought them off.
2. He sent them the same letters and the Liberals are lying about receiving them a few weeks ago.
3. Liberals have already told Shreiber they will keep him in the country because of #1 above.
4. Schreiber is actually blackmailing the Liberals and telling them if he is deported he is going to spill the beans on their dealings.
5. Shreiber is actually the illegitimate child of Pierre Trudeau from an affair with a German hooker.
So, now - please...your citation claiming to prove Dion's "letter perfect" English, in written format, at least?
Don't have one. I said "I read it someplace".
Perhaps you should back up Joanne's claim about Dion writing letters that "you can be sure that he has received lots of assistance with spelling and grammar."
Can you?
Perhaps you should back up Joanne's claim about Dion writing letters that "you can be sure that he has received lots of assistance with spelling and grammar."
The answer to that one would be filed under the category, "Common sense".
Actually LS and everyone else I do not care if it is PMSH or Mr.Dion, you can be sure that every piece of correspondence sent out on such an issue of importance as this was to Dr.Johnston was looked at, proof read , tweaked, clarified and check again at least ten times before it ever seen the final print icon and was shoved into an envelope. This entire part of the thread is such a non issue it really is not worthy of discussion.
"Don't have one. I said "I read it someplace".
So did I, Garth Turners blog. And we all know Garth never lies, right?
Answer to a fact free statement:
The answer to that one would be filed under the category, "Common sense".
This means "I made it up and didn't say so"
"Don't have one. I said "I read it someplace".
That means "I don't know where I got it, but I make no claim it is true".
This entire part of the thread is such a non issue it really is not worthy of discussion.
The voice of reason.
As you can see, the channel was successfully changed from "Who decided not to relay the Schreiber letter?" to "Dion is not a leader - bad English variation.".
So did I, Garth Turners blog. And we all know Garth never lies, right?
If that's where it came from, I must have read someone else quoting it. I never go to Garth's blog, for the same reasons I won't go to any non-blogger blog.
This means "I made it up and didn't say so"
Good grief! Are you that naive that you think a high-profile political figure would submit something to a newspaper without careful editing by his or her assistants/advisers?
I'm sure not even Harper would do that.
Good letter from PCO's McPherson. And let's not forget that the Liberals and NDP received the same "red hot" documents
and did/said nothing.
Thanks for that link, JR!
Are you that naive that you think a high-profile political figure would submit something to a newspaper without careful editing by his or her assistants/advisers?
You were responding to a comment about how much time went into some letters. That comment claims that after seeing Dion's spoken English, that they now understand.
That would imply that he has equal difficulty with written English. You agreed and claimed he had a lot of help.
Now you try and make it sound like everyone has proof readers and Dion is no exception.
Read it again. It sure sounded like the good old "bad English - not a leader" routine to me.
Commenter said: And talking about letters ... it had never dawned on me why Stephane Dion spent so much time writing letters to express his views. Having watched his performance on a daily basis in QP, I now understand.
You said: "That's right. And you can be sure that he has received lots of assistance with spelling and grammar."
And the channel remains changed, from the fact that the PCO stonewalls and won't reveal who made the decision not to tell the PMO.
Oy vey.
You were responding to a comment about how much time went into some letters. That comment claims that after seeing Dion's spoken English, that they now understand.
L.S. Could you please take off your partisan blinders long enough to consider the possibility that Gabby may have been referring to the number of letters he writes for publication, as opposed to the amount of time he spends composing them? At least that's how I interpreted her remark.
But whatever.
Lots of delirious comments from L.S., yet not one addresses the fact that according to his logic, and Sheila Copps and whoever else he quoted, the fact that if it was impossible for Harper not to see the letters, it is equally likely for Chretien and members in the PCO when he was told about contracts where adcsam was at its height.
So LS, are you saying the Liberal's are in fact guilty of knowing about Adscam? Cutler sent letters to the Privy Council Office and to cabinet ministers.
the number of letters he writes for publication, as opposed to the amount of time he spends composing them? At least that's how I interpreted her remark.
So if I say, "You know, Prime Minister Harper sends out a lot of letters outlining his views.",
you would naturally say
"That's right. And you can be sure that he has received lots of assistance with spelling and grammar."
Did Chretien see the letters about Adscam L.S.?
If you answer yes then you are free to state Harper must have seen the letters as well.
If not then just give it a rest with your partisan vomit. It works both ways.
