Was Brian Mulroney a Crook?

[Alexandra]

Not having an inquiry was not part of Johnston's written instructions. He was to decide the parameters of such an inquiry not to cancel it just because the PM and Mulroney now want to sweep it aside.. All of the latest suggestions by Harper, Dion and Layton should be ignored in favour of what Johnston finds based on legal, tax and ethical expert advice.

If you have a citation for that JDobbin, fine. But. Johnstone was chosen to decide from all of the data, etc. .... whether or not there should be a Public Inquiry.....

and, in any event, since the original intent of the scope of this Shreiber-Mulroney travesty was to be whether or not Mulroney took money from Shreiber while still the Prime Minister of Canada which Shreiber has already denied, what further evidence or proof is there that will justify a Public Inquiry?

Whether or not Stephane Dion's request for Johnstone to investigate Stephen Harper's involvement in a not so subtle suggestion by Stephane Dion of a "cover-up" was not part of Johnstone's original mandate and was quickly forgotten by all of the participating members of the Ethics Committee. Are you suggesting that Johnstone's 'parameters' should include all of the extraneous questions tossed around by the Ethics Committee, Dion, Layton and the Bloc, as well?

Where did you get the impression that Stephen Harper will now sweep Johnstone's recommendations aside should he recommend an Inquiry?

`

[jdobbin]

If you have a citation for that JDobbin, fine. But. Johnstone was chosen to decide from all of the data, etc. .... whether or not there should be a Public Inquiry.....

and, in any event, since the original intent of the scope of this Shreiber-Mulroney travesty was to be whether or not Mulroney took money from Shreiber while still the Prime Minister of Canada which Shreiber has already denied, what further evidence or proof is there that will justify a Public Inquiry?

Whether or not Stephane Dion's request for Johnstone to investigate Stephen Harper's involvement in a not so subtle suggestion by Stephane Dion of a "cover-up" was not part of Johnstone's original mandate and was quickly forgotten by all of the participating members of the Ethics Committee. Are you suggesting that Johnstone's 'parameters' should include all of the extraneous questions tossed around by the Ethics Committee, Dion, Layton and the Bloc, as well?

Where did you get the impression that Stephen Harper will now sweep Johnstone's recommendations aside should he recommend an Inquiry?

I'm afraid you are wrong.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...1221?hub=Canada

Johnston's written mandate states that he is to set terms of reference for a public inquiry and its timing, and report back by Jan. 11 - not to determine whether an inquiry is needed.

They talked about it all day on the news. Johnston's is only to set the parameters of an inquiry. There is nothing that was written in the mandate that was tabled in the House to indicate he had an option of no inquiry.

Tory supporters think everything has been settled but that doesn't mean a sharp eyed accountant or lawyer will not be able to add things up that contradict both men's testimony.

I have no idea what Johnston's parameters should be. I just know that Harper did not give him written latitude to say an inquiry was not required. Harper is now trying to say he did. Johnston should dismiss this political interference.

[Topaz]

Schrieber has said that Mulroney was put into the PMO with the help of German companies/government and Canadian business to them contract cetain business and that this practice is still going on today. IF this is true and Harper has not been clean in dealing with the military buying of equipment, then he will NOT want this to come out. There has been questions on some of the aircraft that the military has bought. Could the 300.000 dollars Mulroney got be for services he did to help Germany company as PM??

[Argus]

Schrieber has said that Mulroney was put into the PMO with the help of German companies/government and Canadian business to them contract cetain business and that this practice is still going on today. IF this is true and Harper has not been clean in dealing with the military buying of equipment, then he will NOT want this to come out. There has been questions on some of the aircraft that the military has bought. Could the 300.000 dollars Mulroney got be for services he did to help Germany company as PM??

Don't worry. The Germans had little say in who became prime minister in Canada. That was up to the Desmarais family. Mulroney was owned by them, just as Trudeau was, just as Martin was, and just as Dion is.

[jbg]

Of course he is parroting what a representative of the Liberal Party of Canada says. There is not thought or originality to the posts at all.

One can be original for a reasonable number of posts. Some %tage of his posts are orignal.

[Alexandra]

I have no idea what Johnston's parameters should be. I just know that Harper did not give him written latitude to say an inquiry was not required. Harper is now trying to say he did. Johnston should dismiss this political interference.

In the Canadian Press article you have cited this is what the reporter opened his piece with:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says it's up to his appointed adviser to determine if a public inquiry is needed to resolve the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.

