CTV's Robert Fife on the Commons ethics committee: "It's clear that this committee has run out of steam when it has to call Brian Mulroney's former chef. What’s next, the former pizza delivery man?"
NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) told The Hill Times last week that "there´s no appetite from anybody other than a few other Conservatives so we won´t be dealing with that issue if I have anything to do with it."
He said although Mr. Thibault is "free to have dinner with whoever he wants," the public perception is not good. He said he doesn´t return Mr. Schreiber´s calls for this reason. "I think we have to remain objective and deal with testimony as presented in an unbiased way," Mr. Martin said.
The comments about Szabo and his handling of this line of questioning during the committee meeting is bang on -- I watched the proceedings and was surprised he allowed this line of questioning - up to then he was relatively within bounds in his chairing of the committee but that ruling was way out to lunch. I want to know if he was aware of it in advance; did he know the source; who instructed him to allow the question. I hope the Conservatives come back with questions about Liberal actions and behaviour. Mulroney may not have evidence or direct knowledge but neither did Schriber - just lay out a few suspicions, inuendoes, and broad quesions on what may have happened to the 40 million missing in the sponsorship matter. Since Szabo is so free with the range of questioning, I am sure there will be no problem with this line of questioning.
...what is not right is when a journalist influences a member of parliament in what questions to ask on a parliamentary committee. Why? Because that member of parliament has been elected by his or her constituents, is under oath and is granted parliamentary immunity from prosecution of libel.
Therefore, if members of parliament use leading questions provided by a reporter, the journalist and his or her media outlet are enjoying parliamentary privilege by proxy — the result of which could be unfounded allegations, innuendo and smear with absolute impunity...
The CBC has begun an internal investigation and possible disciplinary process after one of its parliamentary reporters suggested questions to a Liberal MP on the Commons ethics committee.
The probe follows a formal complaint by the Conservative party. It centres on claims that MP Pablo Rodriguez (L-Honoré-Mercier) directed questions from the CBC to Brian Mulroney during a highly anticipated Commons committee hearing on Thursday.
"He's sitting over there in his mansion in Rockcliffe chuckling ... he got his get out of jail card. He got what he wanted ... I think he seriously misled every member of this house with this false affidavit."
11:10 a.m. — More preamble from committee chair Paul Szabo. Schreiber looks cool and collected. Szabo opens with an apology?! Apparently Canadians are expressing disgust that Schreiber was escorted to his house in handcuffs. Szabo seems to feel bad for subjecting Schreiber to "ridicule and mockery."
"The shame of one Canadian is the shame of all Canadians. Those who are responsible will take steps to make certain such a spectacle does not happen again."
Szabo goes on to complain that the hearing have been described as a political circus. "This is not a political circus, this is the Parliament of Canada," he says, huffily. Same thing, some might say.
..."So now I am feeling somewhat like a beggar, I am empty. I don't know whether it is a Christmas gift or a burden. But for sure it will help you."
Christmas for the opposition for sure. He (Schreiber) offers to dig for more, if it isn't enough. He will more than likely be taken up on that offer.
11:57 a.m. — "This is a wonderful Christmas gift to us," gushes Szabo after Schreiber hands over the much-ballyhooed documents.
"...it just shows the culture of entitlement because as Mr. (Pat) Martin mentioned earlier, like, whether it was a race to get Joe Clark out, get Brian Mulroney in or Jean Charest later on or now it comes to Mr. Harper's government and he has written not only to Mr. Harper, but in fact he has also written to many ministers in his cabinet right now as well..."
...Mulcair is a lawyer and a former law teacher. He knows better. But he is also a shameless opportunist and relentless publicity hound. Jack Layton should haul him in and read him the riot act. While he's at it, Layton should also watch his back.Shameful.
Or consider this exchange last Thursday between deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
Ignatieff: "Mr. Speaker, what representations did Elmer MacKay make to his own son, the current defence minister, concerning Karlheinz Schreiber? What representations did the defence minister make to the prime minister or any other government official about the Schreiber matter?"
MacKay: "None whatsoever, Mr. Speaker."
Ignatieff: "Mr. Speaker, fathers speak to sons, fathers even use fax machines. Ministers speak to other ministers barely five feet apart. The answer is not credible. Let me put the question in French. What representations did the minister of national defence make to the prime minister about Mr. Schreiber?"
So this is where the quest for fame and power has led Ignatieff. This is why he left Harvard, to dive into the cesspool that Parliament has become. He ought not to be proud of himself, but then he's not alone in running with a braying pack of dogs...
...Schreiber had no right to be in the committee room on Parliament Hill because the alleged case of corruption, as it happens in any democratic country, should be handled by police and courts.
Politicians are the legislators, while the judicial system has to administer the law and police should enforce it.
Unfortunately, this area of competence in Canada has been obliterated by incompetence, political interests and accusations of corruption.
We have courts telling Parliament how to write laws. And, this week, Parliament has taken over the judicial system telling judges when and if someone can be extradited...
"You can't call a public inquiry Mike, and then have an election before we get to the bottom of the matter..."
