In article <fhqq0b$2ph$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, Karen Gordon <ar231@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: >(K): Harper is going to go down with Mulroney. This is one time too often >that he tried to twist and turn and camouflage and obfuscate and threaten. >Mulroney remains the most hated Prime Minister in Canada's history. And >his pet dog isn't going to survive all the tricks his master taught him. >___________________________ > >Mulroney-Schreiber investigation puts Harper in conflict of interest > >Fully impartial inquiries needed to clean up ethical questions about >federal government activities. > >by Duff Conacher > >Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first response to the >situation involving former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and >German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber was to say "it's impossible, >frankly, for the government to make an impartial judgement on how to >proceed" -- showing he recognized that Conservatives are in a conflict of >interest concerning the situation. > >The conflict of interest exists because Mr. Schreiber named Mr. Harper in >his court affidavit, and Mr. Mulroney has advised Mr. Harper and has >connections with Cabinet ministers. > >However, Mr. Harper then contradicted himself and said that he will select >a person to investigate, and that person will give advice to him and his >Cabinet and then they will decide how to proceed. > >On Tuesday, under public pressure, and in response to Brian Mulroney's >request, Prime Minister Harper switched from appointing an investigator to >appointing an advisor who will recommend terms of reference for a public >inquiry and other possible steps, with the Prime Minister still deciding >how to proceed. On Wednesday, Mr. Harper appointed David Johnston as the >advisor, and while Mr. Johnston is a law professor and currently president >of the University of Waterloo, he was also appointed by then-Prime >Minister Mulroney to the National Roundtable on the Environment and the >Economy in 1988, and reported directly to Mr. Mulroney in that position. > >Mr. Harper's first instinct about conflicts of interest was correct -- his >involvement in the selection of the advisor means that the advisor is >neither independent nor impartial. > >Secondly, the advisor's report should not be submitted to the Prime >Minister, but instead either to an independent prosecutor for a decision >whether to prosecute, or to an independent commissioner (appointed under >the Inquiries Act) to be explored further through public hearings and a >fact-finding report. > >If Prime Minister Harper had not broken his election promise to establish >an independent Public Appointments Commission, it could have ensured a >merit-based, impartial selection of an advisor, prosecutor and >commissioner. So now, to ensure independence and impartiality, the Prime >Minister must allow all federal party leaders in the House of Commons to >approve the prosecutor and commissioner, and the terms of reference of the >inquiry. > >The Prime Minister selection of the advisor, and plan to have the advisor >report back to him, is a step backwards in federal government ethics rules >and law enforcement to the almost completely ineffective 1994 to 2004 >period when Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson (who had no investigative >powers) reported behind closed doors to Liberal Prime Minister Jean >Chrétien and his Cabinet ministers on so-called investigations, and then >Chrétien decided whether he himself, or his Cabinet ministers or staff, >had broken federal ethics rules. > >Mr. Harper's actions also raise the same questions as Harper's selection >of former Parti Québecois Cabinet Minister Daniel Paille to investigate >and report back to Harper on the public opinion research practices by the >Liberal government between 1990 and 1993, and former Prime Minister Paul >Martin's selection of Justice John Gomery (who now faces a court challenge >alleging bias) as the inquiry commissioner into the Adscam sponsorship >scandal. > >When Canadians face allegations about questionable actions by themselves >or their friends, they don't get to choose the people who will investigate >them, who will decide how to deal with the evidence, nor who will judge >them. The Prime Minister should not be allowed to choose these people >either. > >To prevent such conflicted responses to similar allegations in the future, >the Inquiries Act must be changed as soon as possible to allow a majority >of federal party leaders to launch an inquiry, and to require approval by >all federal party leaders of inquiry commissioners. > >Whether or not these steps are taken, federal political party leaders >should not hesitate to initiate inquiries into many similarly questionable >situations that occurred in federal politics over the past 15 years. > >The Mulroney-Schreiber situation is only one example of many revealing how >loopholes in the federal government's donations, gifts, lobbying and >ethics rules, and lack of enforcement of these rules, are the real >scandal. > >Many party leaders have baited voters with false promises, then switched >direction when elected, and then falsely claimed they kept their promises. >Former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, and former Ethics Commissioner >Bernard Shapiro, either refused to investigate or approved highly >questionable activities by more than 20 Cabinet ministers and Cabinet >staff. > >Many federal politicians and political staff have had questionable >business dealings or became lobbyists soon after leaving office; billions >have been spent on questionable contracts (and more than $40 million from >the Adscam sponsorship scandal is still missing); many unqualified party >loyalists have been appointed to important, high- paying positions; many >secret donations have been made to federal politicians, and; many >lobbyists have worked for or raised money for Cabinet ministers they were >lobbying. > >Any federal politician who is a truly ethical leader will push for fully >independent and impartial inquiries into all of these situations, into all >the ways in which the federal government's accountability system is the >scandal, and will continue pushing until Canadians have the honest, >ethical, open and waste-preventing federal government they deserve. > > * * * * > >[Duff Conacher is the Coordinator of Democracy Watch, Canada's leading >government accountability organization.] > > Thank you Karen! -- Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!