Where is S. Harper "now trying to say in his letter to Johnston he gave him written latitude to say an Inquiry was not required..."?

Yes, if this is the case, Mr. Johnston should dismiss ALL political interference more particularly S. Dion's meddling letters instructing Mr. Johnston to expand his Inquiry into the 'cover up' of this affair by Stephen Harper.

`

[jdobbin]

In the Canadian Press article you have cited this is what the reporter opened his piece with:

Where is S. Harper "now trying to say in his letter to Johnston he gave him written latitude to say an Inquiry was not required..."?

Yes, if this is the case, Mr. Johnston should dismiss ALL political interference more particularly S. Dion's meddling letters instructing Mr. Johnston to expand his Inquiry into the 'cover up' of this affair by Stephen Harper.

This is what Harper said this week from the CTV article.

Asked directly by a radio station this week whether Johnston's mandate includes the no-inquiry option, Harper replied in the affirmative.

The truth is that the Johnston's mandate does not include the no inquiry option. CP and CTV have reported that there is nothing written in regards to that option. It isn't in the document that Harper tabled in the House. Harper, like Dion and Layton, is trying to influence the outcome. Johnston should ignore it all and fulfill is mandate: to set the parameters of an inquiry.

Johnston's written mandate states that he is to set terms of reference for a public inquiry and its timing, and report back by Jan. 11 - not to determine whether an inquiry is needed.

[margrace]

My dad loved to argue, you call it debate, and the amazing thing was that somewhere in the argument one found that he had changed sides. I don' know how he did it but he sure was good at it. He would have loved this site.

[jbg]

I have no idea what Johnston's parameters should be. I just know that Harper did not give him written latitude to say an inquiry was not required. Harper is now trying to say he did. Johnston should dismiss this political interference.

And how are you privileged to know that?

[jbg]

My dad loved to argue, you call it debate, and the amazing thing was that somewhere in the argument one found that he had changed sides. I don' know how he did it but he sure was good at it. He would have loved this site.

I have to "change sides" all the time in my daily work as a lawyer. Why should my role on the site be any different?

Politically I am a leftist extremist, but sometimes I'll argue more conservative views as well.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper's suggestion that Dr. Johnston might indicate that a Public Inquiry is not needed is consistant with the mandate that he gave him. Based on the information he is gathering, Dr. Johnston may end up with "terms" that are so narrow that it would make little sense to proceed with a formal Inquiry. We'll have to wait and see what he comes up with.

[jbg]

Harper's suggestion that Dr. Johnston might indicate that a Public Inquiry is not needed is consistant with the mandate that he gave him. Based on the information he is gathering, Dr. Johnston may end up with "terms" that are so narrow that it would make little sense to proceed with a formal Inquiry. We'll have to wait and see what he comes up with.

That may satisfy some people, but not jdobbin.

[jdobbin]

Harper's suggestion that Dr. Johnston might indicate that a Public Inquiry is not needed is consistant with the mandate that he gave him. Based on the information he is gathering, Dr. Johnston may end up with "terms" that are so narrow that it would make little sense to proceed with a formal Inquiry. We'll have to wait and see what he comes up with.

Johnston simply didn't have that option of suggesting no inquiry based on the documents Harper tabled in the House. I don't know why Harper would think that it would be now.

[Keepitsimple]

Johnston simply didn't have that option of suggesting no inquiry based on the documents Harper tabled in the House. I don't know why Harper would think that it would be now.

I think we are dealing with symantics. Putting aside your evaluation (and mine) of the hearings, evidence and hearsay, what if Dr. Johnston, in all his legal wisdom, is not able find anything worthwhile to investigate? Again, I'm saying what if? Does that mean we have a Public Inquiry on nothing? I know that's a somewhat extreme example but as I said, I think we're dealing with semantics. If Dr. Johnston cannot find anything compelling to investigate, it would be reasonable for him to come to that conclusion as a recommendation - would it not? And if that's reasonable, then it's also reasonable for Harper to speculate that there might not be an inquiry. Keep in mind that Harper's speculation was in response to an interviewer's question. If anything, Harper has always been too open and honest in his answers to questions. I think it's best to just wait and see what Dr. Johnston has to say.

[jbg]

It's frustrating to have half a debate, where the main opponent "ignores", despite the lack of any offending posts.

[Michael Bluth]

It's frustrating to have half a debate, where the main opponent "ignores", despite the lack of any offending posts.

