Tracking cell phone by number. Mobile bluetooth spyware free download is very simple. E-Stealth Cell Phone Spy Software. Spy call. Best iphone spy apps. Catch a cheating spouse software. All samsung galaxy cell tracker gps. Search number phone. Reading text messages online. Cell phone hack mspy.me. Android phone software. Cell phone number search for free. Spy on any cell phone. Spy text messages free. http://mspy.me phone phone into view and Each advantage the Many use phone because windows, because http://mspy.me do commotion the look software girl,
Sensation! News Blogs: Ladies handbag Balans Mobiles Underwear Cigarette Rolex Replica Replica Rolex Tunings Ear rings Suits Autos Cars Rington Ornaments ya.by Green Card Information Blog Search the Web Boats Sportswear Yachts Cigarettes Top casino Necklace Chronometer FDA Approved Pharmacy Top auto-moto Chairs Sale Auto Bracelets Dating Trousers Cases Medical tests Evening dress furniture Tables

Cialis - Buy Cialis Online

November 22, 2007

Whose hands are in your wallet?

Filed under: Uncategorized, Brian Murphy, Conservative Government, Petitcodiac River — admin @ 11:15 am

Is the Government of Canada bound to provide federal funds for the Province of New Brunswick’s chosen option for restoring the Petitcodiac? The Riverkeepers think so: “The province should start the project and sue the federal government for its share of the cost,” Petitcodiac Riverkeeper chairman Michel Desjardins said yesterday. (Times&Transcript, A2, 22 Novembre 2007)

Brian Murphy thinks that the federal government should fund 75% of the restoration cost. Shawn Graham has asked the feds for a 50/50 split of the $68 million pricetag. The feds have given approval for the project to proceed, but will not be contributing funding to the project.

Minister Cannon issued a statement earlier this week that “the Premier of New Brunswick has never made our financial participation a must for the removal of the causeway.” In response, Premier Graham stated that his commitment to restore the Petitcodiac was in the Liberals’ “Charter for Change,” and that on December 20, 2006 he had informed Minister Cannon that “New Brunswick would be reviewing four options to restore the Petitcodiac River.”

It is important to note Premier Graham’s subtle twist in the debate. The feds were notified that the Province intended to pursue remediation of the river, but were not consulted prior to announcing a specific option. This is important because the Province chose one of the most expensive options, (the least expensive being $34 million, or half the cost).

Any way you slice it, $68 million is a lot of money. It would mean a lot to children living in poverty and seniors waiting for health care. On the other hand, how can the Province of NB make the case that they can’t go it alone?

By way of context, we need to rehearse the math for the province of New Brunswick’s finances:

First of all, the incoming Liberal Graham government predicted a deficit of $400 million in order to justify increasing taxes. At the end of the day they in fact posted a $237 million dollar SURPLUS! This represents an increase of $637 million dollars in revenue from what they predicted upon taking office.

Secondly, the NB Liberals added $356 million to our province’s debt in their 2007-08 budget. When they later posted a surplus, they paid down the debt by $136 million. This adds up to a net increase in provincial debt of $220 million.

Let’s review: $637 million additional revenue; $220 million additional debt. How can a government raise taxes and increase debt at the same time?

They posted a $101 million dollar surplus (AFTER paying on the debt), and borrowed an additional $220 million to fund other “Liberal priorities.” That amounts to a pot of $321 million dollars that the NB Liberals have accumulated on the back of the province’s taxpayers!

Now Premier Graham is saying ‘We don’t have the money to pursue restoration of the Petitcodiac, and it’s the Conservatives’ fault!’ Who is he kidding? The option they chose represents only 21% of the $321 million cash pie they have hoarded. Perhaps he shares the affliction of his federal Liberal counterpart: “It’s not easy to make priorities!”

November 21, 2007

Conservative Performance on Childcare

Filed under: Uncategorized, Conservative Government, Childcare — admin @ 12:06 pm

The following is a statement by Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC) in the House on Tuesday, 20 Novembre 2007:

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day and children and families are a priority of this government. That is why this government has provided all parents with choice in child care by implementing the universal child care benefit. I do not understand why the Liberal leader has said he would take it away.