"Mr.Smartypants" <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:18b7edb2-39af-4bf1-b009-4cee65b1ca3a@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Nov 19, 7:31 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote: > In article <fhqq0b$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, > > > > > > Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: > >(K): Harper is going to go down with Mulroney. This is one time too > >often > >that he tried to twist and turn and camouflage and obfuscate and > >threaten. > >Mulroney remains the most hated Prime Minister in Canada's history. And > >his pet dog isn't going to survive all the tricks his master taught him. > >___________________________ > > >Mulroney-Schreiber investigation puts Harper in conflict of interest > > >Fully impartial inquiries needed to clean up ethical questions about > >federal government activities. > > >by Duff Conacher > > >Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first response to the > >situation involving former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and > >German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber was to say "it's impossible, > >frankly, for the government to make an impartial judgement on how to > >proceed" -- showing he recognized that Conservatives are in a conflict of > >interest concerning the situation .============================================================================================================== Notice the bait and switch technique. The first part of the above paragraph tells the truth in that Harper is telling it like it is and since he's on record the writer knows that part can't be denied. But, then he switches to the ambiguous in playing to the 'hidden agenda'' theme of the Liberals, which has proven so effective. It's now the implication that 'conflict of interest' is something sinister, where as in reality, as Harper said, by his position as PM it's one PM investigating two other PMs. Really a no brainer. -------------- > > >The conflict of interest exists because Mr. Schreiber named Mr. Harper in > >his court affidavit, and Mr. Mulroney has advised Mr. Harper and has > >connections with Cabinet ministers. > > >However, Mr. Harper then contradicted himself and said that he will > >select > >a person to investigate, and that person will give advice to him and his > >Cabinet and then they will decide how to proceed. > > >On Tuesday, under public pressure, and in response to Brian Mulroney's > >request, Prime Minister Harper switched from appointing an investigator > >to > >appointing an advisor who will recommend terms of reference for a public > >inquiry and other possible steps, with the Prime Minister still deciding > >how to proceed. On Wednesday, Mr. Harper appointed David Johnston as the > >advisor, and while Mr. Johnston is a law professor and currently > >president > >of the University of Waterloo, he was also appointed by then-Prime > >Minister Mulroney to the National Roundtable on the Environment and the > >Economy in 1988, and reported directly to Mr. Mulroney in that position. > > >Mr. Harper's first instinct about conflicts of interest was correct -- > >his > >involvement in the selection of the advisor means that the advisor is > >neither independent nor impartial. ------------------------ Translation, this means what? First does the writer imply that you can get an advisor who never had any political leanings, played no part in the political scene, one who no political party would fault? Maybe Harper should have picked a Chrétien man since this all happened under Chrétien or maybe opposition parties could have picked someone impartial ? Get real. The next step may be to pick a judge, so all you critics how would you do that? Gomery was a good Liberal and no Liberal brass went to jail and the press remained silent and satisfied. Maybe that's why both Chrétien and Dion are now worried? So far not one reporter has questioned Johnston's integrity...but never mind that reality. ----------------------- > > >Secondly, the advisor's report should not be submitted to the Prime > >Minister, but instead either to an independent prosecutor for a decision > >whether to prosecute, or to an independent commissioner (appointed under > >the Inquiries Act) to be explored further through public hearings and a > >fact-finding report. > > >If Prime Minister Harper had not broken his election promise to establish > >an independent Public Appointments Commission, --------------------- So just how could this have been done in reality? The majority of members of any commission has to be either Liberal or Conservative.and that goes for the lawyers and judges. So who gets to pick the members for this PAC? . It's likely, with the rat pack mentality of the Liberal party today, Harper would have picked more Cons for that commission just as the Liberals would have and have