Almost like the frustration caused by the inability to rhetorically get up an argument based in fact.

If continually shooting blanks in any sense of fair and honourable debate has lead to such behaviour I don't really see it as bothersome. I don't think you should either.

[jdobbin]

I think we are dealing with symantics. Putting aside your evaluation (and mine) of the hearings, evidence and hearsay, what if Dr. Johnston, in all his legal wisdom, is not able find anything worthwhile to investigate? Again, I'm saying what if? Does that mean we have a Public Inquiry on nothing? I know that's a somewhat extreme example but as I said, I think we're dealing with semantics. If Dr. Johnston cannot find anything compelling to investigate, it would be reasonable for him to come to that conclusion as a recommendation - would it not? And if that's reasonable, then it's also reasonable for Harper to speculate that there might not be an inquiry. Keep in mind that Harper's speculation was in response to an interviewer's question. If anything, Harper has always been too open and honest in his answers to questions. I think it's best to just wait and see what Dr. Johnston has to say.

Johnston's job wasn't too investigate the merits of the case. He was to get legal, tax and other expert opinion on what an inquiry should focus on and they would decide the merits of the case.

In short, I don't know on what basis he would say that an inquiry was unnecessary. How would he determine no evidence was there when it wasn't his job to to decide if there was evidence?

[jbg]

In short, I don't know on what basis he would say that an inquiry was unnecessary. How would he determine no evidence was there when it wasn't his job to to decide if there was evidence?

Inquiries are expensive and if the inquiry would be futile why do it?

[Keepitsimple]

Johnston's job wasn't too investigate the merits of the case. He was to get legal, tax and other expert opinion on what an inquiry should focus on and they would decide the merits of the case.

In short, I don't know on what basis he would say that an inquiry was unnecessary. How would he determine no evidence was there when it wasn't his job to to decide if there was evidence?

Here's his mandate from the Globe and Mail - I've highlighted a few things. Looks to me that he has to look at the merits of the case and as I previosly said, if he doesn't find anything compelling, it is conceivable that he might recommend that a Public Inquiry was unnecessary.

Link: http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generat...mulroney15.html

Breaking News

Thursday, November 15

1:26 AM

OTTAWA — University of Waterloo president David Johnston was given broad powers Wednesday to decide how the public inquiry into the financial dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber will be conducted, what topics can be examined and whether any other investigations are needed.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper asked Mr. Johnston to make his recommendations by Jan. 11, meaning the public inquiry will probably not begin until at least the middle of next year.

Mr. Johnston, 66, is a respected law professor, former principal of McGill University and former dean of law at the University of Western Ontario.

His lengthy résumé includes many federal and provincial assignments in a range of bureaucratic roles, but nothing to prepare him for the political challenges of the Mulroney-Schreiber assignment.

There is a major debate on Parliament Hill as to whether the inquiry should look, as Mr. Mulroney has suggested, at his dealings with Mr. Schreiber starting in 1988. Others believe the timing should predate that to include all of Mr. Mulroney's relationship with Mr. Schreiber, and Mr. Schreiber's dealings with conservatives as far back as the 1970s.

The Liberals and the NDP want broad mandates, while the Harper government is attempting to stay out of the equation.

“Dr. Johnston has been given a wide mandate to propose independently terms of reference on a public inquiry or any other actions that he deems are necessary and the government will follow those recommendations,” the Prime Minister said.

Mr. Johnston's terms of reference empower him to “make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a public inquiry … including the specific issues that warrant examination,” to state whether there is “evidence of criminal action” and how that should be dealt with, and to recommend “whether any additional course of action may be appropriate.”

The opposition Wednesday applauded Mr. Johnston's appointment but accused the government of moving too slowly in launching the investigation into unproven allegations in an affidavit by Mr. Schreiber last week that he struck a business deal with Mr. Mulroney before the latter left office in June, 1993.

“He is a very distinguished lawyer, very competent. That is a good appointment,” said Liberal MP Irwin Cotler, a former justice minister who taught law at McGill at the same time as Mr. Johnston.

But both Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton said Mr. Johnston's deadline of Jan. 11 is too far away.

“Everything I know about Mr. Johnston suggests that he's a good person to be involved here, although we think this process is taking too long,” Mr. Layton said. “We think [the government] should be setting out the full timetable. They obviously haven't got their act together.”

The Liberals also accused the government of trying to limit the mandate of the eventual inquiry to avoid a full-fledged airing of the issue.