This government created a new $2,000 child tax credit and provided an additional $250 million to the provinces, which has helped them announce the creation of more than 32,000 spaces.

This government is spending $5.6 billion this year alone on early learning and child care. This is the single largest child care investment in Canadian history, three times more than the previous Liberal government ever spent.

After 13 years of countless broken promises, even the former deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Sheila Copps, had to admit that her government did not create a single child care space.

It is fitting that this year’s theme is “The Right to be Active”, because getting active is what this government has done after more than 13 years of Liberal inaction.


November 20, 2007

Brian Murphy deserves more attention

Filed under: Uncategorized, The Environment, Brian Murphy, Conservative Government, Dion Liberals, Petitcodiac River — admin @ 10:18 am

As grateful as we are for Minister Cannon’s demonstrable concern for Moncton’s Petitcodiac River, there are a few outstanding issues that need to be addressed from Brian Murphy’s allegations in the Times & Transcript.

Oddly enough, we must commend Brian for at least owning up to the Conservatives remarkable record on the environment in his article. Some of the Conservative initiatives he listed include:

  • A $26.6 million to the Saint John Harbour clean-up
  • $12 million to support the clean-up of Lake Simcoe, Ontario.
  • $11 million to accelerate the clean-up of the Great Lakes
  • $7 million for the Lake Winnipeg Basin.

Thanks Brian, but you left out millions of dollars spent on other projects around the country. The Conservative government is the first in decades to put “the green” where the environment actually is. (If we didn’t know better, we’d think Brian was paving the way to cross the floor…)

The rest of his wandering tirade however is typical partisan rhetoric. “The decision by the Conservative Government of Canada is a complete repudiation of every principle of federal-provincial relations” As Minister Cannon reported, it was the provincial government that abandoned these principles by unilaterally announcing their plans before consulting the Federal government.

Mr. Murphy goes on to say, “it’s business as usual for the Harper government, which doesn’t care a whit for the social, environmental or economic health of our southeastern New Brunswick communities.” Since we already have a page posted that proves PM Harper has invested hugely in our region, this baseless allegation does not merit any further reply.

“Constructed in 1968, this land bridge has been directly responsible for eliminating many fish species in the river” Murphy writes, “and compromising water quality.” This merits a response on several levels.

  • The causeway was constructed under the provincial Liberal government of Louis Robichaud, and the federal Liberal governments of Pearson and Trudeau. (As usual, it is left up to the Conservatives to clean up a Liberal mess).
  • Contrary to Murphy’s claims, the causeway is at most a contributing factor to the decline in fish stocks. We choose to believe the Niles Report and the EIA over Murphy’s exaggerated claims.
  • Water quality has long been an issue in the Petitcodiac.
    • The EIA revealed that excessive siltation in the river has long rendered it unsuitable for recreational watercraft.
    • The Riverkeepers’ website claims that up to 70 million litres of toxic effluent is released into the river every day. Even though solids are removed, this discharge still contains unknown quantities chemicals, hormones and pharmaceutical contaminants. How about a nice “Swim the Petitcodiac” to raise money and awareness for your pet project Brian?
    • We are relatively sure that the recent Murphy/Rae fundraiser in Dieppe did not serve Petitcodiac farm-raised Salmon.
    • In regards to Murphy’s past contentions about the tidal bore, the EIA hydrology report stated that there are no guarantees that changes to the causeway will restore the Bore; and furthermore they could not say with assurance that the Bore would not have diminished over time without the causeway.

There is no doubt that there are ecological issues involving the causeway, but the degree of exaggerated propaganda coming from MP Murphy and local media is such that it deprives them of credibility.

Mr. Murphy went on to write that “…the Conservative Government of Canada, which should pay 75 per cent of the estimated cost” In an August 8, 2007 article in the Times & Transcript, Brian Murphy admitted that this was “a figure that’s been pulled out of the air.” This is why Brian Murphy is unsuitable for government.