done for the judges, courts, senate, bureaucracy,etc. So if this commission had picked Johnson, the liberals would still be crying foul because of the Cons on the commission. So Harper is being proved right in his first statement and he's now been backed by Chrétien, who only wants criminal inquiry by the RCMP. Dion is starting to panic too, as evidenced by him sending a letter of limitations over the weekend to Johnston. Not much impartiality there. So guys my advice is to pay closer attention and learn the rules of the game. Otherwise you're just dancing to the tune of fiddler If you chose ignore the realities, I guess you're beyond help. A mindless partisan you are and a mindless partisan you'll die. Our friend Karen is a prime example as in another post she is trying to manipulate events to say that the inquiry is all Harper's idea. Common sense time? ...... why on earth, would Harper WANT an inquiry like this hanging over him through the next election? Martin even cried foul when the RCMP launched an investigation in the run-up to his election. -- lm ((- Fight tunnel vision, maintain the big picture, don't be a ''useful idiot' for any party and maximize your common sense.-)) ================================================================================================================ >>it could have ensured a > >merit-based, impartial selection of an advisor, prosecutor and > >commissioner. So now, to ensure independence and impartiality, the Prime > >Minister must allow all federal party leaders in the House of Commons to > >approve the prosecutor and commissioner, and the terms of reference of > >the > >inquiry. > > >The Prime Minister selection of the advisor, and plan to have the advisor > >report back to him, is a step backwards in federal government ethics > >rules > >and law enforcement to the almost completely ineffective 1994 to 2004 > >period when Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson (who had no investigative > >powers) reported behind closed doors to Liberal Prime Minister Jean > >Chrétien and his Cabinet ministers on so-called investigations, and then > >Chrétien decided whether he himself, or his Cabinet ministers or staff, > >had broken federal ethics rules. > > >Mr. Harper's actions also raise the same questions as Harper's selection > >of former Parti Québecois Cabinet Minister Daniel Paille to investigate > >and report back to Harper on the public opinion research practices by the > >Liberal government between 1990 and 1993, and former Prime Minister Paul > >Martin's selection of Justice John Gomery (who now faces a court > >challenge > >alleging bias) as the inquiry commissioner into the Adscam sponsorship > >scandal. > > >When Canadians face allegations about questionable actions by themselves > >or their friends, they don't get to choose the people who will > >investigate > >them, who will decide how to deal with the evidence, nor who will judge > >them. The Prime Minister should not be allowed to choose these people > >either. > > >To prevent such conflicted responses to similar allegations in the > >future, > >the Inquiries Act must be changed as soon as possible to allow a majority > >of federal party leaders to launch an inquiry, and to require approval by > >all federal party leaders of inquiry commissioners. > > >Whether or not these steps are taken, federal political party leaders > >should not hesitate to initiate inquiries into many similarly > >questionable > >situations that occurred in federal politics over the past 15 years. > > >The Mulroney-Schreiber situation is only one example of many revealing > >how > >loopholes in the federal government's donations, gifts, lobbying and > >ethics rules, and lack of enforcement of these rules, are the real > >scandal. > > >Many party leaders have baited voters with false promises, then switched > >direction when elected, and then falsely claimed they kept their > >promises. > >Former Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson, and former Ethics Commissioner > >Bernard Shapiro, either refused to investigate or approved highly > >questionable activities by more than 20 Cabinet ministers and Cabinet > >staff. > > >Many federal politicians and political staff have had questionable > >business dealings or became lobbyists soon after leaving office; billions > >have been spent on questionable contracts (and more than $40 million from > >the Adscam sponsorship scandal is still missing); many unqualified party > >loyalists have been appointed to important, high- paying positions; many > >secret donations have been made to federal politicians, and; many > >lobbyists have worked for or raised money for Cabinet ministers they were > >lobbying. > > >Any federal politician who is a truly ethical leader will push for fully > >independent and impartial inquiries into all of these situations, into > >all > >the ways in which the federal government's accountability system is the > >scandal, and will continue pushing until Canadians have the honest, > >ethical, open and waste-preventing federal government they deserve. > > > * * * * > > >[Duff Conacher is the Coordinator of Democracy Watch, Canada's leading > >government accountability organization.] > > Thank you Karen! Take your meds and get back to bed Doctor. Huckleberry Hound doesn't come on for another 2 hours. > -- > Member - Liberal International > This is doc...