On Friday Prime Minister Stephen Harper engineered a complete about face in his handling of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, citing a new allegation.
Two things come to kind after watching this performance. First, the words Harper chose to use appear to this observer to indicate that there are more stones to turn over with respect to his relationship with Mulroney.
Second, Harper has been in possession for over seven months of the specific allegations made by Schreiber which Harper now claims have changed his mind on starting an inquiry. Why?
Looking at the statement Harper made on Friday, Mr. Harper's chosen words on
the Mulroney-Schreiber affair raise more questions than they were perhaps
designed to deflect.
Why did Harper not act on Schreiber's allegations when he first became
aware of them seven months ago?
Harper said that he and Mulroney "did not discuss Mr. Mulroney's
dealings with Mr. Schreiber during that visit", in August of 2006.
Harper did not say that he had never discussed the
Mulroney-Schreiber affair with Brian Mulroney.
Likewise, Harper went out of his way to say that "Mr. Mulroney has
never spoken to me on behalf of Mr. Schreiber".
Harper did not say that Mr. Mulroney had never spoken to him about
Mr. Schreiber, which is quite a different statement.
"On behalf" is a curious turn of phrase to use, one that implies a
much different meaning than "about". Is Mr. Harper using a Bill
Clinton language device here? Will we see a debate on what the
meaning of "is" is evolve in this case?
Will Harper come out and simply state that he has never spoken to
Mr. Mulroney about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair? Can he state that
without equivocation?
Unless proven otherwise, this observer will assume that Harper in
fact has discussed the Schreiber-Mulroney affair with Mulroney. To
what end or purpose, who can tell, but this entire saga is one
unanswered question after another and its long past time that all
the questions were put and responded to.
While most questions are Mulroney's to answer, one question for
Harper at least must be asked: why did Harper not act on Schreiber's
allegations when he first became aware of them seven months ago?
One week ago Harper declared there would be
no re-opening of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair and
bullied off the Liberals from agitating for further review. At that
time Harper was already in possession of the
allegations made by Schreiber.
Harper did a turnabout on the issue on Friday not because of new
allegations but because information - which he had been in the
possession of for seven months already - became public.
In that context, Harper's elusive words used Friday continue
a pattern of evasion and rightly should draw further attention to
the current prime minister's role in this affair. A public inquiry by a special prosecutor is necessary to clear the air.
While on the campaign trail of 2004, Stephen Harper, trying to score points off
the backs of Liberals who had been stung by nasty riding-level nomination
battles, said:
We want to clean up internal party politics, beginning with grassroots
democratic control of the nomination process. Stephen Harper
What a crock of crap.
Over the years its been made clear that Harper has never cared for
"grassroots democracy" -- not as Preston Manning's policy sidekick,
not as head of the libertarian/anti-government National Citizens
Coalition, not as leader of the Canadian Alliance and certainly not
as leader of the Conservative Party or government.
What nominal support he offers democracy is merely pretense; a
platitude for the masses.
Taking the point to its logical conclusion, Harper doesn't much care
for "democracy", not by any common definition of the word. Harper
certainly doesn't believe in representative democracy, as the
people's representatives are muzzled before, during, and after
election, and made to conform in every respect, cookie-cutter-like,
to templates set by a back-room bunch from National Council and the
ever-ready election war room.
Usurping the people's choice apparently comes naturally to Harper.
We've got Fortier and Emerson and Khan as concrete examples. And
within just a few weeks recently, a hat-trick of electoral district
associations are being dictated to from afar (or essentially have
been replaced) and condescendingly informed that they may not select
their own candidates.
While CPC president Don Plett might be taking the heat lately, the
Manitoban Harper hitman answers only to his master in the PMO.
A Prime Minister who has at every turn demonstrated that the only voice which
matters is his own, Stephen Harper has made it clear that he favours
autocracy, not democracy.
