Thanks for the opportunity to maybe clear up some misunderstandings.
First of all, nothing in this motion precludes other witnesses being called--many, many witnesses--but let me explain again the timeliness.
We're up against the wall not just for the extradition date of Mr. Schreiber, but we're also up against a federal election that's likely to happen, could happen, in February. So this is my thought process, Mr. Chairman.
The fact is, the public wants to, and I argue needs to, hear both sides of this story to satisfy straight answers to very simple questions. We don't need to replicate the complexity of the public inquiry around this table, so therefore, Mr. Chairman, my motivation here is to make sure that at least these two principals get two days each—three days each, I originally planned, but one day is shot already—to tell their side of the story very briefly, to answer some of these simple questions, to lay the foundation for the work we need to do. That's why the language was “to answer questions pertaining” to the “Ethics committee investigation”.
With all due respect, I'm a little suspect of my Liberal colleague's motivation for not being interested in this. They say that villainy wears many masks and none so treacherous as the mask of virtue. Sometimes all is not as it appears around here. It may be that there are people who would like to have us only talking to technocrats and never get Karlheinz Schreiber and Brian Mulroney before this committee before a general election is called.
I'm of the opposite point of view, and I think it's in the interests of my Conservative colleagues to have these two respectful meetings with these two principal actors in this whole drama. So that's my motivation. It was an insurance policy, if you will, and by no means was it to preclude hearing an expansive witness list of other people whom you want to hear from.