Navigating Canada's Way Out of Recession Redux

Preston Manning calls for post-recession roadmap

In an op/ed column appearing in the Globe and Mail, Preston Manning writes about the current federal deficit, and compares it to the 14-year quest to put an end to Canada's last deficit.

He argues that a lack of planning undermined efforts to control that deficit, and argues that a plan is needed to tackle the current federal deficit.

The best reason for doing this, he insists, is not necessarily the deficit itself, but some of the unconsidered consequences of accumulating debt:

"To combat the current recession, governments around the world have instituted economic recovery measures breathtaking in their magnitude and scope. These include dramatically expanding the money supply (printing money), taking significant ownership positions in key sectors of the economy and heavily engaging in deficit spending.

Such measures have other significant and long-lasting effects besides stimulating economic growth.

Rapid expansion of the money supply can lead to a tsunami of inflation. Government ownership of businesses can lead to unhealthy dependencies, unfair competition, corporate inefficiencies and serious conflicts of interest when governments must also regulate businesses in which they have an ownership stake. And heavy engagement in deficit spending leads invariably to increased public debt, increased interest payments and the necessity of cutting services and/or raising taxes in the future to rebalance the books.

So what must be done to recover from the adverse effects of these measures?

Let me focus particularly on what might be done to recover from the orgy of deficit spending in which virtually all governments in Canada are now engaged."

Manning notes that the 14-year struggle to end balance the budget and begin paying down debt stemmed from not a lack of a coherent plan:

"At the federal level, Canada's last big deficit-spending binge began in the Pierre Trudeau years. Fourteen federal deficits in 17 years eventually led to a national debt of $572-billion and annual interest payments of almost $40-billion in today's dollars (or stated in 1984 dollars, $250.5-billion debt and $21-billion in interest costs).

In 1984, the Liberals were replaced by the Brian Mulroney Conservatives, who promised a more responsible approach to public finances. But federal spending continued to soar, the annual deficit and national debt continued to rise, and the government resorted largely to increased taxation rather than spending reductions to try to tame the deficit dragon."

By the time the Jean Chretien Liberal party was in power and ready (however reluctantly) to start tackling the national deficit, all then-Finance Minister and future Prime Minister Paul Martin could think to do was slash spending on health care, education and transfers to the provinces -- something the Liberals only recently admitted was a mistake.

The skyrocketing public debt and debt service payments that Manning alludes to were thus only one consequence of the Trudeau-Mulroney deficit spending era.

As the '90s wore on, so did public anxiety about Canada's debt. That anxiety was also felt in financial markets, where there was speculation that Canada could potentially default on its foreign debts. This anxiety, however, was not born in the 1990s. Public concern about Canada's debt had begun to solidly take root in the 1989s:

"According to the pollsters, as early as 1984 there was significant public support for deficit reduction as a policy objective, including major cuts in public spending, but politicians were slow to recognize or respond vigorously to this shift in public attitudes. So the leadership of the deficit-reduction movement began largely outside the formal political arena.

Market-oriented think tanks such as the Fraser Institute and the CD Howe Institute provided much of the intellectual capital for the movement, hammering away on the problem's dangers and offering alternatives for alleviating it.

Interest groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, the Business Council on National Issues (as it was then called) and later the newly formed (1989) Canadian Taxpayers Federation added their voices, energy and resources to generate public and political support for budget balancing by governments at all levels.

Grassroots publications such as Ted Byfield's Western Report and the radio talk shows gave media voice to the movement, and later several national newspapers joined the fray."

As Manning notes, it was only a matter of time before deficit-fighting arrived as the raison d'etre for a federal political party:

"And on the fringes of the political arena, the embryonic Reform Party (with Stephen Harper as its policy chief and fiscal critic) made budget balancing a central plank of its election platform and set out to prove that it was possible to elect candidates to Parliament on the pledge of saving taxpayers' dollars rather than spending more of them."

The Reform party contested its first federal election in 1988, the year Canadians bequeathed a second straight majority on then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Although he had inherited a structural deficit from Pierre Trudeau, history remembers (and will continue to remember) Mulroney as one of Canada's biggest deficit spenders.

But appearances could be decieving. Free Trade was the central issue in the 1988 election campaign, with Mulroney supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement, and his opponents opposing it. Mulroney won a majority on the back of the free trade issue. But at their earliest opportunity (which came later in 1988), Albertans sent Deborah Grey, their first Reform MP, to Ottawa. Stephen Harper (who will also be remembered as one oc Canada's biggest deficit spenders) went with her as her Parliamentary Assistant.

At a certain point, legislators couldn't ignore the signs the Canadian people were sending them -- get the debt under control. Now. Or else:

"As the movement for deficit reduction grew in public support, municipal and provincial politicians finally began to take notice. (Federal parties, because of their distance from grassroots voters and taxpayers, are usually the last, not the first, to respond to major shifts in public sentiment.)

Though rarely recognized for it, the first provincial government to commit itself seriously to the goal of budget balancing was the Conservative government of Gary Filmon in Manitoba. At the time (1988), the province was running a $500-million deficit on total revenues of about $4-billion and it took seven years to reduce the deficit to zero. Manitoba was also among the first to pass budget-balancing laws making it illegal to run deficits except in specifically defined emergency situations.

Next it was Alberta, where Ralph Klein made a similar commitment in 1993, eliminating that province's $3.5-billion deficit in two short years while at the same time decreasing revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product.

And then in Ontario, where the annual deficit was in excess of $10-billion, the Mike Harris government, elected in 1995, reduced it to zero in four years."

But, as Manning suggests, the federal government can often be the slowest to respond. It took the Reform Party and scathing criticisms from Andrew Coyne to convince Paul Martin that he needed to get Canada's fiscal house in order.

As Manning notes, the Reform party is still remembered as the only party in the 1993 election to present a credible plan for reducing the federal deficit:

"Meanwhile, in the federal arena, where the deficit was approaching $40-billion a year, the 1993 election saw the demise of the Mulroney Conservatives and the election of the Jean Chrétien government. But that election also resulted in the election of 52 Reformers committed to reducing the federal deficit to zero in three years. Eventually, the Liberals, though philosophically inclined to ever-increasing public spending, felt the political pressure to move in the opposite direction, and by 1998 the budget was finally balanced."

This was not nearly so simple for Paul Martin as some would have suggested it was.

The Chretien government, at the time, was also conducting a social services review under Lloyd Axworthy. It took considerable time and effort for Martin to out-maneuver Axworthy in order to impress the importance of his agenda upon Chretien.

Various political tensions -- both inter- and intra-party -- led to the exacerbation of Canada's deficit and hampered the best-intentioned efforts to get it back under control.

Manning seems to suggest that these kinds of tensions are characteristic of a political environment in which there is no real consensus on the matter, and what is needed to ensure Canada can efficiently shed its deficit once the recession is over is a policy similar to Reform's "zero in three" policy:

"The most disturbing aspect of this story is that it took 14 years (1984 to 1998), and an enormous effort at great expense by tens of thousands of people outside the formal political arena, before the federal government could be persuaded to take the self-evidently necessary actions required to balance its books.

Given this history, what will it take to tame the current deficit, the one being incurred in the name of economic stimulation? Political leadership, more likely to come from conservatives than liberals or social democrats, would certainly help. But no doubt another major effort outside the formal political arena – by think tanks, interest groups and media committed to fiscal responsibility – will be needed to create the public pressure required before politicians will act.

That effort would be greatly aided if someone – perhaps one of the think tanks or a respected academic institution – were to provide a definitive history of the last deficit-reduction movement. Most of us involved in that exercise have only partial knowledge of who did what, of what worked and what didn't, and of how the whole process might have been expedited. A road map to deficit elimination, based on a comprehensive analysis of past experience, will be extremely helpful to the deficit-fighters of the future. Hopefully, this time it will not take 14 years to get the job done."

If Canada's political leaders establish a deficit-busting concession now, as opposed to waiting until Canada faces the threat of a complete fiscal collapse, Canada will be able to navigate itself out of the recession fairly quickly -- and perhaps even without an additional five years of deficit spending.


From the archives:

August 5, 2009 - "Navigating Canada's Way Out of Recession (And Beyond)"

The Great Conciliator?

Mulroney wants Tories to kiss and make up

When Conservatives gather to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Brian Mulroney's 1984 majority government victory -- one of only two for the party in the past quarter century, and only three in the past 60 years -- Mulroney wants the party to be more than simply a celebration of a past triumph.

He wants the Conservative party to kiss and make up.

"It's in the interest of all Conservatives -- Progressive Conservatives and the latter-day group -- to come together in support of common principles," Mulroney recently told Canadian Press.