Keeping Track, First of A Series
Promise #1: Harper has never supported an appointed Senate, instead is a long time proponent of the Reform Party call for an elected senate, the so-called triple E senate. During the last election campaign, only days before the vote, Harper re-iterated a promise to Montrealers in a french-language televised interview:
Q: What if your party is unsuccessful in electing members from the Montreal area? What will you do? Will you appoint someone to cabinet to represent Montreal?
Stephen Harper: No – I’ve always believed that cabinet positions should only be filled from the ranks of elected parliamentarians. Details
Promise #1: Broken – on February 6th Harper appointed the unelected Michael Fortier, a long-time supporter of Mr. Harper, to cabinet. Fortier had not even run in the election, bluntly telling reporters that he “didn’t want to”.
Promise #2: Stephen Harper has always asserted that the unelected Senator he appointed to cabinet, Michael Fortier, would resign and run for a House of Commons seat in the very next election. In testimony before a Senate committee on September 7, 2006, Harper reiterated this promise:
this senator [Michael Fortier] will leave his seat at the next election to obtain a seat in the House of Commons. Stephen Harper, testifying before a Senate Committee
Promise #2 broken: Despite a Montreal-area riding now available for Michael Fortier to run in, he has not resigned his seat in the Senate and is not running for office in the election to be held on November 27 of this year.
Promise #3: During the last federal election, and in the months and years leading up to the campaign, Stephen Harper and other representatives of the Conservative Party repeatedly promised Canadians that they would not tax income trusts, instead favouring corporate tax reforms to level the playing field. The issue of income trusts became a significant election issue, where Harper continually hammered the Liberals, painting them as likely to tax trusts.
Promise #3 broken: After financial markets closed on October 31 2006, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the Harper government would indeed tax income trusts. In Question Period the next day, Harper, as part of an attempt to soften the political fall out, portrays the Conservative campaign promises as having been made only to seniors. This is disingenous in the extreme and offensive to small and large Canadian and foreign investors alike.
On Friday November 10th, Democracy Watch filed a complaint about these broken promises with the federal Ethics Commissioner, specifically naming Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty in the complaint.
Today I write on a matter that is more important in this election campaign than tax cuts, more important than health care, more important than fiscal responsibility or scandal.
This matter I raise today is war.
One of the most serious decisions the leaders of any nation will ever make is to engage in war. Rarely do voters head to the polls with the intention to judge their prospective leaders in this light, however in this day and age we must.
Had Stephen Harper been Prime Minister of Canada in 2002 and 2003, he would have committed Canada to war – a war which many informed thinkers believed then as now was illegal; a war which most observers today believe was foolhardy and avoidable.
Before I launch into this discussion, let there be no doubt: my position is not borne of anti-Americanism – most of my family and all of my wife’s family are American; I have had the great privilege to work in the United States on a work visa, and I count among my friends Americans from across that great country. No, my objection to Mr. Harper, and other neo-conservatives within his support base, is the unflinching deference they give to ill conceived political and military decisions made by others. Based on the facts, its clear that Stephen Harper did nothing but follow, quite blindly, the lead of George W. Bush.
Mr. Harper’s record on this is very clear.
Mr. Harper’s lengthy argument on the floor of the House of Commons, October 2, 2002 – full text included, illustrates very plainly that, if he had to make the decision, he would fully support the US and head to war in Iraq.
If you truly care about your country you want to make informed decisions based on facts, not on the current spin of the day. If what I present here in this note and linked articles is not enough for you, there is ample evidence of the spirit, intent and certainty of Mr. Harper and many of his ideological bretheran who sit in the House of Commons. Use the search tools , browse all of Hansard using the search terms Harper Iraq OR Alliance AND Iraq.
When you emerge from that experience, you can not reach any conclusion but this: Stephen Harper, with the backing of a significant majority of his caucus, would plunge Canada into war with Iraq, had he the chance. Any rational and unbiased evaluation of the man and his track record will leave you certain that Stephen Harper, as Prime Minister, would willingly respond to any US call upon neo-conservative think-alike governments to support such action in the future. Mr. Harper will be right there, thick as thieves, damn international law, damn the truth, damn the torpedoes.