Karlheinz Schreiber is in the spotlight for money he gave former Tory prime minister Brian Mulroney, but when it comes to contributions to political parties, he appears to have given significantly more to the Liberal Party of Canada.
Kaplan also thinks a public inquiry into a controversial $300,000 in payments to the former Progressive Conservative prime minister by the German-Canadian businessman will prove to be a bad idea.
"We don't need another inquiry. We certainly don't need the 'gong show' that's about to transpire on Parliament Hill next week before the ethics committee," the lawyer and author of two books on the controversy told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.
Kaplan's advice to David Lloyd Johnston, the legal academic whom Prime Minister Stephen appointed to advise on the terms of a public inquiry, would be that a special prosecutor be appointed to review the matter and recommend if charges should be laid.
Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid, said the poll indicates that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have so far avoided major political damage from the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.
"I don't think these specific events have had much impact. Maybe a little bit of an impact but it's not like it has crashed the numbers in the same way, for example, as the sponsorship scandal hit Paul Martin and the Liberals," Mr. Bricker said.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we know that in 2006 the justice department started to take another look at whether the $2.1 million payment to Brian Mulroney should be set aside but mysteriously the whole process just stopped.
Now the justice minister refuses to answer questions and threatens those who ask questions.
Why all the secrecy from the justice minister? Who stopped the justice department from discharging its duty to Canadians?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to be absolutely clear. I did not shut down anything in the justice department.
I think this would be a good opportunity for the member for Brampton—Springdale to get up on her feet and apologize and withdraw the remarks that she made about me.
Hon. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)
Mr. Speaker, justice department officials wanted to review the Mulroney settlement in light of new evidence that his story had changed, but that was before the cabinet shuffle.
After the cabinet shuffle, when the former Mulroney caucus member became justice minister, there was no more talk of a review.
Will the government confirm that based on this new information it now has relaunched this review and, if not, why not?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the allegations by the hon. member are completely false. They are a fabrication.
I invite her to make those comments outside the House. It is one thing to slander an individual in the House of Commons. I say that she and each of them should have the guts to say it outside this place.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister misled the House regarding the allegations of torture, what would stop him from trying to do the same in the Mulroney case, about when he saw Mr. Schreiber's letters, about why the Department of Justice interrupted its internal investigation, or about Mr. Schreiber's extradition?
Is he not trying to mislead the House on the Mulroney case, as he did on the allegations of torture?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party is wrong. There is evidence of allegations in a case we learned about recently, two weeks ago. The Minister of Foreign Affairs explained this case to the House of Commons. We are working with the government of Afghanistan on the arrangement in place for investigating and resolving this situation.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the deception must stop: cover-up on torture and cover-up on Mulroney. Will the Prime Minister stop the cover-ups? Will he agree to testify under oath at the Mulroney inquiry?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the terms of the inquiry, as the government already has said, will be set independently by Professor Johnston. I do not know whether he will accept the position of the current leader of the Liberal Party that there be an unlimited inquiry, or of the past leader of the Liberal Party that there be no public inquiry, or of the future leader of the Liberal Party, who says there should be a limited public inquiry. I am sure one of these Liberal positions will be adopted.
What I can say is that when the Leader of the Opposition alleges vast conspiracies and then votes by abstaining to keep the government in office, nobody takes his allegations seriously.
One of the oldest tactical rules of the political game is, when you're in trouble, create a diversion. No doubt about it, it's working for the Liberals...
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.
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.
I think Oliver and Jane are just smarter than the Lib MPs and can see that the Libs will bleed more from any inquiry than the Cons will, inevitably Chretien's Liberal party will be under the scope and being the most corrupt gov in Canada's history there is an awful lot left to find, like why would an influence peddler contribute 10,000 dollars unless he was promised something, why would an ex Lib Mp put up his 100,000 dollar bail?
I don't think Oliver and Jane were being non-partisan, rather they were looking out for Da Boss and the Party.
I watched Craig Oliver burn out a bearing ranting against an inquiry, Duffy and Giggle Taber also were against it.
That to me is a good enough reason to have one. Methinks some liberals are getting nervous.
And in a telephone interview yesterday, Mr. Schreiber warned that if he's sent back to Germany, the inquiry won't hear from him.
"Not one f*cking word would I say," Mr. Schreiber said from the Toronto West Detention Centre. "Not one word," he repeated.
"Why would I care about the country any more? ... Why would I care any longer?"
...It's a classic case of he said, he said...
...Journalists have no claim of privilege before a royal commission. They cannot hide behind their anonymous sources. Moreover, since the passage of the Accountability Act, the CBC is subject to Access to Information demands. This means Canadians may finally discover how much the CBC has spent on this story over the last 12 years...
If Brian Mulroney were a Liberal, would there be a public inquiry into his private business dealings?
To which we say: Don't let the cell door hit your backside on the way out. Let's kick him out. Now.
...This is Grandpa being kicked in the dentures by another grandpa drowning in his drool in some jail near some airport in Toronto waiting to be flown off to some German jail to spend the rest of his years rotting like old salami...
