Survey: inquiry a waste of money

Email To Friend Email To Friend | Print Print |25/04/08

According to a study by Angus Reid Strategies, two-thirds of Canadians surveyed said they were “tired about hearing about the Mulroney-Schreiber controversy” and that a public inquiry into their relationship would be a “waste of money.” The poll surveyed 1,015 Canadian adults on April 16 and April 17, 2008 and has a margin of error of 3.1 per cent. Click here to read more.

Let Inquiry do its Work: Send Schreiber Allegations to Police

Email To Friend Email To Friend | Print Print |07/04/08

The following statement on behalf of the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney was issued today.

Mr.Mulroney will co-operate with the inquiry within its mandate as recommended by Dr. Johnston.

Any new allegations of criminal wrongdoing made by Karl Heinz Schreiber should be immediately referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to the RCMP.

Let those experts in criminal investigation study whatever claims or imagined evidence he might make or produce. If there are grounds for criminal charges – they should be laid. If his newest allegations are repudiated as thoroughly as everything he has previously claimed – if no grounds for criminal charges can be found – send him immediately to face his accusers in Germany, where prosecutors believe they have proof of his criminal behaviour in their country.

The inquiry has been set its task. It should not be distracted by unsubstantiated new allegations and smears, or asked to chase any more of Karl Heinz Schreiber’s fantasies or false trails.

Time for Schreiber to Put Up

Email To Friend Email To Friend | Print Print |02/04/08

The Ethics Committee, using its extremely wide powers and having access to parliamentary counsel, held three months of hearings, heard 12 witnesses and received thousands of pages of documents. Despite this, not one iota of evidence was presented that even suggested that Mr. Mulroney violated any law or applicable ethical rule. Moreover, all witnesses questioned on the matter testified under oath that they had no evidence of wrongdoing of any kind by Brian Mulroney.

The only possible basis for believing that more evidence might be available is the oft-repeated promise by Schreiber that he has evidence that he will share with a public inquiry. He made the same promise to the Ethics Committee. Schreiber appeared five times before the Ethics Committee and failed to produce the documentary evidence he purports to have. His oral testimony was filled with falsehood and contradiction, seriously undermining his credibility, which was already suspect as his new allegations and threats of blackmail were obviously made to resist facing justice in a German court.

It is incumbent upon Schreiber to turn over any documents he may have withheld. Surely, as Dr. Johnston and the prime minister consider and deliberate upon the mandate of the upcoming inquiry, they are entitled to see what evidence Schreiber pretends to possess. Dr. Johnston’s recommendations and the prime minister’s decision should be fully informed. Neither would be if Schreiber were unwilling or unable to make available to them the much ballyhooed evidence he has so often promised.

RSS