How welcome, precisely, Mulroney's call to reconcile is in the mind of Stephen Harper is likely only truly known to Harper himself -- who will not attend the party, as he will be in the United States on that day -- or perhaps his wife, Laureen.

But a reconciliation between the Harper wing of the Conservative party and Mulroney loyalists -- some of whom surely continue to harbour some grudges over the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and even after 20 years the feeling likely remains very much mutual -- would bear many dividends for the party.

For one thing, it would reunite the party with activists who unequivocally know how to win in Quebec.

For Conservatives wary of declining polling numbers in La Belle Province, Mulroney would urge them not to write the province off as a lost cause. "When I became leader [in 1983] we had one seat in Quebec," he said. "Our first election in 1984 we got 58 seats -- and 50 per cent of the popular vote. Then in 1988 we got 63 seats of the 74 here."

"We had quite a following here," Mulroney recalled. "We were able to do some things that people remember favourably."

A reconciliation with the Mulroney camp would expand the party's expertise in fighting elections in Quebec. Considering that Harper's Diefenbaker-esque dealings with Mario Dumont and the Action Democratique du Quebec haven't fully beared fruit -- likely due to the admittedly-woeful state of the ADQ -- the Conservative party could put that kind of experience to good use.

There is no modern-day Maurice Duplessis to help the party reap an electoral windfall in Quebec.

A reconciliation between the Harper and Mulroney camps could even help pave the way for an eventual return by current Quebec Premier Jean Charest to federal politics as a high-profile member -- and likely eventual leader -- of the party.

The Liberal party evidently never really knew what to do with the Stephane Dion package -- a dedicated separatist-fighter with solid credentials on the environment. It probably helped that the Dion package was never really legit, but with Charest it is undisputable. The Tories would do well to avail themselves of his potential return. A reconciliation would go a long way.

In Mulroney's mind, at least it isn't out of the question. He seems to bear Stephen Harper no ill will in regards to the issues that have emerged between them. In fact, he doesn't seem very distressed by it all.

"He severed relations with me, which, when you've been prime minister, doesn't really mean very much to you. There's nothing that I worry about [that] Mr Harper can or cannot do," Mulroney explained.

In fact, Mulroney seems to recognize much of himself in Stephen Harper.

"Because you can’t elect anybody based on that hard-core thing," Mulroney added. "Mr Harper was smart enough to realize that and to figure out how you get elected in this country."

"I was conservative -— right of centre —- on some important issues, which he is, and slightly left of centre, or centrist, on some important social issues."

Of course, it isn't merely in the interest of all conservatives to heal some of the remaining rifts in the Conservative party -- it's also in the interest of all Canadians.

Canada can't be governed on liberalism alone and, as paleoconservative political scientist Barry Cooper would note, the Harper government's turn away from contrived public virtue-based governance and back toward economic pragmatism should be considered a welcome one.

Anything that strengthens the Conservative party -- in fact, anything that strengthens almost any political party -- will, by extension, also be good for Canada.

Mulroney likely isn't being entirely unselfish in his motives for wanting to see the Conservative party kiss and make up. In the eyes of many, Mulroney was the greatest Conservative since sir John A MacDonald -- or at least since John Diefenbaker. Helping the Conservative party further unite itself under any banner would only further cement that legacy.

Brian Mulroney's precise motivation is actually irrelevant. All that really matters is getting the Conservative party back on track again, fully united.

Prime Minister Jean Charest?

Richard Cleroux forecasts Charest's return to Ottawa

In an op/ed column appearing in the Orleans Star, Richard Cleroux makes a bold prediction:

Jean Charest will not only return to Ottawa, but win the office of Prime Minister within the next five years.

It's a bold prediction for a number of reasons.

First off, despite a recent minority government setback (which was avenged with a majority government victory less than a year later) Jean Charest is firmly ensconsed in the office of Premier of Quebec, and the prospects of the Parti Quebecois or Action Democratique du Quebec of unseating him any time soon are rather slim.

Secondly, if Charest accomplished the feat he would be the first former Premier to win the office of Prime Minister in Canadian history -- Robert Stanfield, Tommy Douglas and John Bracken all tried and failed to accomplish this goal.

Thirdly, despite rumblings of a fall election, Charest would have to wait for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to (one way or another) vacate the Prime Minister's office before becoming Prime Minister himself.

While the third point naturally seems extremely obvious, there are actually numerous factors in play.

For one thing, there are certainly big questions regarding which party Charest would seek to lead upon returning to Ottawa. Charest led the Progressive Conservative party (now the Conservative party of Canada) out of the irrelevance of its post-Kim Campbell nadir before leaving the party to lead the Quebec Liberal party to victory over the Parti Quebecois.

Yet, as Cleroux notes, Charest was recently made the Chariman of the committee to plan the fesivities celebrating the 25th anniversary of Brian Mulroney's 1984 majority government.

Although Mulroney was instrumental in many of Charest's political successes -- even twice appointing him as a Cabinet Minister in his own government -- the optics of a Liberal Premier planning the celebration of a former Conservative Prime Minister, especially one who continues to dwell along the margins of Canada's political life, are very telling.

Few Liberals would dare unless they were deliberately leaving a door open to join the Conservative party.

This act even shows that Charest is above the internal frays currently troubling the Conservative party.

"Charest is different," Cleroux writes. "No internecine battles for him. He’s an old-time federal Conservative who became a provincial Quebec Liberal only because the boys in Ottawa wanted somebody who could stand up to the separatists in Quebec and save Canada for them – which he did."

In Jean Charest, Conservatives would be getting half of the Stephane Dion package that failed to materialize for the Liberal party.

Charest is a committed separatist fighter, who put his country ahead of his personal politics, and stuck to his guns. By contrast, Dion is a formerly-well-regarded separatist fighter who did a deal with the Bloc Quebecois in an attempt to become Prime Minister.

Electing Charest as leader of the Conservative party -- whether Stephen Harper decides to retire the leadership as Prime Minister or surrenders his leadership after an election defeat -- would instantly reenergize the party in Quebec.

As anyone who follows Canadian politics knows, a strong showing in Quebec is virtually a prerequisite for a majority government.

Charest could even be instrumental in reuniting the Conservative party with the people who helped it win its last majority government.

"Choosing to head the celebrations is smart," Cleroux muses. "It brings him back to the old Mulroney loyalists. They still count for lots in Quebec, and it doesn’t alienate his Liberal followers, who can be brought into his team later on."

While this all remains a bold prediction so long as Charest remains Premier of Quebec, the prospect of a Jean Charest return to the federal Conservative party should be an exciting prospect for many Canadian conservatives.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Roy Eappen - "Charest is Not a Lucid"

Picking A Strange Hill to Die On

In a post on his blog today Warren Kinsella is promoting a strange video suggesting that Stephen Harper doesn't like Brian Mulroney very much.

Not a great secret.

Presented in the form of a storybook, replete with "The Dance of the Sugar Plum fairy" playing in the background, the video chronicles Stephen Harper's turn away from the Mulroney-era Progressive Conservatives. Harper had worked for then-Calgary West MP Jim Hawkes as a Parliamentary aide, but would quit over concerns about Mulroney's fiscal policies.

Harper would run unsuccessfully against Hawkes as a Reform party candidate in the 1988 federal election before defeating him in 1993.

After a falling out with Reform party leader Preston Manning, Harper left the party to become the President of the National Citizens Coalition. The video highlights Harper's criticisms of Mulroney and Harper's suggestion that the then-governing Liberal party not settle Mulroney's libel lawsuit out-of-court so the RCMP could continue investigating the matter.

"Not nice," the video muses, complaining that Harper has rarely been there to help Mulroney.

Yet when Kinsella's Liberal party called for a judicial inquiry into his dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber -- who promised startling revelations regarding the Airbus scandal, but only if he wasn't extradited to Germany -- Harper initially refused.

Not exactly the actions of someone pursuing a grudge against a former political opponent.

The video is an interesting exercise in branding and counter-branding. It seeks to brand Brian Mulroney as largely an innocent victim of Stephen Harper's malice and lack of niceties. Meanwhile, it tries to counter-brand Harper as a vindictive and petulant individual for whom personal hatred of Mulroney is motivating his government's actions vis a vis Mulroney, as opposed to the persistent demands of the opposition parties.

It's unsurprising that Warren Kinsella would be so eager to help promote such a piece of online tripe. The video in question banks on the short memories of its viewers, hoping that they'll separate the Oliphant inquiry from its real-world context -- the demands by then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion that Mulroney be investigated.

This is unsurprising from someone who demands that the sponsorship scandal be separated from its context. He has long railed against holding Jean Chretien responsible for the sponsorship scandal, but refuses to acknowledge the simple fact that the sponsorship program was run out of his office, by his personal staff.