“The government must ensure that the terms of reference will not restrict Professor Johnston from recommending that the role of Mr. Harper and his government in handling this affair be looked at as part of the public inquiry,” Mr. Dion said in a statement. “Otherwise, this is not a full public inquiry.”

Mr. Harper's director of communications, Sandra Buckler, said the Liberal assertion is “completely wrong” and that the adviser has received the power to make any recommendation he feels appropriate.

Mr. Harper noted that Mr. Johnston has worked as an adviser to other Liberal and Conservative governments and is not a partisan nominee.

“Dr. Johnston has served various governments in various public policy capacities and we certainly appreciate his willingness to serve once again in what will be a difficult and challenging job,” Mr. Harper said.

Mr. Johnston chaired the federal government's Information Highway Advisory Council, its Blue Ribbon Panel on Smart Communities, and the National Broadband Task Force on telecommunications (to provide a long-term vision on telecommunications and Internet access). He also moderated the 1984 election debate between Mr. Mulroney, then leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, and Liberal prime minister John Turner.

Mr. Johnston also has experience in a different kind of arena: While a student at Harvard University, the defenceman was twice named to the All-American Hockey Team.

Mr. Johnston is not expected to speak publicly until he finishes his report.

“I'm not able to do any press inquiries on that and I'll be very happy to speak to you when the inquiry is finished,” he said in a brief interview. He will be paid between $1,200 and $1,400 a day.

[jdobbin]

Here's his mandate from the Globe and Mail - I've highlighted a few things. Looks to me that he has to look at the merits of the case and as I previosly said, if he doesn't find anything compelling, it is conceivable that he might recommend that a Public Inquiry was unnecessary.

OTTAWA — University of Waterloo president David Johnston was given broad powers Wednesday to decide how the public inquiry into the financial dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber will be conducted, what topics can be examined and whether any other investigations are needed.

I still don't see anything there to indicate that not having an inquiry is an option.

I suppose we'll find out January 11 but he will have to go to some length how he came to the determination that no further investigation was necessary.

Edited December 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[Shakeyhands]

There's an interesting article in the NP about the question of GST and PST being paid out by Mulroney, I wonder of he should have to remit it?

Mulroney has admitted to taking three $100,000 cash payments in three hotel, and Schreiber said it was fees. GST on $300,000 would have totaled $21,000 (at 7%) and if the Quebec sales tax applied, the total due was $44,850.

Or did Mulroney, who admitted to being late in declaring the money as income, also fail to pay his beloved GST? Or Quebec’s portion?

Ignorance is no excuse.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-schreiber.aspx

I wonder what the penalty for not paying those taxes are.....

Edited December 23, 2007 by Shakeyhands

[jdobbin]

There's an interesting article in the NP about the question of GST and PST being paid out by Mulroney, I wonder of he should have to remit it?

I wonder what the penalty for not paying those taxes are.....

A cell next to Shreiber's? lol

Seriously though, the issue hardly seems settled based on Ethics committee testimony.

And the whining about the costs of an inquiry certainly weren't being made when Harper threatened the Liberals with one weeks ago.

Perhaps now Harper is concerned how these things can explode in your face like the polling inquiry. They must have been scared how that looked because they released it on the same day that Mulroney testified.

Edited December 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

There's an interesting article in the NP about the question of GST and PST being paid out by Mulroney, I wonder of he should have to remit it?

I wonder what the penalty for not paying those taxes are.....

Mulroney and the CRA came to a binding agreement on the treatment of that $300,000 in payments.

Guess there can be no further penalty in this case...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Mulroney and the CRA came to a binding agreement on the treatment of that $300,000 in payments.

Guess there can be no further penalty in this case...

That is assuming that he did not lie isn't it? Isn't there already a discrepancy with the numbers Schreiber says 300K Mulroney 225K? Given that the only place to find the truth is in Mr. Mulroney's tax returns and Mr. Schreiber's evidence I would suggest that there is in fact cause for an inquiry.

[jdobbin]

That is assuming that he did not lie isn't it? Isn't there already a discrepancy with the numbers Schreiber says 300K Mulroney 225K? Given that the only place to find the truth is in Mr. Mulroney's tax returns and Mr. Schreiber's evidence I would suggest that there is in fact cause for an inquiry.

Certainly both men have conflicting testimony. It isn't at all clear what happened and Johnston is not likely to have found the core truth based on what we heard. An inquiry that has subpoena power over tax records would be an improvement over the paperless Mulroney.