[LINK] "Outcome in Mulroney-Schreiber case hazy"

[rfmcdonald]

Chantal Hébert, one of Canada's leading political journalists, wrote earlier this week in the Toronto Star about the profound and irresolvable uncertainties surronding the question that I'd blogged about earlier, of whether Mulroney was guilty of the accusations made against him or not.

In a court of law, Justice Jeffrey Oliphant would likely dismiss a case against Brian Mulroney at this juncture.

With the fact-finding part of the commission's work completed, Oliphant has been presented with no proof that criminal behaviour was involved in the relationship of the former prime minister and lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber.

But the commission operates within different parameters and its purpose is not to make criminal findings. Instead, it's Oliphant's unique and rather unenviable task to pronounce on the behaviour of a former Canadian prime minister.

According to his terms of reference, Oliphant is expected to answer 17 questions in his year-end report. To do that, he will have to determine whether he finds either of Mulroney's or Schreiber's conflicting versions credible. That will not be an easy call.

The two former associates agree neither on the sum they exchanged, nor on the purpose of the payments. Neither has written evidence to back him up. Both stories have changed substantially over the years.

[. . .]

There is no evidence that Mulroney ever lobbied the Canadian government on Schreiber's behalf. But then, after his party was wiped off the map in the 1993 election, there was no one left to lobby on Parliament Hill.

[. . .]

The heads of state Mulroney says he approached as part of his mandate have all passed away. The former prime minister kept no written record of his expenses and he only reported verbally.