Then again, Warren Kinsella has a history of pcking strange hills to die on. One recalls Kinsella's recent accusation that several conservative bloggers covertly receive paycheques from the Conservative party -- an odd accusation from an individual who has, in the past, accepted paycheques from the Liberals.

They Still Don't Get It

Liberals complain about cost of income trust investigation

When the Liberal party lost the 2005/06 federal election, many partisans blamed the Income Trust scandal and the RCMP investigation of it for their defeat.

To a certain extent, this is true. And while they continue to insist that the RCMP investigation was inappropriate and (allegedly) politically-motivated, they also conveniently overlook the fact that the Sponsorship Scandal had made the idea that the Liberal party would tip its friends off to a potentially advantageous taxation decision seem incredibly believable. Even likely.

So as documents obtained via the Access to Information act reveal that the RCMP spent $445,000 on the investigation it's only natural that the Liberal party would take this as an opportunity to complain again.

"Not only was the investigation inappropriate and misguided, but now we know it cost a huge bundle of money too," said Liberal MP Mark Holland. "Over $400,000 is a massive expense -- and there are a lot of questions that have to be answered."

Yet Holland overlooks the fact that an investigation into the RCMP's investigation revealed no evidence of wrongdoing on the RCMP's behalf, and that while the RCMP did not find evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of then-Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, it did lay charges against an official working under Goodale's supervision.

As those who remember the matter should recall, a spike in trading in Income Trusts had called attention to the potential for corruption surrounding the affair. Finance department official Serge Nadeau was charged for insider trading after purchasing stock in Income Trusts before the announcement was formally made.

Holland seems to think that the RCMP should wait to investigate suspicious activity that could affect an election until after that election is concluded.

But the RCMP has a duty to investigate suspicious activities regardless of their proximity to a federal election. To delay investigations into known suspicious behaviour until after an election provides those responsible with extra time to conceal evidence, giving them a greater opportunity to go free.

Considering that the RCMP turned up enough evidence to justify charging Nadeau it's hard to accept writing the investigation off as "inappropriate" or "misguided".

It would be inappropriate and misguided to decline to investigate such suspicious occrences. And, as NDP MP Judy Wascylycia-Leis notes, Ralph Goodale himself had plenty of opportunities to investigate the affair on his own.

"I was doing my job as an MP to get to the bottom of something many people were concerned about," said Wascylycia-Leis. "In my view, this whole chapter in our history could have been avoided -- including these costs to the RCMP investigation -- if the minister at the time, Ralph Goodale, had said these concerns were legitimate, we will investigate and get back to you ... I think he could have avoided the financial cost and the political cost."

All of this comes as the Oliphant Inquiry continues into dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber -- a matter which continues to slide further and further into farce as revelations continue to surface that Schreiber hasn't been truthful about his dealings with Mulroney.

This inquiry was demanded by the Liberal party, and all that has been revealed thus far is how deceptive Schreiber has been in his bid to avoid extradition to Germany.

Perhaps complaining about a perfectly legitimate investigation that cost them politically out of their own negligence and lack of credibility is just the Liberal party's way of deflecting public attention away from this embarrassing debacle in which all that's really being revealed is that party's eagerness to politically capitalize on Karlheinz Schreiber's lies.

Even all this time after the Liberal party's political ouster, this party still doesn't get it. They aren't entitled to take corruption lightly and continue to govern.

Harper, Ignatieff and the Morality of Politics

Stephen Harper questions Michael Ignatieff's moral compass

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has seized upon a Conservative party spat over the appointment of the Oliphant Inquiry into dealings between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schrieber to steal some moral capital away from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

Harper insists that his currently-troubled relationship with Brian Mulroney proves that his government is concerned with ethics, while Ignatieff is only concerned about garnering political advantage wherever he may find an opportunity.

"Mr Ignatieff and the Liberal party, when the matter first broke, were practically demanding that I throw Mr. Mulroney in prison without a trial," Harper said. "Now they're out there pretending that somehow they're his best friends and they don't agree with any of this."

"Canadians will remember this government had a difficult issue and I think this government handled it in a responsible way," Harper continued. "This is not an easy matter, but I think Canadians understand that the government has taken a matter that is very difficult for ourselves, for our party, and handled it responsibly."

Indeed, the Liberal party -- then under Stephane Dion -- and their partisans milked Karlheinz Schreiber's promised revelations for all they felt it was worth. It was the Liberals themselves who demanded a public inquiry.

"I think what Canadians will see when it comes to a very difficult issue of government conduct and government ethics, this government has behaved responsibly and the other party, the other leader, has absolutely no moral compass," Harper concluded.

It's worth noting that Ignatieff's sin seems to have come in the form of a birthday phone call to Mulroney.

Under nearly any circumstances such a call would be entirely inconsequential. Making that call while Mulroney is the subject of a public inquiry, however, and somehow allowing that call to become public is a blunder, even if a minor blunder that Harper is exaggerating -- and very likely knows it.

This would be a masterful job of twisting the affair to tarnish Ignatieff on Harper's part if Ignatieff hadn't actually done it to himself. Exploiting a scandal is usually the most expedient method of garnering political moral capital at an opponent's expense.

Suddenly shifting gears on the matter is a very fast way to get covered in one's own mud. One would expect that Ignatieff should know better.

Also raked over the coals at a recent caucus meeting were the claims that Mulroney is no longer a member of the Conservative party. Marjory LeBreton, the Tory house leader in the Senate, noted that Mulroney had allowed his party membership to lapse.

Many Conservatives, however, do not believe this was the case, and the appointment of the inquiry seems to have enflamed lingering divisions between Mulroney-era Progressive Conservatives and former Reformers.

Normally, this would be a serious problem for Stephen Harper. But with Michael Ignatieff managing to flip flop spectacularly on the issue, Stephen Harper may have gained more from the matter than he was ever really at risk of losing.

Will Mario Dumont Be Back?

Dumont's ride into the sunset may not be permanent

As the Action Democratique du Quebec looks anxiously toward its future -- a future without the only leader it has ever known -- some continue to speculate on former leader Mario Dumont's future.

Last year Lawrence Martin suspected Dumont would be named to the Senate as one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's 17 new Senators. That didn't pan out.

Westmount Examiner columnist is being a little more cautious in his predictions. He expects that Dumont will be back, he just won't say how or when.

"Mario Dumont is a hero in his home town — the local lad who defied all odds to become the leader of a third political force in Quebec," Laresen writes. "He not only put Rivière-du-Loup on the map, he also served as an inspiration to many young rural Quebecers, showing them that Algeresque success is possible, given the right circumstances."

Larsen holds up two previous small-town Quebeckers -- Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney, both former Prime Ministers -- as proof that there may be something to the mystique of small-town Quebecois leaders.

"Jean Chretien has always liked to refer to himself as the scrappy kid from Shawinigan, while Brian Mulroney proudly professes to be Baie-Comeau’s political wunderkind," Larsen notes. "Both claims are perfectly true, suggesting that any backwoods Quebec town can spawn a savvy, charismatic leader who has what it takes to rise to high political office."

It's worth noting, however, that both Chretien and Mulroney suffered ignominious fates in Canadian politics. Brian Mulroney backed out the back door before the Canadian people delivered his successor, Kim Campbell, a humiliating and crushing defeat.

Chretien left the Liberal party after his welcome had effectively been worn out, and with a major party-breaking scandal on the horizon. Like Mulroney, Chretien left his predecessor to face defeat, even if a decade of political fear mongering allowed the party to reduce both the scope and the immediacy of their defeat.

Yet the stories of Dumont, Chretien and Mulroney couldn't be more dissimilar in an important regard. As Larsen notes, Dumont built the ADQ from scratch, went on to win his seat in the National Assembly, and eventually transformed his party -- ever so briefly -- into a force to be reckoned with in Quebec politics.

By contrast, Chretien and Mulroney assumed the leadership of established political parties that were already on their way to governing -- a luxury that Dumont has never had.

Then again, few political leaders have ever come back from as complete a defeat as Dumont absorbed in Quebec's 2008 provincial election.

Larsen may be being overly optimistic about Dumont's chances.

"Dumont’s early retirement from political life certainly does not mean we’ll never see his name on a ballot again," Larsen surmises. "He most likely will return one day, probably when 'favourable conditions' prevail. This means he may still be the premier of Quebec one day, or even end up in Ottawa."

At Dumont's age one would be foolish to rule out a return to politics for the man formerly known as Super Mario.

But it won't happen any time soon. Furthermore, the how, when and why of his return can only be in the hands of Dumont himself.

Defining the Role of the Fringe

"Fringe" parties can play a vital role in Canadian politics

In an op/ed article appearing in the Winnipeg Sun, Paul Rutherford has a message for Canada's fringe political players:

Go away.