Mr. Harper was willing to use the American tactic – tie Iraq as a potential threat to the attacks of 9/11, and use the do-nothing and the UN becomes irrelevant scare – to help buttress his case, and in fact cited questionable evidence (supplied by the US administration making the same arguments) far beyond his area of expertise:
The dossier also revealed that Iraq tried to buy the special equipment including 60,000 specialized aluminum tubes necessary to process natural uranium into weapons grade uranium. The dossier identified all of these procurement attempts as having occurred since 1998, since the end of UN inspections.
Today Iraq may possess a nuclear bomb and the ability to launch it at targets in an arc ranging from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some respond that this information does not constitute proof. To that I reply, not only does the risk exist but Saddam Hussein’s possession of a launchable nuclear bomb is also a risk that is a fairly quantifiable one.Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition
See Fool Us Once for a thorough discussion of this evidence.
The bottom line is that the UN and its inspection forces were demanding more time; they were the experts, not the politicians in Washington and Ottawa.
If Stephen Harper is to be Canada’s next prime minister, we, the people of Canada ought to be fully prepared for Mr. Harper to lead us down whatever path the US would have us go, including shouldering the burden of an illegal, irresponsible and foolhardy war.
Responding to a question from Ms. Carroll, Mr. Harper raised the very argument George W. Bush had been using to incite anger (and thus support) within his own country:
The credibility of the United Nations is at stake if the United Nations Security Council members, and, in particular, our allies, do not achieve the objective that is sought here, which is the complete removal of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and all capacity to pursue those programs in the future.
There can be nothing short of that achievement. If we do not achieve that then the credibility of the United Nations will be permanently damaged, as was the League of Nations in a previous incarnation when it failed to take the necessary steps to back the necessary action to ensure international security.Stephen Harper, Leader of the Opposition
Mr. Harper’s arguments on that fall day in 2002, and on the days leading up to and months following the key debate on Iraq, continue to agitate for Canada to fully support the US position on Iraq (and the UN), despite a lack of concrete evidence to support the US position and despite the rational continued calls from UN experts in disarmament for more time to fully discharge their responsibilities—and avoid a war in doing so.
The Liberals are not free from taint in this matter either; former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, so-called “star candidate” Michael Ignatieff, and other prominent Liberals are just as likely to blindly accept the current US administrations position on such grave matters.
But in this election our focus must be on Stephen Harper, as it is him, not Manley or Ignatieff, not Ducceppe nor Layton, who is positioned to take over as prime minister of the country following this election.
If you, like me, demand that our country be led by people who will do more than parrot the position of other governments, then you, like me, can not support the leadership of Stephen Harper.
Read all of Stephen Harper’s statements on Iraq over the course of 2001 through 2003 and you, like me, will come to the unavoidable conclusion that Mr. Harper fully supported the position of George W. Bush, his cabinet and his advisers in every way, shape and form.
The start of the Iraq war was some time ago, but the lessons learned about our potential and current leaders remain as valid and critically important today. Waging war is an issue that, unlike others, can not be swept under the table. When Canadians mark their ballot this coming January 23rd, they’d better be doing so realizing that the man – and they are all men – that they are selecting has the power to send Canadians into battle.
I am a conservative, and I will remain a conservative, but I will not vote conservative in this election. I will not contribute to a Stephen Harper led minority or majority government. I will not contribute to the neo-conservativization, as exemplified by the George W. Bush administration, of our foreign policy.
My loyalty is first and foremost to a sovereign and smart Canada, not to a political party.
Related posts:
- November 15, 2004: But its not a war crime (it would be informative to measure up Liberals Michael Ingatieff and John Manley against this issue)
- October 6, 2004: Sanctions and Containment Work
- October 6, 2004: No Rational for Iraq War
- October 2, 2004: Fool Us Once (which illustrates quite plainly that the Bush administration cherry-picked intel so as not to destroy its case; this includes the same ‘evidence’ which Stephen Harper elected to use to bolster his October 2, 2002 argument in favour of marching into Iraq)