In 1968, the federal Liberals’ contribution to the causeway project was 27%. That small contribution was from the Maritime Marshland Reclamation budget because the causeway would protect over 1300 acres of farmland upriver. Once the causeway is removed, all the previous dykes and aboiteaux that once protected that farmland will have to be restored. This cost is not included in the $68 million project chosen by Premier Graham.

Mr. Murphy concludes by saying: “As the Member of Parliament for Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, I promise that I will fight this arbitrary and callous decision by the Conservative Government with all the means at my disposal.”

That is exactly the problem. Brian Murphy has spent all his time in Ottawa, (when he wasn’t at his law firm in Moncton), “fighting” the government “with all the means at [his] disposal.” He has done nothing substantive. He has fulfilled none of his promises. He has not been part of negotiations on key issues of importance to Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe. He has alienated himself from government members who could help him, and has even been marginalized within his own party. There is speculation that even his new critic’s role is a result of leverage applied on Dion by Murphy’s buddy, Bob Rae.

The point is that Brian Murphy has failed our riding on every issue of key importance. He has been a critic who fails to provide any substantive solutions and get the job done. He will claim that he cannot do anything while sitting in Opposition. While that has an element of truth, we must face the reality that his Liberal party is going to be in Opposition for a long, long time. In fact some recent polls are showing they might lose “official Opposition” status to the NDP!

In our next article, we will begin detailing how Conservative members in Atlantic Canada have worked effectively for their constituents, while they were in Opposition previous to 2006.


What everyone should know about the Tories and the Petitcodiac

Filed under: Uncategorized, Brian Murphy, Conservative Government, Dion Liberals — admin @ 8:57 am

From the “we couldn’t have said it better ourselves” file, we quote a letter from Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, explaining the Conservative government’s decision not to fund the Province of New Brunswick’s Petitcodiac restoration project. It sure makes a difference when one reads the whole context of the decision, rather than the newspaper accounts which seem to be written by Brian Murphy’s staff.


Letter of the day | Federal minister clarifies river stance

Published Tuesday November 20th, 2007
Appeared on page D8

To The Editor:

I would like to correct the record on a series of articles that have appeared in Times & Transcript about the Petitcodiac River, and the Government of Canada’s position on this important file.

From the outset, it should be remembered that the Premier of New Brunswick has never made our financial participation a must for the removal of the causeway. If federal funding were a prerequisite, we obviously would have been consulted before the province unilaterally announced its plans.

In fact we are keeping our promise by investing a record $33 billion in infrastructure projects across Canada. Under our long-term Building Canada plan, which involves individual agreements being negotiated with each province, New Brunswick is eligible to more than $636 million in federal assistance.

One significant requirement is that proposed infrastructure projects are aligned with the federal government’s priorities.

Given the information we have seen to date on the Petitcodiac, the causeway project is not eligible for funding under the Building Canada plan. That is because it does not fit the eligible categories, which include the core National Highway System, drinking water, wastewater, public transit, and green energy. As a result, funding for the project rests with the Province of New Brunswick.

The causeway is part of a provincially designated highway and is neither a core nor a feeder highway as determined under the signed agreement between the Province of New Brunswick and the Government of Canada per Premier Graham’s wishes.

I also read with surprise the opinion piece of MP Brian Murphy. What is left out of this piece is the fact when Mr. Murphy was Mayor of Moncton, he never criticized the federal government on this issue. In fact he was Mayor when the City of Moncton became the first municipality to be charged by Environment Canada for polluting the Petitcodiac River. Where Mr. Murphy stands on this issue depends on where he sits.

We took our responsibilities with regards to Petitcodiac River very seriously. As required under federal legislation, both Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) carried out a regulatory review process in accordance with the Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) and the Fisheries Act. The extensive review concluded that it is acceptable to authorize the Province to move forward on its proposed project under the NWPA.

But partnership is a two-way street. Our federal investment is significant, and it is being made while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction. They have primary responsibility for municipal issues like fiscal capacity, and municipalities manage their own infrastructure.