@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doc...@nl2k.ab.ca > God, Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising! > Voting Canadians vote anyone but Harper Cronies!!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -

A lot of the people that voted for Mulroney.are now back in diapers -- Socrates taught his students that the pursuit of truth can only begin once they start to question and analyze every belief that they ever held dear. If a certain belief passes the tests of evidence, deduction, and logic, it should be kept. If it doesn't, the belief should not only be discarded, but the thinker must also then question why he was led to believe the erroneous "Loaf of Bread" <johntwrl@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:406f5e6f-1d11-42fd-8daa-902fe99bfc34@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 19, 9:04 am, "Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote: > > "Mr.Smartypants" <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:18b7edb2-39af-4bf1-b009-4cee65b1ca3a@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > On Nov 19, 7:31 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote: > > > In article <fhqq0b$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, > > > > > Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: > > > >(K): Harper is going to go down with Mulroney. This is one time too > > > >often > > > >that he tried to twist and turn and camouflage and obfuscate and > > > >threaten. > > > >Mulroney remains the most hated Prime Minister in Canada's history. And > > > >his pet dog isn't going to survive all the tricks his master taught him. > > > >___________________________ > > > > > >Mulroney-Schreiber investigation puts Harper in conflict of interest > > > > > >Fully impartial inquiries needed to clean up ethical questions about > > > >federal government activities. > > > > > >by Duff Conacher > > > > > >Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first response to the > > > >situation involving former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and > > > >German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber was to say "it's impossible, > > > >frankly, for the government to make an impartial judgement on how to > > > >proceed" -- showing he recognized that Conservatives are in a conflict of > > > >interest concerning the situation > > > > .==========================================================================- ==================================== > > Notice the bait and switch technique. The first part of the above paragraph > > tells the truth in that Harper is telling it like it is and since he's on > > record the writer knows that part can't be denied. But, then he switches to > > the ambiguous in playing to the 'hidden agenda'' theme of the Liberals, > > which has proven so effective. It's now the implication that 'conflict of > > interest' is something sinister, where as in reality, as Harper said, by his > > position as PM it's one PM investigating two other PMs. Really a no > > brainer. > > -------------- > > Good response Len. > > The problem is Harper is caught between the Devil and the deep blue > sea, and someone is going to find a reason to complain no matter what > he does. That's true even if he does nothing. > > My opinion, for what its worth, is the doctor and Karen are just > looking for Conservative blood. They couldn't care less how impartial > the judgement is, as long is it's a Liberal impartial judgement rather > than some other party's impartial judgement. > > I figure, as the Schreiber thing starts to play out, a lot of people > are going to get dragged through the mud, and not just Conservatives. > I'm sure a few Liberals will get dragged in too. > > BTW, I caught a rerun of a section of Adler Online over the weekend, > and he was doing a segment on this Mulroney-Schreiber thing. He was > particularly interested in what younger Canadians, people in their 20s > and 30s thought of Mulroney. A lot of them couldn't care less about > an issue surrounding a man who was Prime Minister when they were still > in daipers. > > [snip]

--"The Doctor" <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote in message news:fhs6ol$sa9$16@gallifrey.nk.ca... > In article <fhqq0b$2ph$1@theodyn.ncf.ca>, > Karen Gordon <ar231@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: >>(K): Harper is going to go down with Mulroney. ''as two of Canada's >>greatest Prime Ministers''.* I just knew that Karen would eventually see >>the light. (:-) -lm > > > *joking, joiking. -lm