In the course of the column, Rutherford describes Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Reform party founder Preston Manning as "the worst thing to happen to Canadian politics in the last 20 years".

Rutherford accuses these parties of stealing votes from "legitimate parties" and insists that "they play no role in the democratic health of our country".

Unfortunately for Rutherford, he couldn't possibly be further from the truth.

The truth is that not only are fringe parties necessary, but sometimes they're inevitable, even when one would, as Rutherford, just as soon not even have them.

Manning's Reform party and Lucien Bouchard's Bloc Quebecois may well be the greatest example of each of these two scenarios.

A common grievance held by many members of the former Progressive Conservative party elite -- among them Joe Clark -- is that the Reform party undermined conservative politics in Canada by undermining the Progressive Conservative party. Not only did the party supplant the PCs in the west, but vote-splitting between Reform and PC candidates in Eastern Canada robbed the PCs of Parliamentary seats, and allowing the Jean Chretien Liberals to come up the middle in dozens of ridings on route to forming a majority government.

If Preston Manning had never founded the Reform party, many of them reason, Kim Campbell could have fended off near annihilation, and possibly even won.

This would almost seem reasonable. One very well could assume that the 19% of Canadian voters who supported the Reform party would support the Progressive Conservatives over the Liberals. But that would be making a fatal assumption in assuming that those voters -- particularly in the west -- would have been willing to continue supporting the PCs.

Many of them would just have likely stayed home on election day.

Many western voters had long tired of holding their noses and voting for a party that, all too often, didn't represent their interests. The 1984 election of Brian Mulroney via what Chantale Hebert describes as an Alberta-Quebec coalition turned out to be a rude awakening for many western conservatives.

Disillusioned with numerous episodes of the Mulroney government -- most notably the Meech Lake Accord, Charlottetown Accord and the F-18 Maintenance Contract fiasco -- western conservatives were ready to support a new option. They held on just long enough to help Brian Mulroney secure a victory in the 1988 election (on the strength of their desire to see NAFTA negotiated), then promptly elected a Reform candidate -- Beaver River MP Deborah Grey -- at their next opportunity.

The lesson for politicians was a simple one, but one that many politicians did not understand: voters expect their elected representatives to represent them. It's the same lesson re-played in the recent reelection of former Conservative MP Bill Casey.

The leadership of the Progressive Conservative party had lost sight of a political tradition in western Canada: the tradition of populism. Particularly on the prairies, populism was at the root of nearly every political movement to emerge out of western Canada: Social Credit, Tommy Douglas' CCF (later the NDP), the Progressives and Preston Manning's Reform party were all born out of this tradition.

The PC leadership, meanwhile, had turned their back on this tradition when they attempted twice to ram through constitutional special treatment for Quebec that western Canadians overwhelmingly opposed.

With the rise of the Reform party in the 1993 election and the crash of the Progressive Conservative party, Brian Mulroney's chickens came home to roost. Unfortunately, Mulroney himself had vacated the party leadership, and never had to fully face up to the consequences of his actions.

Western Canadians weren't prepared to support the PCs any longer. Whether one dismisses the Reform party as a protest party or not, the Reform party forced the PCs to eventually get back in touch with that forgotten tradition -- the tradition previously honoured by leaders such as John Diefenbaker.

Until the PCs did so -- which they did, via a merger with the Canadian Alliance, the successor party to Reform, which had been forged out of a coalition with provincial Progressive Conservative parties in Alberta and Ontario -- it was not, and could not be, whole.

In merging with the Canadian Alliance, the Conservative party finally reconciled its party elite with grassroots conservatism.

Some accuse Preston Manning of destroying Canadian conservatism for 11 years. The truth is quite different. Canadian conservatism had already long been on a course toward its own self-destruction. If anything, Preston Manning put Canadian conservatism on the road to what it needed most desperately -- renewal.

And just as fringe political parties can be instrumental to such political renewal within a party, they can be instrumental renewal across Canadian politics as a whole.

Sometimes, the development of a fringe party reminds us of the breadth and depth of a political problem. Such was the case with the Bloc Quebecois.

Formed as a party intent on serving the cause of Quebec sovereingtism at the federal level, the Bloc has been equally a Quebecois protest party and a disruptive force in Canadian politics (how else could one legitimately regard a party formed with the intention of separating a region of the country from within that country's own federal legislature?).

The Bloc, like the Reform party, emerged out of disillusionment over the Mulroney government's constitutional misadventures. The Bloc, however, emerged out of protest of the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord -- a feat accomplished very narrowly through the noncompliance of Manitoba MLA Elijah Harper and Newfoundland Premier Clyde Wells.

Many Quebeckers interpreted the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord as a rejection of Quebec itself. This perceived rejection would lend strength to the sovereigntist movement for the next 20 years.

Bouchard himself had actually left Mulroney's government -- in which he had served as Minister of the Environment -- after a commission chaired by Jean Charest suggested changes to the accord that Bouchard couldn't accept.

The rise of the Bloc Quebecois, and its continuing existence, should only continue to remind to remind Canadians that the puzzle of Quebec's place in confederation has yet to be solved. Until it is solved, Canada's leaders cannot be content to rest on the laurels of two referendum victories.

Some commentators argue that the days of the Bloc Quebecois -- and its provincial counterpart, the Parti Quebecois -- are numbered. They frequently cite the rapidly diversifying Quebec population, the aging of the pure laine Quebecois population, and strengthening sentiments in favour of Canada as evidence that the BQ is already on its way into the long night.

They point to Stephane Dion's Clarity Act as having handcuffed the Pequiste leadership from posing the sovereignty question to Quebeckers under deceptive terms.

This may well be so. But it doesn't solve the problems underlying Quebec separatism, and the existence of the Bloc Quebecois stands as a reminder that, despite the near cataclysm that resulted from Mulroney's attempts to renegotiate the Constitution, some Canadian leader will eventually need to be brave enough to try once more.

The very existence of fringe parties speaks to us, if we listen closely enough. These parties are all too often riding the edge of a wave of pervasive discontents. Ignoring such discontents does a disservice to Canadians everywhere, as it allows these problems to fester.

Once, ignorance of these problems destroyed one of Canada's traditional political parties. On another occasion, it almost destroyed the country.

Paul Rutherford may be content so simply wish these problems away by wishing away their political representatives.

Those of us with an eye on the bigger picture, however, know much, much better.

Stephen Harper at the Fulcrum of Canadian History

The 1995 "Sovereignty Association" referendum marked a significant turning point in Canadian history.

There had always been anxiety concerning whether or not Canada would survive.

Upon Confederation in 1867, two overwhelming anxieties predominated: the fear of civil war -- such as that which had just embroiled the United States -- and the fear of the United States itself, and its expressed ideology of manifest destiny. These two anxieties pushed Canadian politics in two directions: the accomodation, management, and containment of regional conflagurations, and a race westward to incorporate British Columbia, Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories into Confederation.

Once Canada as we know it was territorially secure, economics became the primary source of this anxiety. Reciprocity and its not-so-distant cousin, Free Trade, effectively became political footballs kicked back and forth by the Conservative and Liberal parties, as each agonized over the emerging behemoth to the south.

Canadians across Canada clung to Britain in order to stave off the pressures to become too closely aligned with the United States. Even those (notably Quebecois) politicians who, like Wilfred Laurier and Henri Bourassa, sought to eke out and preserve as much independence as possible for Canada embraced Britain wholeheartedly, and considered themselves British subjects.

While occasional internal conflagurations -- such as the Riel rebellion, naval controversy, and conscription crisis (one and two) often threatened to grow into broader threats to national unity, an overwhelming focus on external threats to Canadian unity is hard to overlook.

These conflicts were not only partisan in nature, but also pan-partisan. Factions led by Walter Gordon (nationalist) and Mitchell Sharp (realist) would face off over economic nationalism within the Liberal party (with future Prime Minister Jean Chretien coming to favour the Sharp camp). David Orchard would lead a small but determined rebellion within the Mulroney-era Progressive Conservative party over both the Canada-US Free Trade agreement and the broader North American Free Trade Agreement.

Meanwhile, in Quebec, something was bubbling. It had exploded twice before, with terroristic fury -- during the 1970 October crisis -- and impotence -- during the 1980 Quebec sovereignty referendum when the federalist "non" side defeated the sovereigntist "oui" side with nearly 60% of the vote.

Pierre Trudeau went so far as to declare Quebec separatism officially "dead". And while Brian Mulroney -- likely as a virtue of his relationship with future Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois leader Lucien Bouchard -- surely percieved enough of a threat from Quebec separatism to attempt his Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional efforts, one could almost forgive Trudeau for believing separatism in Quebec decisively defeated.

One must say "almost" because in order to hold this belief, Trudeau would have had to overlook the 1981 reelection of the Rene Levesque PQ with an additional nine seats in the National Assembly and an additional 8% of the popular vote.

