AND TOTAL WORD LIMIT IS 750 MAXNO MORE THAN 750 NOT EVEN 751 AND NOT EVEN 749.
CHANGES NEEDED:
and rember it should not contradict with thesie line
1) DESCRIBE THE AIRBUS SCANDAL — WHAT IT INVOLVED
What you do well: You identify the Air Canada purchase of 34 Airbus jets and the use of secret commissions routed through intermediaries. How to deepen (add 1sentences):
Deepen with 1–2 specifics: add the decision year and the payment mechanism.(very important)
- Anchor the timeline and Specify the payment mechanism (cash/commissions; who paid whom; what the money purported to buy—access, not a specific act).
- These details show mastery of facts, not just characterization.
2) WHO WERE THE PRINCIPAL PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR ROLES
What you do well: You name Mulroney, Frank Moores, Karlheinz Schreiber, Airbus executives, and Air Canada. How to deepen (1 crisp role line each)(very important)and also tell about thewre roles in 1 line for each )
- Brian Mulroney — Prime Minister; later recipient of cash payments; focal point of ethical/legal scrutiny.
- Frank Moores — former NL premier; intermediary/access-broker tied to government networks.
- Karlheinz Schreiber — businessman; paymaster/intermediary linked to Airbus commissions.
- Airbus executives — funding source of commissions seeking to influence procurement outcomes.
- Air Canada (then Crown corporation) — purchaser; publicly maintained decision on merit.
Labeling roles makes the cast unambiguous and “exam-ready.”
3) WHY INFLUENCE-PEDDLING RATHER THAN A SIMPLE BRIBERY SCANDAL
What you do well: You define bribery and influence-peddling and argue funds went to third parties to purchase access. (very important) How to deepen (tight legal framing):
- Note that bribery can be mediated by agents, so indirect payment alone isn’t dispositive; the stronger distinction is that Airbus paid to mobilize influence, not for a determinate official act.
- Emphasize timing and object of the benefit (cash after office; purchase of access) and link explicitly to “accepting benefits” and influence-peddling definitions in your assigned reading.
This tightens the doctrinal line and preempts the “but agents can carry bribes” counterpoint.
4) WHO COULD AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED, AND WHY NO ONE WAS
What you do well: You identify Mulroney, Moores, and Schreiber; you cite gaps in law and evidentiary limits. How to deepen (map offence → hurdle):
- Mulroney — breach of trust/accepting a benefit: hurdle = proving a link to a specific official duty and act and overcoming timing issues; cash + limited paper trail weaken proof.
- Moores/Schreiber — influence-peddling: hurdle = proving a corrupt agreement to sell influence in relation to government decisions (not just boasting access).
- Add prosecutorial threshold language (e.g., “reasonable prospect of conviction”) and practical barriers (cash transactions, cross-boder elements, credibility contests).
- Rephrase perjury claims cautiously (e.g., “raised concerns about possible perjury/inconsistent sworn testimony”) unless you cite an actual charge and conviction.
This shows you understand not just who, but why cases fail.