Building Canada will support a growing economy, a cleaner environment, stronger and more prosperous communities and a more competitive flow of goods and people across our country and across our borders. Building Canada was developed in consultation with the provinces, territories and the municipal sector in the spirit of open federalism. It is a good plan for businesses, Canadians families and taxpayers.

In short, Building Canada will provide a stronger economy, a cleaner environment and better communities.

Lawrence Cannon,
Minister of Transport,
Infrastructure and Communities,
Ottawa, ON

November 16, 2007

Ottawa Citizen inadvertently exposes Brian Murphy!

Filed under: Uncategorized, Brian Murphy, Conservative Government, Dion Liberals — admin @ 11:24 pm

On Monday, October 22, 2007 Brian Murphy used his time in Question Period to slander the good name of a long time local Tory. Mr. Murphy took issue with this individual’s appointment to an EI review board, and said that his singular qualification was that “He was the official agent for the defeated Conservative candidate in Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.” (Of course this is not true since every applicant for appointments is now subjected to rigorous qualification assurance and often testing as well. )

MP Murphy then ratcheted up the rhetoric by concluding: “Would the minister confirm, or will he hide behind the skirt of the government House leader, whether [this individual] was appointed because of his willingness to shovel thousands of dollars in and out of the national campaign to help with advertising expenses for a local riding?” (How’s that for a sexist slander while hiding behind Parliamentary privilege?)

Brian was referring of course to what the Liberals have been calling an “in and out scam” whereby local campaigns shared advertising placed by the national party to benefit the local candidate. A local media firm has confirmed that a local candidate generally carries less than 40% of the campaign; meaning that 60-70% of his/her success depends on the momentum of the national campaign.

By his remarks in Question Period, Brian was trying not to be outdone by the Liberal point man on this issue, Dominic LeBlanc. In fact the Ottawa Citizen story reported that “Mr. LeBlanc, the party’s main spokesman on the in-and-out issue, personally participated in a similar regional media buy when he joined other New Brunswick MPs in buying an ad that appeared in two local newspapers. These newspaper ads was essentially a national ad that, like the Tory broadcast ads, referred to the candidates who paid for them in taglines” (The ads referenced appeared in the Telegraph-Journal, January 21, 2006, B5 and in French in L’Acadie Nouvelle on the same day)

The substance of the Liberals’ allegations is that the Conservative party:

  1. Ran advertising in regional media which was substantially the same as advertising used by the national campaign.
  2. They claim that the only thing that marked these ads as “local” as was the tagline noting they were “Authorized by the Official Agent for…[local candidate].
  3. They say this was really national party advertising, under the guise of local campaign expenses.

The problem for Liberals LeBlanc and Murphy is that their names appear on an advertisement structured the same way as the Conservatives’! (See full size graphic here)

You will note that this ad is entirely national in scope. It does not mention one local issue for any of the candidates listed. None of the local candidates are pictured, or named anywhere - except where it says “Authorized by the Official Agents for… [the 10 NB Liberal candidates are named]”. It is advertising for the national Liberal Party with a tagline that claims it was expensed by the local candidate.

Brian Murphy was not about to “deliver over $29 billion” in tax savings to Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe; nor was he promising to bring $5 billion in infrastructure funding into our riding! He never said a word about “Canadian Sovereignty.” As you can see from the highlighted portions of the ad, it is a NATIONAL ad. But the tagline says that it is “Authorized by the official agents for” Dominic LeBlanc, Brian Murphy, et al.

When an Official Agent authorizes advertising like this, that means they are claiming this ad as part of their campaign expense. If they followed Elections Canada law, all 10 of these Liberal candidates should have shown this expense on their return.