In 1985, the PQ would be defeated by the Robert Bourassa-led Liberal party. Daniel Johnson Jr would take over from the retiring Bourassa in 1994 and would lead his party to defeat less than a year later, when Jacques Parizeau led the PQ back into power, and eventually within half a percentile of "sovereignty association".

Doubtlessly, there were numerous historical grievances that led to this stunning reversal of the sovereingtist movement's fortunes -- the PQ had elected only 29 members in the 1989 election, but returned with 77 in 1994. The largest of which was almost certainly the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord.

Quebec's disillusionment over the rejection of Meech Lake even resulted in a wholesale rejection of the Charlottetown Accord in Quebec, where 56.7% voted against it in the 1992 referendum on the matter -- a rejection second only to the 60% who voted "no" in Alberta.

Beyond a shadow of doubt, the October 30, 1995 Referendum is the fulcrum of Canadian history -- the definitive sign that the greatest threat to Canada's survival will emerge not from outside the country, but from within.

When a country so narrowly avoids being torn apart from within, it leads people to question what could be so fundamentally wrong at the very foundations of that country that its own citizens would so nearly destroy it.

In the case of Canada, the conventional explanation is basically that of a French Canadian -- more specifically, Quebecois -- nationalism that feels so thwarted that it must collapse the country in order to avenge a centuries-passed conquest.

But upon watching the CBC's referendum-night panel one may wonder if perhaps Stephen Harper's explanation may be the most cogent:

"What has to happen, what people have to do tomorrow is -- and I think a lot of people will want to do it in Quebec and elsewhere -- is pressure their governments to govern and get on with addressing their practical, economic, fiscal and social concerns.

Tonight there's been all this attention to the federal government -- what's the federal government going to do? But one of the big questions is: what is the Quebec government going to do? It has used the last two years to prepare for this vote.

Now, is it going to get on with governing itself and improving the lives of the province of Quebec?

There is a tremendous healing that has to be done. But frankly there's a lot of people who have to climb down off their grand visions and start addressing some real concerns because I think people are more sick of that than anything."

As one examines Canadian history, it becomes apparent that Canada is a country that was built upon "grand visions".

The founder of the country, sir John A MacDonald, had a grand vision of a country stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific. John Diefenbaker had a grand vision of a more equal federation. Lester Pearson imagined Canada leading on the international stage. Pierre Trudeau had a grand (if vague) vision of a "just society".

Perhaps more than anything else, however, the 1995 referendum result was born out of three visions: Trudeau's vision of a repatriated Constitution (with, conveniently, his own signature adorning it), Mulroney's failed vision of himself as the saviour of Canada via Constitutional reform and the combined visions of Rene Levesque, Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard of a sovereign Quebec -- one that so nearly came to pass.

Of course, one cannot discount the roll of history in the matter either: the resurgence of Quebecois nationalism and the construction of a sovereigntist movement intersected dramatically with the de-colonization of Africa and the various parts of Asia that had had been incorporated within the British, French and other European empires. The ideas of national self-determination that underscored de-colonization resonated dramatically within Quebecois culture.

The post-1990 strengthening of the Quebecois sovereigntist movement also intersected dramatically with the end of the cold war. As Adam Curtis notes in The Power of Nightmares, the end of the Cold War outdated traditional ideologies, leaving many people in search of alternatives.

In 1981, the drastic post-referendum strengthening of the Parti Quebecois was aided in part by the utter collapse of the Union Nationale, a party that under long-time leader Maurice Duplessis had justified its often-authoritarian streak under the guise of fighting communism.

And while the Berlin wall would not fall for another eight years, many around the world were already smelling the stench of death on the Soviet regime providing the backbone for Eastern European communism.

The strong nationalist elements of the Union Nationale would also be set free by the impending end of the Cold War, and as the nationalists within the Union Nationale felt less threatened by communism, they turned their attentions to Daniel Johnson Sr's call for "Equalite ou Independance", to the direct benefit of the Parti Quebecois.

In time, Separatism became an ideology that appealed to many of those witnessing the end of the threat Maurice Duplessis had once used to maintain control over the province. What many Quebeckers viewed as a rebuked attempt to attain equality turned them instead to seek independance.

It became a new "grand vision" to replace the old vision that had been pushed into obselescence. For those in search of such a vision -- those dissatisfied with the emerging model of the politician as a manager of public affairs -- it clearly became rather attractive, at least in the short term.

The memory of how close Canada came to being torn apart on October 30, 1995 will remain with Canadians for a long time. So long as their remains a Bloc Quebecois or Parti Quebecois to pursue the separatist cause -- whether under the guise of "sovereignty association" or more honest terms -- the fear that we could lose our country will always remain.

It may not be enough for federal politicians to simply tend to the affairs of the country and allow the matter of national unity to tend to itself. But Stephen Harper was right to emphasize the risk of focusing too much on grand visions, and too little on the business of running the country.

A vision of a united Canada will always remain necessary to stave off the threat of Quebecois separatism. But we must always remember there are risks that come with trying to implement such a grand vision.

In 1995, we learned that the hard way.

Will Pablo Rodriguez Speak Up?

Rodriguez has some questions to answer as well

In a recent op/ed piece published in the National Post, Ian MacDonald raises an intriguing point:

Pablo Rodriguez rarely asks questions in English.

In fact, during this past session of Parliament, Rodriguez asked a single question in English. He asked an additional seven in French.

Yet, MacDonald notes, when Rodriguez appeared before the committee, to address Brian Mulroney (who speaks fluent French), he asked (in English), "Mr. Mulroney, you said you made no presentation to Maxime Bernier on the wireless spectrum issue. While he was the industry minister, have you ever had a private or public dinner or lunch with him in Montreal, or any other city? Have you ever met with him at all? If so, how many times, in which city? Have you ever placed a telephone call to him, or has he called you? On any of those, did you discuss the wireless spectrum issue?"

MacDonald asserts that the question was crafted "with lawyerly precision", and his assessment may not be altogether unfair.

To add a caveat, to treat the innuendo stirred up by noting that Rodriguez uncharacteristically asked his question in English as conclusive of anything would be unfair. However, to discard the suspicion it raises out of hand would also be altogether unreasonable.

To put it simply, it raises questions about who wrote -- or, rather, helped him write -- this particular question, but by the same token there are plenty of reasonable answers. Certainly, a Liberal staffer could have helped him translate the letter into English, and craft it with such precision.

But, by the same token, why ask the question in English at all when Rodriguez's self-noted language of preference is French?

Perhaps someone listening to the answer prefers to communicate in English.

On the other hand, Rodriguez could have simply been asking the question in English as a courtesy to Mulroney, whose first language is English. It seems a reasonable tactic to ensure a straight answer from Mulroney.

But who, other than Rodriguez, knows for sure?

For his part, Rodriguez claims that he was "inspired by what I saw on TV, inspired by the questions in the House of Commons, inspired by the fact that Mr. Bernier never wants to answer questions."

Now it's time for Rodriguez to answer some questions about his relationship with the as-yet-unnamed CBC reporter.

This is merely another reason why a public inquiry should be held. Otherwise, Canadians may never get the answers they deserve.

CBC Investigating Collusion Allegations

But an internal probe isn't enough

In the wake of an emerging scandal alleging Liberal party MP Pablo Rodriguez asked a question at the Mulroney-Schreiber hearing that had been written (or at least suggested) for him by a CBC reporter, the CBC has announced it will be launching an investigation into the affair.

On Thursday, Rodriguez asked Mulroney if he had anything to do with the recent decision to auction new allocations of cellular transmission frequencies.

Following a complaint lodged with the CBC ombudsman by the Conservative party, the CBC will be investigating the allegations raised by former Liberal party cabinet minister Jean Lapierre.

The CBC has admitted that the practice is, at the very least, "inappropriate".

"In our view, while the reporter may have been in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story, this was an inappropriate way of going about it and as such inconsistent with our journalistic policies and practices," announced CBC head of English media relations John Keay. "The particulars of this matter are currently under investigation and will be considered under the disciplinary processes outlined in our collective agreement."

Unfortunately for the CBC, conducting an internal investigation may simply not be enough this time.

When one considers the implications this matter holds for the CBC, its reputaiton, and its status in the public eye, it isn't hard to percieve the lunacy of allowing the CBC to merely investigate itself and calling that the end of it. While previous episodes (including the previously mentioned Christina Lawand editing-cum-hatchet-job episode) could plausibly be written off as mere indiscretions, the discovery of open collusion between the CBC and Liberal party cannot be quietly swept under the rug with a brief apology and a promise of future vigilance.

This time, the CBC has some very serious questions to answer, and there is only one place the public can rest assured it will recieve the proper answers.

