Why the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal matters

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Why the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal matters



What I can’t fathom are the media pundits whose line of analysis is that what went on in the 1980s was the bad old days of influence peddling and that all this has happily been put behind us.



>by James Laxer
December 12, 2007
There are many Canadians whose interest in the Mulroney-Schreiber affair does not extend beyond the delicious anticipation of watching the 18th prime minister of Canada explain to a Parliamentary Committee why he accepted bags of cash which he took some time to declare as income.
The affair does have a much deeper importance, though, which is rooted in the way key decisions were made in Canada during the crucial decade of the 1980s. It was the decade when Canada signed on to the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. The FTA, and its successor NAFTA, drove a stake into the heart of Canadian democracy. Under the terms of these treaties, Canada was required to accord “national treatment” to U.S. firms, meaning that Canada could no longer discriminate in favour of domestic firms in its taxation and subsidy policies. Nor could Canada create new publicly owned firms to compete with U.S. corporations without paying out crippling financial compensation to them.
The Mulroney government made these concessions to the Americans without gaining unfettered access to the U.S. market in return. American trade law remained in place alongside the FTA, allowing the U.S. to mount countervailing duties against Canadian exporters to protect U.S. producers – as the United States has repeatedly done in the case of softwood lumber.
What has all this to do with Karlheinz Schreiber?
We know that, acting on the instructions of his Bavarian masters, whose leader was Franz Joseph Strauss, Minister President of Bavaria and the dominant voice in the Christian Social Union (CSU), the fervently right-wing partner in German politics of the more moderate Christian Democratic Union, Schreiber helped finance the overthrow of Joe Clark as leader of the Progressive Conservatives (PC).
In 1983, the PCs held a federal convention in Winnipeg and a review of Clark’s leadership was on the agenda. Strauss and his CSU henchmen saw it as their role to support the rise to leadership of conservatives of their ilk in the right-wing parties of the West. In their eyes, Joe Clark was an old-fashioned conservative, a red Tory who was too firmly Canadian for the new era of globalization. As was revealed in 2001 on the CBC program the Fifth Estate, Mr. Schreiber helped fund the effort to fly delegates to Winnipeg who would vote against the leadership of Joe Clark.
Schreiber explained that he gave money to Walter Wolf, a member of the group that was determined to dump Clark. Schreiber put it pithily: “It’s expensive to travel, right? For this is what Walter Wolf collected the money, and then get the people in which worked for you, and you paid their fare, and perhaps he said to you, they need some money for their wives, they want to go shopping, or whatever, for the hotels.”
When Clark received the support of 66.9 per cent of the delegates, short of the 70 per cent he felt he needed, he called on the party to convene a leadership convention – the convention at which Mulroney succeeded him as leader.
Schreiber and the Bavarians had played a role, quite likely decisive, in nudging the support to dump Clark above the thirty per cent level at Winnipeg. With Mulroney as PC leader and later as prime minister, Schreiber and his associates felt they had a man with whom they could come to understandings.
Franz Joseph Strauss, in addition to being the leader of the most right-wing brand of mainstream German politics in the post-war decades, was involved in the 1970s in the founding of Airbus, the European civilian aircraft manufacturer that challenged American Boeing for the multi-billion dollar business involved in selling aircraft to the airlines of the world. Strauss became chairman of Airbus in the late 1980s and held that position until his death in 1988.
For the past several decades, the Europeans and the Americans have been fighting a no-holds-barred struggle to sell their respective aircraft to the world. The Europeans have subsidized and bribed their way to success, while the Americans have used Department of Defense contracts to buttress their national champion.
Both sides wanted to sell their planes to Air Canada. In 1988, government owned Air Canada signed a contract to purchase 34 Airbus A330s and A340s. Both Boeing and the U.S. government were heartily annoyed by this victory for the European competitor. And the details of how this came about remain highly controversial.
What matters more than how the deal was or was not lubricated, is that during the 1980s Canada was being put out of the business of fostering national industrial champions so that it could play in the big leagues. And this benefited both the Europeans and the Americans.
If the Europeans got the Airbus contract, the Americans got the FTA, with all its arrangements that made it impossible for Canada to support its own industries. While neo-con Canadian politicians from Mulroney to Harper sold the line to Canadians that governments should stay out of the marketplace, the Europeans and the Americans spent billions ensuring the success of their industrial champions, with all the employment, technological, strategic and sleazy benefits that went with that.
What mattered when Karlheinz, everyone’s favourite Christmas uncle, helped replace Joe Clark with Brian Mulroney, is that the door was opened to the globalization deals in Canada in the 1980s that helped shove this country down the global ladder to the position we occupy today as suppliers of oil sands oil to the Americans and greenhouse gas emissions to the planet.
What I can’t fathom are the media pundits whose line of analysis is that what went on in the 1980s was the bad old days of influence peddling and that all this has happily been put behind us. Are they kidding?
When Brian Mulroney came to power and made his deals, Canadian democracy was fundamentally weakened. We live today in the nether world of plutocracy, in which those with big money ensure that they get the arrangements that favour them. They twist arms, fight wars, educate economists to peddle their line, and yes, they bribe wherever it is necessary.
James Laxer is an author and a Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto whose writing on Canadian politics can be read at jameslaxer.com.

