Mulroney & Stephen Harper JOHN& Marten?

February 27, 2008 | 9:15 AM ET

CBC News

A Liberal MP has blasted Brian Mulroney for refusing to testify a second time before the Commons ethics committee, saying there are numerous discrepancies that need to be cleared up.

"We gave him the opportunity to come this week and clear the air — if he had anything new to bring, if he wanted to disagree with anything that had been said at the committee — but he has chosen not to do that," Robert Thibault, a committee member, told CBC News on Wednesday.

"I think his silence speaks volumes," he added.

Mulroney announced on Tuesday he had decided to refuse the Commons ethics committee's request for a second day of testimony.

He gave no details about why he chose not to appear before the committee probing his business dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

But the former prime minister's lawyers are expected to appear before the committee on Thursday morning to explain Mulroney's decision.

Committee chair Paul Szabo said last week that Mulroney's testimony is vital, and threatened to subpoena him if he refused to appear voluntarily.

Thibault questioned, however, what more could be learned if Mulroney were forced to speak.

"I don't know what more that his testimony would give if he is forced to do that because we've seen the value of his last testimony," he said.

Since Mulroney first appeared before the committee in Ottawa on Dec. 13, Thibault said, a number of people have raised questions about his testimony.

"He certainly has not cleared his name. Most of the testimony he's given has been refuted," said Thibault.

Ex-PM limiting appearances

Mulroney's lawyer, Guy Pratte, has said Mulroney would only appear before the committee again if he felt the need to clarify or challenge any testimony given by others. He also noted that Mulroney asked to be informed of specific allegations against him.

Mulroney's team has criticized the review as partisan and unfair, and said the committee has failed to produce a "single shred of evidence" implicating him in any wrongdoing or unethical conduct.

During Mulroney's four-hour testimony late last year, he testified Schreiber paid him $225,000 in cash for lobbying work he did abroad after stepping down as prime minister.

Early this week, Schreiber, appearing before the committee for the fifth time, accused Mulroney of misleading the group with a "smoke-and-mirror show" meant to avoid a public inquiry.

He insisted again that he paid Mulroney $300,000 between 1993 and 1994 to lobby the Canadian government for a light-armoured vehicle plant known as the Bear Head project.

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/human_rights_gone_awry.html



a comment

Are the media corporations more important than individuals' freedom to challenge possible discrimination?

If these Human Rights Commissions are so problematic, where would we be without them?

Is our media really free? Do corporate agendas from most of our media outlets constitute an abuse of democracy?

Rick says : Human Rights is a joke,or is it just clear old PROPAGANDA?

A belief for the plantation worker of Canada? can the plantation ever change ?

Politics/Economy

Feature Interview with Stephen Harper

December 20, 2007 (Runs 17:52)

The Prime Minister discusses climate change, the mission in Afghanistan, the Schreiber affair, and his leadership in a year-end interview with Peter Mansbridge

Stephen Harper is no kind of Canadian we can trust; in fact, he isn't even human—he's a Kanamit. When he goes to Quebec, talking prosperity and provincial ‘nationhood’, he brings along his copy of ‘To Serve Man’ (which monolingual Francophones are having considerable difficulty in translating).

It's a wonder poor Mr. Mansbridge didn't get eaten alive.

Posted by: R. W. Watkins | December 30, 2007 06:32

When Peter Mansbridge interviewed Stephen Harper, he said that Mr. Mulroney had given evidence UNDER OATH. This, of course, is incorrect as Don Newman told us just before Mr. Mulroney spoke that he had been given the choice of either taking an oath or just promising to tell the truth, and that he had chosen the latter. I WONDER WHY? In any event, this is the main reason for having a public inquiry: so that both Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Harper can speak UNDER OATH.

PETJURY? HOW MANY plantation worker are lying under oath on the stand,to put other,
PLANTATION PEOPLE ON THE STREETS? AND KILL THERE DREAMS

THESE PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM ARE SWEPT UNDER THE CARPET AND NOT HEARD OF AGAIN?

How sweet? Question what are we to do?