That forum is a public inquiry.

This recent affair has raised a good many troubling questions about the CBC, and Canadians deserve answers. Among them:

-Exactly how prominent is such "suggesting" of questions by CBC employees? How many CBC reporters have done this, and how long has it been going on?

-Under what guise has this practice been taking place? Has it been restricted to public inquries, or have CBC personell helped write Question Period queries as well?

-Are these personell doing this as private citizens or as CBC employees? Are they using their CBC credentials to gain access to Liberal party members, or members of any other party, for this purpose?

-Are these reporters doing this on their own time, or during hours billable to the CBC?

-Have any CBC employees made use of CBC assets or resources in service of a political party?

-Has any arrangement been established between the Liberal party members and CBC employees in question whereby such favours are reciprocated in any way, shape, or form?

-Have CBC brass made it clear to CBC employees that such behaviour is prohibited, or have CBC executives made use of a "don't ask, don't tell" approach in regards to such behaviour?

Canadians, who fund the CBC via their tax dollars, have a right to know the answers to these questions, and the CBC should consider itself obligated to answer them in the public eye, not behind closed doors.

An internal probe is not enough. The government should call an official inquiry into this matter so Canadians can get the answers they deserve.

Mulroney Finally Speaks

Mulroney appears before Commons Ethics Committee

Brian Mulroney finally broke weeks of silence today, as he testified before the House of Commons Ethics committee regarding his dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

During the course of his testimony, Mulroney made it clear that he regrets ever having anything to do with Schreiber.

"My second biggest mistake in life, for which I have no one to blame but myself, is having accepted payments in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber for a mandate he gave me after I left office," Mulroney announced. "...My biggest mistake in life, by far, was ever agreeing to be introduced to Karlheinz Schreiber in the first place."

Mulroney testified that on August 27, 1993, he accepted the first of three payments from Schreiber. At that meeting, Mulroney said, Schreiber actually declared his intention to sue the federal government for not approving the Bear Head project. "[Shreiber] told me he had planned to pursue legal damages to recover costs and damages, he left me with a copy of the lawsuit."

"He then said that it would be very helpful to Thyssen to have a former prime minister assist in the international promotion of their peacekeeping vehicles and gave me a copy of merchandising documents regarding the vehicle."

"When I indicated that this kind of global activity was something I thought I could usefully do -- provided that none of the activity would relate to domestic Canadian representation -- he produced a legal sized envelope and handed it to me," Mulroney testified.

"At that point, Mr. Schreiber said this is the first retainer payment -- he told me there would be a total of three payments for three years."

Mulroney says he was hesitant to accept cash from Schreiber, but, "When I hesitated, he said 'I'm an international businessman and I only deal in cash, this is the way I do business.'"

Given that Schreiber has been noted to be in the business of dispersing money without leaving a paper trail, it's unsurprising that he would insist on dealing in cash.

Mulroney testified that he used the money to cover expenses while promoting Thyssen's Bearhead internationally.

"After accepting the international payment on the retainer, and during the time two subsequent payments were made, I made trips to China, Russia, Europe and throughout the United States of America where I met with government and industry leaders and explored with them the prospects for this peacekeeping vehicle,"

Yet, Mulroney's testimony before the committee clearly raises further questions.

First off, how much money was he paid in the first place? As well-publicized, Schreiber claims to have paid Mulroney $300,000 in three $100,000 installments (he was allegedly supposed to be paid $500,000). Today, Mulroney replied that he was, in fact, paid only $225,000 in three installments of $75,000.

Secondly, why did Mulroney claim he had never had dealings with Schreiber during the course of his libel suit against the federal government? If he hadd meant to note that he had no dealings with Schreiber regarding Airbust, that's exactly what he should have said.

It's evident that Mulroney has nothing to hide in regards to his dealings with Schreiber, but omissions such as that hardly help his case.

Last but certainly not least, Mulroney has yet to explain why he took so long to pay taxes on the $225,000.

Of course, further investigation into the testimony of each man will have to decide who is more credible. Naturally, Mulroney holds the advantage in this regard: presumably his lobbying visits on behalf of Thyssen will be recorded in the records of the Chinese, Russian, European and American officials he visisted while promoting the Bearhead.

Meanwhile, however, Schreiber has no paper trail to back his claims. His specialty has come back to bite him in the ass just as surely as he has come back to bite Mulroney's.

Karlheinz Schreiber Totally Worth All This Trouble

...Not

The Mulroney-Schreiber affair took an expected turn today, as Karlheinz Schreiber was granted a temorary stay of extradition, pending a Supreme Court decision on whether or not it will hear an appeal of his extradition to Germany.

Reportedly, he'll now be seeking bail.

The handling of Schreiber has essentially become a no-win situation for the government. Deport Schreiber immediately, and the opposition will complain that he's being suppressed. Allow him to stay, and he's apparently hell bent on monopolizing as much time in the Canadian courts as he possibly can.

Most ironically, however, Schreiber, who had promised incredible revelations regarding his relationship with Brian Mulroney has reportedly admitted that Mulroney did nothing criminal in the course of their relationship. Furthermore, he noted that Mulroney didn't lobby any government on Schreiber's behalf.

In fact, the greatest revelation he's offered to date is that he had arranged to pay Brian Mulroney as much as $500,000, but notes that he had only paid $300,000 by the time he decided that Mulroney wasn't holding up his side of the bargain.

Interestingly, a former Mulroney aid revealled that Mulroney instructed him to get cost analysis of Schreiber's Bear Head project done. The Schreiber-fronted Thyssen industries project would have built an arms factory in Nova Scotia.

When it turned out however, that the project -- which Mulroney had been promised wouldn't cost Canadian taxpayers a dime -- would have cost the government $100 million, Mulroney is said to have remarked, "In that case, the project is dead."

When was all this? 1990.

Certainly, it's impossible to applaud Mulroney's judgement in this regard. Privy Council clerk Paul Tellier had previously ejected Schreiber from his office. Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, in regards to another matter, had instructed his cabinet ministers to "have nothing to do with this guy."

While Mulroney's judgement in regards to his relationship with Schreiber is demonstarbly poor, it seems, to date, that is all Mulroney is guilty of.

Thus, we bring ourselves back to the ultimate perversity of the Schreiber-Mulroney affair. Schreiber admits that Mulroney is guilty of no crime. Yet, Canada is withholding Schreiber from Germany, where he has been charged with fraud, bribery, and tax evasion.

Actual crimes.

Karlheinz Schreiber is wasting Canada's time at the direct expense of our diplomatic relationship with Germany.

Enough is enough. While Schreiber's extradition may have been delayed, he certainly shouldn't be granted bail.

He should be reserved a seat on the next plane back to Germany.

Surprise, Surprise: Schreiber Doesn't Talk

Expected moment of truth ironically prescient

The sad, sad farce that is the Karlheinz Schreiber affair descended even further into the realm of the farcical today, as Schreiber, as expected, refused to testify before a House of Commons committee.

Issued a historical summons to appear before the Commons Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Shreiber told the committee he's be "delighted" to testify -- then didn't testify.

As expected, Schreiber announced he won't testify unless he's allowed to stay in Canada. He was scheduled to be extradited to Germany on December 1, but faces a Court of Appeal tomorrow. Justice Canada has decided to let the court decide whether or not Schreiber will be granted a reprieve from extradition.

"Until that time I will not speak to or answer any questions of this committee," Schreiber announced.

This would be odd behaviour from someone who insists that he isn't trying to escape justice in Germany, and who, as CTV's Bob Fife says, "wanted an opportunity to tell the truth."

Schreiber has had various opportunities to tell the truth, and, to date, has declined them all. In a country where the integrity of our legal system were deemed more important than petty partisan politics, Schreiber would already be on his way out of the country -- handcuffs, orange jumpsuit, and all.

Unfortunately, with the opposition desperate to try and make something out of this embarrassing debacle, German officials will have to wait longer still to get their hands on Schreiber.

While the opposition forces the government to dance to the tune of a known fraudster, based on claims that contradict Schreiber's earlier contentions, German justice -- matters regarding to actual crimes -- is delayed.

Most unfortunately, Canadian delays in handing Schreiber over to the Germans could porentially imperil future extraditions from Germany to Canada. Not only are the opposition parties willing to sacrifice the integrity of Canada's justice system in order to try and score cheap political points, but they're also willing to sacrifice Canada's legal relationship with a foreign country.

Karlheinz Schreiber is not worth the effort currently being expended on him. His lies (and he is, indeed, demonstrably a liar) most certainly aren't.

Ouch. That Had to Hurt.