We reviewed Brian Murphy’s return, and there was not a specific item listed for this ad. There was however a transfer “in” from the Federal Liberal Party in the amount of $800 on January 23, 2006. There was also a transfer “out” from the Murphy campaign to the Federal Liberal Agency in the amount of $800 on the SAME DAY! (See “Statement of Electoral Campaign Expenses” (Part 3a), Item No. 55)

As with Brian Murphy, Dominic LeBlanc received only one transfer “in” from the Federal Liberal Party. It was in the amount of $800 on January 23, 2006. There was also an Electoral Campaign Expense “out” on the same day for the same amount. Andy Scott got a transfer “in” of $800, so did Paul Zed, Eldon Hunter and Charlie Hubbard. Oddly enough, $800 went back “out” to the Federal Liberal Agency on the same day.

We don’t doubt that NB Liberal candidates have some plausible explanation for this apparent “in and out scheme,” but that does not change the fact that national advertising was run in a regional paper under their name with the only connection to a local candidate being the statement that his official agent authorized it as a campaign expense! THOSE SHOUTING THE LOUDEST ARE EQUALLY CULPABLE IF THIS CONTRAVENES THE ELECTIONS ACT! It would seem that Mr. Murphy has some explaining to do.


November 15, 2007

Schreiber to be deported, but available to testify

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 2:09 pm

CTV reported today (exchange between Robert Fife and Kate Wheeler just before QP) that Karlheinz Schreiber will be deported to Germany, but that German officials have assured the Government of Canada that he will be made available to testify when called upon. It was unclear whether Mr. Schreiber would be repatriated to testify in person, or if that would be accomplished via satellite video link.

The Opposition will continue to fume about letting Mr. Schreiber go, but there will be no net effect on the Inquiry. Perhaps what the Liberals et al are afraid of is the optics of Mr. Schreiber making headlines in German newspapers as he is indicted for fraud, tax evasion and bribery. Even worse than sitting in a jail cell in Canada, it is not helpful to have the Liberals’ “star witness” found guilty in Germany.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has rendered a verdict that there is no compelling reason to keep Mr. Schreiber in Canada. Reinhard Nemetz, the German prosecutor handling Schreiber’s case, was quoted today in the Globe and Mail saying: “We wouldn’t have any problem with co-operating with the Canadian authorities. Of course, Schreiber could be interrogated also while imprisoned in Germany. The delaying tactics Schreiber has been using since 1999 are remarkable. It’s remarkable that it obviously still works today.“

It sounds like Karlheinz will soon be singing “I’m leaving on a jet plane…”


Deplorable tactics by hypocritical Liberals

Filed under: Uncategorized, Conservative Government, Dion Liberals, Mulroney-Schreiber — admin @ 1:30 pm

Today in the House, the Liberals (minus their senior leaders) attacked the Government on the terms of reference for the pending inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Although the Prime Minister was very clear that Mr. Johnston will have every option at his disposal to set the terms of reference, MP Ralph Goodale and others kept repeating the accusation that the Government was trying to limit the terms to cover things up.

Worse still, Liberal questioners kept raising obscure meetings where anyone remotely connected with the current government might have been in the same room as Karlheinz Schreiber. Of course it is well known that Mr. Schreiber circulated widely with members of all parties. This attempt by the Liberals to smear the Conservatives however raises some serious questions:

  1. Who are the Liberals who have met with Karlheinz Schreiber, when did they meet with them and what was the substance of those meetings? We know for instance that the Liberal point man in this controversy, MP Robert Thibeault, has been meeting with Mr. Schreiber since last spring! Is it possible that he has been coaching Schreiber on political tactics to ensure that he is not extradited? We also know from reports that Stéphane Dion received a letter from Schreiber over two weeks ago and never made it public until last week. Former Liberal minister, Marc Lalonde helped to post bail for Mr. Schreiber, and said he would be happy to do so again.

    Having met with Mr. Schreiber at some point, or having received correspondence from him should not imply guilt.

  2. Should we also infer that every Liberal who had contact with a player in the Sponsorship Scandal is also guilty by association? How many current Liberal MP’s met with Alphonso Gagliano who was Minister of Public Works during the Sponsorship years? How many had closed-door meetings with Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff during that time? Did any current Liberals ever find themselves in the same room with other Sponsorship figures such as André Oulette (Chrétien cabinet member), Chuck Guité (bureaucrat in charge of the Sponsorship Program), Joe Morselli (Liberal partry fundraiser) or Jacques Corriveau (Liberal organizer implicated in the scandal) during that time?