 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
The post is correct in one aspect: the most serious part of this entire scandal is Mulroney's overthrow of Joe Clark financed by foreign cash. OUTRAGEOUS, despite the fact Idiot Joe helped by deciding 66% simply wasn't enough......I really don't understand how Joe ever was allowed to feed himself, much less become PM.

Still, what do we prefer? A insignificant petulant pompous idiot convinced of his own importance, or a corrupt, conniving, egotist with a persecution complex............

A pox on both their houses.

But Lyin' Brian using German money to buy the knife with which he stabbed Joe?

WAY beyond the Pale.
 

senorita

Nominee Member
Oct 29, 2007
92
5
8
Ontario
Personally I feel like after a while people don't bother to care. You would think that it would be different when it involves well known figures. Oh well.
 

Lester

Council Member
Sep 28, 2007
1,062
12
38
64
Ardrossan, Alberta
forty lashes

Does anybody know what it would take to get out of NAFTA or renegotiate? is it even possible? or is this carved in stone.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Does anybody know what it would take to get out of NAFTA or renegotiate? is it even possible? or is this carved in stone.

I believe the entire treaty can be cancelled by either side with six months notice............which, IMHO, would be economic suicide for Canada.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Colpy

And what gives you this opinion? If you ask many Americans right now, they'll tell you that NAFTA has worked against what they percive as their best interests and I'm not sure that NAFTA has meant anything to Canadians that would alter that...

Tell me more....:)
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Colpy

And what gives you this opinion? If you ask many Americans right now, they'll tell you that NAFTA has worked against what they percive as their best interests and I'm not sure that NAFTA has meant anything to Canadians that would alter that...

Tell me more....:)

Simple math.

Two thirds of our industrial production is for export.

86% of that goes to the United States.

Canada and the U.S. enjoy the world's largest bilateral trading relationship. Nearly $1.9 billion in goods and services cross the border each and every day. Canada-U.S. trade has grown considerably since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into force in 1989. Between 1989 and 2002, Canadian exports to the U.S. grew at an average annual rate of 9.3 percent while imports grew at 7.5 percent. Canada's trade surplus with the U.S. also increased tremendously, from $4.4 billion in 1989 to a peak of $90.7 billion in 2001 before falling off somewhat to $86.4 billion in 2002.

http://www.international.gc.ca/eet/research/nafta/nafta-en.asp#part
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Fine and would the proximity of these two nations have anything to do with this relationship? Is it more likely that Canada would have closer trade relations with say Australia than Europe? Isn't it really the case that the corporate hegemony that has thrown wonderful things like "Economic Summits" in Seattle and Quebec city are manipulating governments for the wealthy and NAFTA is about their wealth and their prosperity long before its about the average persons...?

How is an agreement that conflicts with the Canadian Weat Board and Softwood Lumber and Fishing (protected ground) and all the other areas of interest to businesses is the goose that laid the golden egg...up until Americans decide it isn't working to their favor and impose illegal tariffs and charge fines at the border ...emblematic of a system of "free trade" that's fair and equal to both signees?
 