Don Martin takes a savage kick to the 'nads

The conspiracy theories alleging Stephen Harper made a letter written to him by Karlheinz Schreiber disappear took a rather merciless kick to the balls today, as Marilyn MacPherson, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Corporate Services at the Privy Council Office, decided to clear the air regarding a recent column written by Don Martin.

In the column, Martin wrote:

"For reasons that defy logic and established process, the Prime Minister's Office insists the incarcerated lobbyist's rant against former prime minister Brian Mulroney never reached Mr. Harper's intensely inquisitive staff.

This just doesn't pass the smell test given the procedural checks in a system that handles roughly a million pieces of mail per year, which must surely represent the only million letter writers left in a nation of e-mailers."

Martin goes on to vaccilate over whether or not Harper ever saw the letter itself. However, he notes, a conversation with Jean Chretien's old "mailbag man" predictably proved to be "constructive":

"There are only two explanations: Either somebody dropped the ball in the bureaucracy or Mr. Harper's office is fibbing when they say Mr. Schreiber's package failed to reach even one of the 82 people listed in the PMO directory.

The standard correspondence form generates a six-digit reference number for every letter that arrives, and scans them into a database for instant retrieval. Bureaucrats can check off one of two options, to forward either the original or copies to one of seven sections in the PMO.

This once-senior official insists all correspondence addressed to the prime minister is routinely forwarded to his office unless the sender falls into the "frequent wingnut" category.

While some may argue that shoe fits Mr. Schreiber, keep in mind most correspondence staff have been there since Jean Chretien was prime minister, and that unique name would still set off a rocket's red glare for special attention.

"There's institutional memory in the unit for this particular file," the Liberal said. "A clerk would not be qualified to take responsibility for that sort of correspondence by themselves. They would need guidance from the PMO."

It probably doesn't matter that Mr. Harper didn't see the letter personally. But there's either a troubling failure to communicate between the two senior levels of government or a deliberate miscommunication with the public."

"Of course there is," Newman would probably want one to agree.

Until, that is, one reads the recent letter by MacPherson to the National Post, wherein she writes:

"I am writing to clarify several issues relating to Don Martin's Thursday column. Firstly, the headline of the column is misleading -- no letter went missing. All correspondence processed by the Privy Council Office is kept on file for the prescribed period of time. The statements attributed to a former supervisor in the correspondence unit of another government, to the effect that "all correspondence addressed to the Prime Minister is routinely forwarded to his office" is not accurate either. Due to the volume and nature of correspondence, in fact the vast majority of it is not forwarded to the correspondence unit in the Prime Minister's Office, but is processed by the Privy Council Office correspondence unit.

As we have stated with other media representatives, the Privy Council Office processes all incoming correspondence to the prime minister. In the case of correspondence from Karlheinz Schreiber, it was decided that replying would be inappropriate as a result of the author being the subject of an extradition hearing, as well as his involvement in other litigation.

Finally, I want to reconfirm here for your readers the accuracy of statements made by the Prime Minister's Office, that the Privy Council Office did not forward the March 29, 2007 letter to the Prime Minister's correspondence unit."

One needs to remember that this is coming from an Assistant Deputy Minister, whom tend not to be elected officials, but bureaucrats selected for the job. When one also considers the remarkable number of deputy ministers not fired by the Harper government, one has to wonder what to make of the following passage from Martin's column:

"Most of my media colleagues would side with the dishonest declaration view. PMO flaks have a well-deserved reputation for non-communication when they're not spinning exaggeration or fabrication.

The level of media distrust in getting the true goods on any issue from Mr. Harper's team is lower than any communications shop I've encountered in almost 30 years of covering politics."

It seems that Martin is forgetting that last particular fact. Whether or not one considers the current batch of deputy ministers to be "Harper's team" is immaterial. The fact is that they were also "Paul Martin's team" in this regard, and as such, one has to wonder what to make of such assertions when the Pricy Council office backs the Prime Minister's Office up, as McPherson has.

At the very least, one pretty much instantly knows what to do with the varying conspiracy theories regarding the Karlheinz Schreiber affair. It just so happens to be the same thing one knows to do with Martin's 15 November column.

Suddenly, He's Not So Eager to Talk

But the opposition is awfully eager to hear him

In the newly-revived and ongoing Mulroney-Schreiber affair, things took a turn for the even more acrimonious recently when Schreiber stated he wouldn't cooperate with the inquiry were he extradited to Germany.

Following a statement issued by German Justice officials stating they would allow Schreiber to be interrogated by Canadian investigators while in German custody, Schreiber has promised "not a fucking word would I speak".

In other words, Karlheinz Schreiber, the would-be victim of a conspiracy theory, a man more maligned than Maher Arar and disappointed in the Harper government's efforts to clean up Ottawa, has now resorted to attempting to blackmail the government of Canada.

And the opposition, desperate to score whatever political points thay can from the affair, are all too eager to cave in to him.

At some point, the writing on the wall simply becomes all too obvious. Karlheinz Schreiber is desperately trying to delay his extradition to Germany, and he's willing to say absolutely anything to do it.

Meanwhile, the opposition parties and the media, recognizing Brian Mulroney as a slam-dunk case in the court of public opinion, has jumped all over this story, Karlheinz Schreiber, and his most recent non-revelations.

Among those non-revelations, Schreiber states, "The whole thing is much broader than only Airbus and it starts already at the beginning, in the early '80s, when the situation was that Brian Mulroney intended to become the prime minister and needed help."

More humorously, "There are other revelations I intend to make in front of an inquiry which really made me very nervous when I heard about them," Schreiber notes (emphasis added). "You will understand that I want to leave quite a few important things for the inquiry."

What most people understand about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair is that it deals primarily with Mulroney's dealings with Schreiber. So why is Schreiber only hearing such details about his own dealings with Mulroney now? Unless he wants to implicate other people in this tale, in which case the proof would certainly be in the pudding.

Schreiber is desperately trying to write a new lease on his life in Canada, and he's desperate enough to regurgitate old news, rumours, innuendos, and very likely outright lies (let's not forget who we're dealing with here) in order to do it.

That the opposition wants Canada to deny German officials the opportunity to deliver Schreiber to justice there on this basis is actually quite shameful. Moreover, it could imperil future Canadian attempts to extradite criminals from Germany. On this note, it's double-shameful.

If Schreiber doesn't want to talk if extradited to Germany, so be it. If he were really so concerned about justice as he would like us to believe, he would speak regardless.

It will be a truly dark day when the government of Canada bends over backward just to hear the words of a known fraud.

Everything Old is New Again

Liberals believe they may find old news is good news

If there was anything that became immediately clear following the 2006 federal election, it was that the Liberals were very embittered by their defeat.

Often engaging in freakishly protracted conspiracy theories sometimes alleging that, despite the testimony of dozens of implicated figures and the absence of millions of unaccounted taxpayer dollars from government coffers, the Sponsorship Scandal was purely a work of fiction, many Liberals took it upon themselves to pretend that, somehow, the Conservative party's victory was the result of some great "neo-conservative" conspiracy.

It was, if you believe their rantings, all terribly unjust. Even if the sponsorship scandal did happen, it was surely no big deal.

"Right? Right?"

If one believed them then, one may wonder what to believe now, as they renew a 14-year-old witchhunt for a good old fashioned political scandal. Now, as the stench of political incompetence threatens to overwhelm the stink of corruption, they certainly must hope that the smell is at least as strong as that emanating from the stains left on their once-proud standard by the Sponsorship Scandal.

What has emerged has very closely resembled the conspiracy theory Mulroney referred to in a recent speech,complete with Ralph Goodale winking and nudging toward his theory of a nefarious Conservative plot to cover up the truth.

The most recent allegations raised against Mulroney have a good number of people very excited. Unsurprisingly, most of these people are partisan Liberals.

Yet, when one looks closer at the allegations themselves, all one finds is a suggestion that Mulroney discussed business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber before he left office.

So apparently, the most recent charges against Brian Mulroney are that he discussed business that he planned to engage in after leaving office while he was still Prime Minister.

Considering that the RCMP could uncover no evidence of criminal wrongdoing into the matter of the cash payments themselves, a good many people may find themselves feeling (and looking) very serious when this is treated largely as an open-and-shut case.

As it turns out, however, Schreiber expects people to believe that he, a known fraudster, is actually a victim in this entire affair. "At the special request of Mr. Mulroney, I wrote a letter to [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] on July 20, 2006 suggesting to Mr. Mulroney that the public rhetoric regarding the sale of Airbus planes by Airbus Industries G.I.E. (the `Airbus Affair') and the conspiracy against me personally amounted to the largest political scandal in the history of Canada," Schreiber wrote.

The suggestion that Schreiber would be extradited to Germany to face fraud charges there amounts to a greater scandal than the abuses perpetrated under the Sponsorship Program, the blatant interference in Canadian politics by John F Kennedy, or the Igor Gouzenko affair?