-- "Mr.Smartypants" <shrubkiller@excite.com> wrote in message news:69086fff-e6c9-4745-835e-a050ac5f7f0a@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 19, 10:59 am, Loaf of Bread <johnt...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 19, 9:04 am, "Len McLaughlin" <l...@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Mr.Smartypants" <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:18b7edb2-39af-4bf1-b009-4cee65b1ca3a@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> > On Nov 19, 7:31 am, doc...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote: >> > > In article <fhqq0b$2p...@theodyn.ncf.ca>, >> >> > > Karen Gordon <ar...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote: >> > > >(K): Harper is going to go down with Mulroney. This is one time too >> > > >often >> > > >that he tried to twist and turn and camouflage and obfuscate and >> > > >threaten. >> > > >Mulroney remains the most hated Prime Minister in Canada's history. >> > > >And >> > > >his pet dog isn't going to survive all the tricks his master taught >> > > >him. >> > > >___________________________ >> >> > > >Mulroney-Schreiber investigation puts Harper in conflict of interest >> >> > > >Fully impartial inquiries needed to clean up ethical questions about >> > > >federal government activities. >> >> > > >by Duff Conacher >> >> > > >Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first response to the >> > > >situation involving former Conservative Prime Minister Brian >> > > >Mulroney and >> > > >German businessman Karlheinz Schreiber was to say "it's impossible, >> > > >frankly, for the government to make an impartial judgement on how to >> > > >proceed" -- showing he recognized that Conservatives are in a >> > > >conflict of >> > > >interest concerning the situation >> >> > .==========================================================================--==================================== >> > Notice the bait and switch technique. The first part of the above >> > paragraph >> > tells the truth in that Harper is telling it like it is and since he's >> > on >> > record the writer knows that part can't be denied. But, then he >> > switches to >> > the ambiguous in playing to the 'hidden agenda'' theme of the Liberals, >> > which has proven so effective. It's now the implication that 'conflict >> > of >> > interest' is something sinister, where as in reality, as Harper said, >> > by his >> > position as PM it's one PM investigating two other PMs. Really a no >> > brainer. >> > -------------- >> >> Good response Len. > > > > > are you kidding? Len sounds like that MI5 guy who's posting > everywhere. ===================== Ok, smarty, out of curiosity, just where is 'everywhere'? I'd bet you picked 'Smarty' because you're not BTW, just where do you post? Maybe I can learn something from your postings. ..-lm ==================== > > > > > > >> >> The problem is Harper is caught between the Devil and the deep blue >> sea, and someone is going to find a reason to complain no matter what >> he does. That's true even if he does nothing. >> >> My opinion, for what its worth, is the doctor and Karen are just >> looking for Conservative blood. They couldn't care less how impartial >> the judgement is, as long is it's a Liberal impartial judgement rather >> than some other party's impartial judgement. >> >> I figure, as the Schreiber thing starts to play out, a lot of people >> are going to get dragged through the mud, and not just Conservatives. >> I'm sure a few Liberals will get dragged in too. >> >> BTW, I caught a rerun of a section of Adler Online over the weekend, >> and he was doing a segment on this Mulroney-Schreiber thing. He was >> particularly interested in what younger Canadians, people in their 20s >> and 30s thought of Mulroney. A lot of them couldn't care less about >> an issue surrounding a man who was Prime Minister when they were still >> in daipers. >> >> [snip]- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >

>> >Mr. Harper's first instinct about conflicts of interest was correct -- >> >his >> >involvement in the selection of the advisor means that the advisor is >> >neither independent nor impartial. "Len McLaughlin" (len@nospam.com) writes: > Translation, this means what? First does the writer imply that you can get > an advisor who never had any political leanings, played no part in the > political scene, one who no political party would fault? [....] (K): It wouldn't matter if the guy 'leaned' left or right..... but it would have been less of a 'conflict of interest by Harper' if he hadn't chosen a man WHO WORKED FOR MULRONEY in the past. Harper just never quits with his game playing.... """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""