Mr. Chair, the first motion we passed was very explicit: that we want the documents prior to Mr. Mulroney coming to this committee. I'm just stating that as a fact.
I have to tell you there's a frustration for me, and I'm sure it's shared by members on this side. The idea in our system is that parliamentary committees are able to conduct business without interference from executives. What it feels like right now is that there's interference from the executives.
It's very easy to say, Mr. Mulroney is here; let him speak. Well, why is it, Mr. Chairman, that the government didn't have Mr. Mulroney on the list of witnesses while we were studying this motion? Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that when we were looking at this motion, the government didn't even want to study it? Why is it that when the MPCC was trying to do its work--and we've heard their version--the documents weren't forthcoming, and people weren't able to testify?
This committee should be independent. I'll tell you right now that it doesn't feel that way. I think that for a committee of Parliament--not a committee of the executive branch--this is a very important tenet. It's a very important parliamentary principle. I want to know, as a citizen, that my committee is independent from the executive branch and that when a committee asks for something, we will get it and not get excuses.
Put this in an American context. If this were an American committee and a chair was asked to get documents from government--I'm not saying this about you, Mr. Chairman; I'm just giving an example--it would be done immediately. I'm getting the sense from government that they're not ready to do that. I want to know why not, and I want to establish the fact that we want Mr. Mulroney here, but by golly, we also want the documents here, and that's our right.
I'll stop there.