Lester

Council Member
Sep 28, 2007
1,062
12
38
64
Ardrossan, Alberta
Perhaps it's not such a good idea to have all our eggs in one basket - from what I understand U.S. also gets first crack at all our resources, and they must be supplied first before we can export to other Countries, Is this correct?
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
Dark Beaver please allow me to publicly recognize your literary ability. I sincerely mean that. Well said and 100%, the truth is the truth and no one can argue with the Truth.
Brian was not palm reading he was palm greasing!!!! ha hah
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkbeaver

jwmcq625

Nominee Member
Sep 14, 2007
95
1
8
I don't think it really matters in the long run. If the Liberals had their way we would be completely shunning our largest, and natural trading partner, the United States in favour of trying to broker deals with the EU, who by they way want nothing to do with goods from Canada since they concentrate their trade within the EU itself.

The FTA and NAFTA have not been good for either Canada or the U.S.A. because they are not a a government concept, but instead they are the result of successive governments following an agenda set out by multinational corporations, whose only concern is in maximizing profits for their shareholders. By the way, has anyone checked out the retail prices in the large department stores? I have yet to see where true labour costs are reflected in the retail pricing of inferior products made in places like China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Brazil and other countries in the third world where the people are living in extreme poverty. The corporation moving to these third world countries has not improves the social conditions of these people, instead it has virtually further enslaved them, while we continue to pay the same retail prices as if the products were made in North America.

If we were smart, which we aren't, we would leave these products to rot on the shelves until these multinationals either move their operation back to North America or go out of business. It is not going to get any better, until the people hurt these multinationals where it hurts, in the wallet. Think of all the recalls just this year alone of dangerous products, including children's toys, that have been manufactured in China. It is bad enough that the Chinese tried to foist these dangerous products onto our children, but if we care about it at all, their own children are working in these unsafe plants being exposed to such things as lead paint and other toxins during the manufacturing process. We should be looking at the fact that these manufacturers who are being sponsored by major retailers are willing to put not only the people who work in the manufacturing process at risk, but our own children and grandchildren as well.
 

AndyF

Electoral Member
Jan 5, 2007
384
7
18
Ont
darkbeaver:

The ordinary citizen is asking, "Why isn't this a criminal case."

Take all the elements of this sit-com, replace the ExPM with a cashier at a local store, and you've got a police investigation complete with charges being laid.

Nixon move over you've got company.:angryfire:

AndyF
 

jimshort19

Electoral Member
Nov 24, 2007
476
11
18
25
Zurich
Colpy nailed it

Colpy, "The post is correct in one aspect: the most serious part of this entire scandal is Mulroney's overthrow of Joe Clark financed by foreign cash."

That revelation hit me in the gut when I heard it on the radio. How the press could focus on anything else, no matter what the money, is nearly damned equally incredible. The accusation is shocking, but the implications are sickening.

If Mulroney unfairly manipulated the leadership convention of the Conservative Party of Canada, legally or not, a related Crown judicial inquiry into the state of our democracy is warranted. If this happened once, perhaps it has happened before or will again. Where is our assurance? Where is the outcry?

I suppose that it is my duty to get the true dirt on this, such as it is available on the net at least. I suppose that I must. I've learned how naive I am day by day, decade on decade, and while I am old my lessons get more embarrassing - but this is a low blow.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
darkbeaver:

The ordinary citizen is asking, "Why isn't this a criminal case."

Take all the elements of this sit-com, replace the ExPM with a cashier at a local store, and you've got a police investigation complete with charges being laid.

Nixon move over you've got company.:angryfire:

AndyF
I think you're right Andy me or you would have been tazered for our own safety.
Or am I allowed to earn funny money from Krupp and Skoda.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
darkbeaver:

The ordinary citizen is asking, "Why isn't this a criminal case."

Take all the elements of this sit-com, replace the ExPM with a cashier at a local store, and you've got a police investigation complete with charges being laid.

Nixon move over you've got company.:angryfire:

AndyF
I think you're right Andy me or you would have been tazered for our own safety.
Or am I allowed to earn funny money from Krupp and Skoda?