To put it bluntly, surely this man fucking jests.

Likewise, surely Ralph Goodale, "Flying" David McGuinty and Stephane Dion jest if they feel they can somehow tag Mulroney's alleged and unproven misdeeds upon the current government. In fact, 66% of Canadians feel they can't. The 19% that figure the current government is somehow involved? It just might be safe to suggest that the vast majority of them are probably partisan Liberals.

Of course, there is another side of the coin. If Mulroney truly feels victimized by the proceedings as they have unfolded, he certainly hasn't done himself any favours. Acceping cash payments in a hotel room certainly provokes suspicion, even if Karlheinz Schreiber himself has suggested that the cash payments may have been paid for services rendered ranging from legal services, to consultation in a pasta machine business, to help selling Bearhead armoured vehicles to China (selling weapons to China itself being a fairly unsavoury practice).

As for the Liberals themselves, however, they already took it upon themselves to come after Mulroney once, and cost Canadian taxpayers $2.1 million. Whether or not Canadian taxpayers can buy Mulroney off on their account so cheaply again has yet to be seen.

In the meantime, perhaps the best the Liberals should hope for is a short-term boost at the polls, and the hope that perhaps Canadians will remain annoyed enough with Mulroney to not fall asleep amidst the wild gestriculations of their verious spokespersons.

At the end of the day, the Mulroney-Schreiber affair remains as it was: old news.

Liberals Striking Out on Corruption Allegations

Liberal desperation at bat starting to show

If one were to ask the Liberal party, they would certainly be assured that Canada's governing Conservative party is secretive, corrupt and untrustworthy.

Most Canadians would probably be forgiven if they thought that sounded more like the Liberal party, but I digress.

First off, the Liberals insisted that the Conservative party failed to report more than a million dollars in donations related to the party's 2005 convention. While it turns out that there were indeed undisclosed donations, they turned out to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, as opposed to millions. The scandal subsequently failed to gain any traction with the Canadian public.

Foul ball. Strike one.

Then, the Liberals insisted that the Conservatives had broken election law with their so-called "in and out" scandal, despite the fact that the expenditures themselves were well within the letter of the law.

Strike two.

Now, the Liberal party is seizing upon allegations that Brian Mulroney took several years to pay tax on $300,000 he recieved from Karlheinz Schreiber shortly after he left public office.

Of course, it has been said that a bad penny always turns up again. But for the Liberal party, this is more like 30,000,000 bad pennies turning up, and all on their own accord.

See, the Liberal party has already had a bad experience with Brian Mulroney and this allegedly-scandalous payment. In fact, when Liberal leader Stephane Dion was in Jean Chretien's cabinet, the federal government was ordered to fork $2.1 million over to Brian Mulroney as a result of an RCMP letter written to the government of Switzerland that falsely accused Mulroney of a crime.

Now, one might expect that this latest allegation would represent a pitch that Dion simply may not want to swing at.

Guess again.

In fact, when Dion rose during yesterday's Question Period, he swung for the fences. "Will the prime minister take every step necessary regarding this disturbing information about Brian Mulroney to get to the bottom of this matter?" Dion asked. "The current prime minister owes the institution he represents a duty to shed full light on this issue. Will he do that? Will he set up a commission of public inquiry?"

When government house leader Peter Van Loan rose to answer, the sound of the ball hitting the catcher's mitt was clearly audible.

"That Liberal leader was part of a cabinet that had to pay 2 million dollars of taxpayers' money for falsely pursued allegations in exactly this case," Van Loan pointed out.

Kitchener Center Liberal MP and party whip Karen Redman would later try to step in as a pinch-hitter. "Taxpayers' dollars are lining the pockets of Brian Mulroney. Canadians deserve answers. Will this Conservative government launch an inquiry?" she asked.

And she's right. Taxpayers' dollars are lining the pockets of Brian Mulroney. This happened because the RCMP, under the Liberals' watch, not only falsely accused Mulroney of a crime, but actually made those false accusations to the government of another country.

Strike three.

Perhaps it's ironic that the Liberals would like Canadians to now think of them as dedicated corruption-fighters while in opposition. Ironic because they had plenty of chances to do so while they were in government, and failed utterly to do so.

Shawinigate. Strike one.

Jane Stewart's HRDC billion-dollar boondoggle. Strike two.

The Sponsorship Scandal. Strike three.

The Liberals, in terms of battling corruption, have now struck out not only in government, but in opposition as well.

The Liberal party would certainly be well-advised to play to its strengths. Although insipid, the party is more likely to score some runs with their "mean Stephen Harper" invective.

As far as corruption goes, however, the party will likely continue to find that it's likely to continue striking out, particularly when they failed to swing at those pitches when it would have mattered most.

Mulroney Right About Pierre Trudeau

Dion reacts to uncomfortable facts about Trudeau

If anything has become a trend in Canadian politics recently, perhaps it’s Stephane Dion’s great love of criticizing anyone and anything Tory.

In this case, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who has apparently made some unwelcome comments about Pierre Trudeau.

“This is a man who questioned the Allies, and when the Jews were being sacrificed, and when the great extermination program was on, he was marching around Outremont on the other side of the issue,” Mulroney said in a recent interview.

Mulroney also suggested that Trudeau, his practical predecessor as Prime Minister (John Turner may have held the position, but was never elected to it), was morally unfit to govern because he withheld his anti-Semitism from his Jewish constituents.

"I'm sure many people will say because he wants to sell his book, ensuring that people will read a lot of cheap shots about a lot of people, in his one thousand, one hundred pages. Many people will say that, but I'm not here to comment about the book or the motives of Mr. Mulroney. I'm just here to say that Mr. Trudeau has been, indeed, an exceptional individual," Stephan Dion said.

Surely, many people will predictably rally behind Dion and the myth of Pierre Trudeau, but neither that fact, nor Dion’s comments, change the fact that was Mulroney has said is true.

Anyone who has so much as read the surprising Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada by Max and Monique Nemni (surprising in that it examines Trudeau’s youthful flirtations with fascism despite slavishly trying to dismiss them), knows that the things Mulroney has alluded to are all true.

Trudeau strongly believed in many things that contradict the modern political mythology surrounding the man. He was a separatist. He was anti-Semitic. He sympathized with fascists, and imagined Quebec as something of a fascist French-Canadian sovereign state. He even had a bizarre blueprint for decentralized corporatism (two concepts that are as preclusive of one another as anything).

The book even alludes to an essay, written by Trudeau while still in school, in which he suggests that he would “return to Montreal sometime around the year 1976: the time is ripe to declare Quebec's independence.”

In all fairness, any similarities between the plot Trudeau hatched as a schoolboy and the 1970 October Crisis that he faced as Prime Minister should probably be considered merely ironic.

Apparently, Dion, like the Nemnis, believes that we should disregard these, and many other facts about Trudeau, and instead say only good things about him.

"I am not hear to argue about what happened in the '40s. It's not a good context, considering what Mr. Mulroney is trying to do," Dion said. "When Mr. Trudeau passed away, Mr. Mulroney said that Mr. Trudeau was an exceptional individual who served his country effectively and well. Mr. Mulroney should reconcile his views with what he said at that time."

Yet Dion may want to reconsider whether or not Mulroney’s comments, then as now, require any reconciliation with one another. The fact of the matter is that Trudeau was an exceptional individual. Trudeau did a passable job of governing Canada (although his narcissistic insistence that the constitution had to be patriated, even without Quebec’s support, has opened a constitutional jar of worms that may never be successfully closed), including successfully dealing with the FLQ uprising of 1970 (even if he did step on a few toes in order to do it).

Perhaps it’s Dion, like the Nemnis, who need to reconcile Trudeau’s youthful beliefs with their comical image of Trudeau as “the father of Canada”.

The fact is that the mythical Pierre Trudeau and the historical Pierre Trudeau are two very different individuals. When stripped away of all the rhetoric and partisan imaginings, Trudeau simply becomes yet another politician who, acting largely out of self-interest and civic disinterest, made empty promises that he never intended to keep – as an example, Trudeau meant his grand promises of “participatory democracy” as a promise to make access to information regarding the activities of Canada’s government more accessible – so long as one was a Liberal party member.

What Dion will simply have to accept is that the legacy of Pierre Trudeau is one that is currently in a state of flux. It’s being reevaluated by a considerable number of people, and the Liberals aren’t guaranteed to like what is left over once this process is complete.

It may be discomforting to Liberals to watch the myth of Pierre Trudeau transform before their very eyes, as it has been doing more and more since his death. But it’s a reality the Liberals will have to learn to live with.

Dion would be wiser to convince his party to stop living in the past, as it (and perhaps the country) has been, than to try and keep such myths alive by castigating Brian Mulroney.