    The obvious conclusion is that guilty parties are responsible for their own wrongdoing and unfortunately we do not always have the foresight to avoid casual contact with people who later turn out to be disreputable.

Clearly the Liberals still have no shame when it comes to reaching into the sewer, slinging mud at others and seeing what sticks. If they can implicate the Harper government by association, they will not hesitate to do so (regardless of the truth).  Their tactics are dishonest, duplicitous and defamatory in the extreme.

More attention needs to be brought to the opposition members who have been just as “guilty” of association with Schreiber as government MP’s. Mike Duffy reported recently that NDP Pat Martin received a letter from Schreiber 6 months ago! Where was the NDP outrage then? What was Mr. Martin ‘trying to cover up’ so that he did not bring Schreiber’s allegations forward? This whole line of reasoning does not hold water.

These events took place 15 years ago and they remain the ALLEGATIONS of a man in jail awaiting foreign extradition on charges of fraud, bribery and tax evasion. The issue at the centre of the current firestorm is the purported exchange of $300,000 between two individuals - neither of whom is a member of the Harper government. 

Mr. Chrétien paid Brian Mulroney $2.1 million already for defamation. Now Liberal MP Robert Thibault is facing the possibility of a similar settlement. That is the same Robert Thibault who has been meeting with Schreiber for the better part of a year! The audacity of the Liberal pot calling the Conservative kettle black is appalling.

November 14, 2007

Third party named to review Mulroney-Schreiber affair

Filed under: Uncategorized, Conservative Government, Mulroney-Schreiber — admin @ 12:31 pm

Today in the House, Prime Minister Stephen Harper named Dr. David Johnston, President of University of Waterloo, as the independent third party who will review evidence in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair and recommend terms of reference for a public inquiry. His biography, posted on the university’s website, is as follows:

David Johnston completed his university studies with honours in three countries: the United States (Harvard A.B. 1963), England (Cambridge LL.B. 1965) and Canada (Queen’s LL.B. 1966). His academic specializations are securities regulation, corporation and information technology law. While at Harvard he was twice named to the All-American Hockey Team and is a member of the Harvard Athletic Hall of Fame.

David Johnston began his professional career as Assistant professor in the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University (1966), moving to the Law Faculty at the University of Toronto in 1968. He became Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario in 1974. In 1979 he was named the 14thPrincipal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University. In July, 1994 he returned to the McGill’s Faculty of Law as a full-time professor. In June 1999 he became the 5th President of the University of Waterloo.

Among many honours accorded David Johnston are honorary doctorates from twelve universities and the appointment as Companion of the Order of Canada. He is the author or co-author of the following books: Computers and Law (1968), Canadian Securities Regulation (1977, 4th ed. 2006), Canadian Companies and The Stock Exchanges (1979), Business Associations (1983, 3rd ed. 1994), If Quebec Goes… The Real Cost of Separation (1995), Getting Canada On-line: Understanding the Information Highway (1995), Cyberlaw (1997), Securities Regulations (1999), and Communications Law in Canada (2000), and many other publications.

David Johnston has served on many provincial and federal task forces and committees and is on the boards of a number of companies and foundations. He was President of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (1985-87) and of the Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des université du Québec (1985-87). He was the founding chair of the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy (1988-1991). He was the first non-U.S. citizen to Chair the Board of Overseers of Harvard University (1997-98). He has chaired the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the Neuroscience Network Centre of Excellence, the Federal Government’s Information Highway Advisory Council and its Blue Ribbon Panel on Smart Communities. More recently, he has chaired the Advisory Committee on Online Learning, the Committee on Information System for the Environment, the National Task Force on High Speed Broadband Access, and the Broadband National Selection Committee.

He and his wife, Dr. Sharon Johnston, have five daughters and live on a farm near the University of Waterloo in Heidelberg, Ontario.


