I still don’t know what to make of this whole Mulroney/Schreiber business and whether it will hurt the Cons or not. However, for a government that supposedly has nothing to do with this affair, it sure is giving off the appearance of having something to hide, when the Justice Minister refuses to use his power to prevent or stay Schreiber’s extradition (or more comically, pretends he doesn’t have the power to do so when every legal opinion out there says he does), which causes this almost unprecedented legal move by the Speaker:
The Speaker of the House of Commons has issued a rare warrant compelling Karlheinz Schreiber to appear at a committee hearing Thursday to discuss his business dealings with former prime minister Brian Mulroney… The archaic legal process — last used in 1913 — could have been avoided if Nicholson had instructed officials to follow the original commons directive, issued last week. “It ought to be straight-forward,” Rob Walsh, the impartial Commons legal counsel told MPs on the ethics committee today. “It’s within the power of the justice minister. It’s his call. It’s his judgment.”
Nicholson however, is doing a “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” routine with Parliament over this.
As I said, when the government and the Justice Minister are going to such great lengths to avoid Schreiber being here to testify, you have to wonder what it is they don’t want people to hear. If the government has nothing to do with any of this affair, at the very least, Nicholson and the Cons have brought a lot of rather unnecessary attention and suspicion to themselves by their actions, or lack thereof.





I agree with you comments, and wonder what the Cons and Harper are doing while everyone is preoccupied with these events. The procedures and rules that govern parliament and how well our politicians understand them and their use is what will prevail in the end. The Conservatives either do nave a good grasp of the rules and procedure or worst yet, they believe they can get away with their interpretation.
Their arrogance is only surpassed by their continued dismisive attittude to what the professional civil servants who advise them on as is the example of Rob Walsh.
There will certainly be many surprises as the committee moves forward and the public inquiry is finally structured and proceeds.