Madam Commissioner, the committee, as you know, proceeded with what is known as the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings, and at the beginning of the hearings I raised a point of order. I suggested that Mr. Thibault should recuse himself because the former Prime Minister had instituted a lawsuit of substantial amount against him, and because of that I felt he had a conflict of interest.
What the chair has related to you is true, and he.... Probably no one on this committee has the jurisdiction to tell Mr. Thibault to recuse himself. You may be the only one who has the right to suggest that, which is why on November 27 I wrote to you requesting an inquiry.
I did that because Mr. Thibault appeared to have the lead with respect to the Liberal caucus. He clearly appeared to have some influence with respect to the opposition. He participated in debates. He voted on motions. He asked questions. He was even able to cross-examine Mr. Mulroney during the hearings. He even asked questions in the House and still does to this day. This week he asked a question.
The whole purpose of my request was that I thought it was inappropriate that Mr. Thibault continue being on this committee.
You then communicated with me on January 10, indicating that you felt an inquiry was warranted. I might add that you were a tad late, but that's all right. It was the Christmas season and I accept that.
I then had a very strange telephone call from one of your investigators on January 21, who said, “We can't proceed without the statement of claim”. I thought that was very strange because he's the investigator and I'm the complainant. However, I happened to have a copy of the statement of claim, and I sent it to him. I sent it to him by e-mail, fax, and courier on January 24.
Then there was a very strange thing that happened on February 5. I had a letter addressed to Mr. Thibault, and it came to my office. We opened it because we assumed it was for me, but it wasn't for me. It was for Mr. Thibault from you. I did read the letter, and we called you, and of course it shouldn't have been sent to my office. It should have been sent to Mr. Thibault, so we duly sent it back.
I then telephoned. I won't give the names of your investigators, but I called one of your investigators—and I may be using the wrong terminology—saying, “You know, the hearings are over. We're now about to get into the report stage. My whole purpose of going on this thing was to ask for your assistance as to whether or not Mr. Thibault should participate in these hearings”, and I was going to be very upset if you waited until after the report was made. This person said, “Oh, yes. It's going to happen.”
Then the report to the House with respect to the chair was made on April 2, and still nothing. It's about four and a half months that this has proceeded.
I have three questions for you. In subsection 27(7), the words “due dispatch” are used. I'd like to know what you interpret the words “due dispatch” to mean.
Secondly, how long should an inquiry of this nature take?
And finally, when are you going to give your report on this matter?