Did Chretien see the letters about Adscam L.S.?
If you answer yes then you are free to state Harper must have seen the letters as well.
If not then just give it a rest with your partisan vomit. It works both ways.
I am beginning to suspect that you are presenting a false dichotomy. I cannot find any reference to Cutler writing letters to the PM, letters that would be received in the external communications system the way Schreiber's letters were.
Instead, Cutler was a civil servant, raising red flags in the internal system. Please correct me with a link if this is not the case. He would report his concerns to his boss. It is not unlike a corporation, where you follow the chain of command.
Since he was working for Guite, it would make sense for Guite not to pass anything higher, so his scam can run longer.
Can you substantiate your claim that letters, just like Schreiber's, were received from Cutler and processed the same way?
L.S.:
"Commenter said: And talking about letters ... it had never dawned on me why Stephane Dion spent so much time writing letters to express his views. Having watched his performance on a daily basis in QP, I now understand."
Since you referred to the above, I feel I have to explain. You interpreted that as pointing to Dion's difficulties with English. No, that's not what I meant.
What I did mean is his poor performance during QP, asking the same question repeatedly, even though his initial question has been answered.
Or else, Dion asks a question using such outdated clichés as "what did he know and when did he know it?" So passé! Geez, going back to Watergate?
Also, notice his body language.
When Dion gets up to speak, surrounded by his troops, he waits for the obligatory "standing ovation" with lips pursed; and when the applause has died down to his satisfaction, he begins asking his "question," gesticulating as much as Mr. Whirly-bird Arms, Paul Martin.
Sorry, I'm not the only one to have commented on his ineffectual performance during QP.
As far as his letter writing prowess, I don't doubt he wrote the letters himself. The English ones may have been revised/corrected to make sure they are idiomatically correct, just as I expect PM Harper's speeches undergo the same corrections when he uses French. No big deal either way.
Thanks Gabby. Hopefully L.S. can live with that explanation.
Privy Council warns PMO
The next concerns surfaced in a December 1996 memo, in which Privy Council Clerk Jocelyne Bourgon warned then-prime minister Jean Chrétien that he "had taken on a very large burden of responsibility" by assuming ministerial responsibility for funds dispersed from what was then called the unity reserve.
She suggested that her office or a group of cabinet ministers should review potential grants on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
"Mr. Chrétien did not reply in any way to the memorandum," Gomery wrote in the summary to his lengthy report.
A second memo from Bourgon in September 1997 repeated her concerns, and underlined that the Privy Council Office "was aware that the PMO was determining those projects to which sponsorship monies were being directed."
A few things for you L.S.
1. Chretien denied in testimony about receiving the memos and warnings.
2. The Privy Council Clerk noted that it would be better if her ofice reviewed the grants, avoiding potential conflicts for both the PM and the PMO. Thats the same reason the PCO has stated they did not forward Schreiber's letters to the PMO or to Harper. Because Schreiber was facing extradition the PCO decided it would not be appropriate for the letters to be forwarded.
So explain your reason why Schreiber sent the same letters to the Conservatives and NDP at the same time, but NOT the Liberal's until a few weeks ago. And since Thibault has been meeting with Schreiber for some time, why was the subject of the change in dates in regards to meeting Mulroney only mentioned a few weeks ago?
I worked for well known scientists for years.
I screened their mail and their phone calls.
I decided what was worth their time, what I could answer, what went into the round file, what was put away just in case, etc.
It's not unusual - typical corporate behaviour.
There's no smoking gun, the answer from the Privy Council explains it clearly. Trouble is, after way too many years of Librano governments, people can't accept that things can be that simple and that there is NO HIDDEN AGENDA.
Now, about that inquiry. When does it get rolling? Should be more fun than a barrel of money.
Caveat, yeah. If the writers' strike continues into the winter, the inquiry could be the best show in town!
Rae says narrow and Iggy smiles quietly.
Schrieber is just a desperate man using desperate measures to save his own ass.........end of story.
It's a nice diversion for the Liberals, at least it was last week.
This week I'm thinking they know that the stink coming from this file begins and ends with the Liberals...not Stephen Harper.
Schrieber is just a desperate man using desperate measures to save his own ass.........end of story.
It's a nice diversion for the Liberals, at least it was last week.
This week I'm thinking they know that the stink coming from this file begins and ends with the Liberals...not Stephen Harper.
Post a Comment