November 13, 2007

Duffy reveals more details of who knew what (Mulroney-Schreiber)

Filed under: Uncategorized, Conservative Government, Mulroney-Schreiber — admin @ 4:16 pm

Mike Duffy reported tonight that Karlheinz Schreiber has “papered the town” (Ottawa) with letters in an effort avoid extradition. According to Duffy, the NDP’s Pat Martin got a letter from Schreiber six months ago, and Stéphane Dion received one two days ago and forwarded it to the RCMP. Is anyone really blind to the fact that this German-Canadian who is accused of bribery, fraud and tax evation will go to any lengths to avoid being sent back to Germany?

This also begs the question, “What did Pat Martin know, and when did he know it?” As Norman Spectre pointed out on Mike Duffy Live last night, CTV’s Lloyd Robertson broadcast a 2 hour interview with Brian Mulroney not long ago, in which the questions now igniting newspaper sales were little more than a footnote. It is clear that everyone saw the spat between Mulroney and Schreiber as personal business gone awry, until an affadavit was filed in court last week.

It was only after the affadavit was filed that the issue was even on the Liberals’ radar. It was after the affadavit was filed that the PM understood that there are new and serious legal dimensions to this dispute. And we never did hear from the NDP who apparently were made aware 6 months ago.

There are serious unanswered questions. The Prime Minister has shown remarkable leadership in appointing an independent review of the case which will provide terms of reference for the pending public inquiry. The Gomery Commission cost taxpayers $30 million without any serious jail time for anyone. It has become clear that this issue has grown beyond the point of no return, no matter what the facts are. So, we are in for another inquiry with months of sordid allegations and high lawyers’ fees which will be spun by the Opposition to tar PM Harper with a scandal that he was not remotely connected with.

There is little question that this will do damage to the conservative brand, even though the Conservative Party of Canada did not exist when all this took place. Sure it’s unfair, but since when did the Liberals let something like that stop them?

PM Harper announces full public inquiry into allegations against Brian Mulroney

Filed under: Uncategorized, Conservative Government, Mulroney-Schreiber — admin @ 1:17 pm

Today in the House of Commons the Prime Minister responded to questions from the Opposition about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. The Prime Minister clarified earlier comments regarding the appointment of an independent third party to examine the evidence surrounding Karlheinz Schreiber’s allegations. We now understand that the yet-to-be-named third party will set out the terms of reference for a full public inquiry.

Once again this is astute leadership on the part of the Prime Minister who refuses to taint the inquiry with partisanship by having the Government set out the terms of reference for the proceedings. By calling on a respected and neutral third party to examine the evidence and formulate an inquiry, the Prime Minister has distanced himself from any allegations of political interference.

It is reprehensible for the Opposition to reach into the sewer once again in order to smear the current Prime Minister. The allegations in question took place 15 years ago and the Liberal Chrétien government paid Mr. Mulroney $2.1 million for false allegations against him. Just last week, Mr. Schreiber filed a legal affadavit from his jail cell where he is awaiting extradition to Germany for fraud, bribery and tax evasion.

Regardless of the questionable character of the person making allegations against Mr. Mulroney, Prime Minister Harper acted immediately once a legal affadavit was filed. Certainly Canadians understand that there is a great difference between desperate letters written to various public figures in an attempt to forestall extradition, and a legal affadavit filed in a Canadian court. For those who may not understand, an affadavit is taken much more seriously because there are consequences for making false statements to the Court under oath.

It is well known that there have been longstanding disagreements between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney, and recently those differences have been the subject of a lawsuit. As PM Harper has stated, it would not have been appropriate for him to comment on matters between these two individuals that were being adjudicated by the court. A legal affadavit making specific allegations of wrongdoing against Mr. Mulroney however is a completely new thing.

As we have come to expect, Prime Minister Harper has shown measured and responsible leadership each step of the way. Rather than rushing to judgment based on questionable allegations, he has carefully taken steps to make sure that justice receives paramount consideration.


— Next Page »

Powered by WordPress