If I could just state at the outset, I've always appreciated Mr. Martin's interventions in these committees, and this is no exception. But I have to respectfully disagree here, as I do think this subamendment is in order.
I appreciate your ruling, Chair. Thank you for that.
On to the substance of the amendment, Mr. Chair, I think that the fair and just minds around this table are unanimous in their agreement that these kinds of inquiries do take some time to assemble. We want to get it right; we don't want to rush in and choose someone to head up the hearings who perhaps would not be qualified and therefore would turn a legitimate inquiry into a circus. I know that members around this table are responsible and do not want to see that result any more than the government does. So in a spirit of non-partisanship and the public good, I hope they would agree that September would be a reasonable timeframe for the Prime Minister to have the wheels in motion on these hearings.
I think that if they took the time to review how long it took Prime Minister Martin to assemble the Gomery inquiry, this would be reasonably comparable. In fairness to Mr. Martin, he did assemble the Gomery inquiry in a reasonable timeframe. I didn't necessarily agree with the terms of reference that he wrote, as I think they could have been broader, but I will give him credit, in a tender moment of non-partisanship, for having assembled it at a reasonable pace. Opposition parties, Mr. Martin included, and members of the Bloc Québécois as well, were fairly patient with him on that point. No one was jumping up and down and saying that Mr. Paul Martin was acting too slowly. We gave him the time, because we wanted him to find someone qualified and have the assembled team of experts put in place in a manner that would allow it to be done properly. I think that because we permitted that to occur as parliamentarians, and because the previous Liberal government did take the time necessary, we had someone who turned out to be quite a good pick, Justice Gomery. I think most people around the table would agree that the choice of Justice Gomery turned out to be a good one, and we learned a lot from the hearings as a result.
Now, that's not to say that the two matters are the same. I think everyone would agree that the Mulroney-Schreiber controversy is not nearly as hideous an issue as the sponsorship scandal was, but the point remains that it does require significant legal expertise and a degree of competence that does take some time to amass for any government.
I've asked the Liberal member, Mr. Murphy, who I understand has a legal background, to consider what I would label as a friendly amendment to permit the Prime Minister and the team he has to assemble for the inquiry to do so sooner rather than later—but before the end of September. In the event this doesn't happen, then we could consider the extraordinary step of recalling a former prime minister.
I also note there's not an emergency here. In times around this place, we get so wrapped up in the drama of Parliament Hill that we forget that this is not an emergency.
I was about 13 years old when the alleged events in question occurred. For the last decade and a half--and it has been a decade and a half--the country has gone along with some ups and downs and has survived without a public inquiry all of this time. So I don't think that if we are to wait a few more weeks the nation is going to come collapsing down. Let's keep those facts in mind.
Mr. Chair, if could add to that, I know you have done some exhaustive work here at the committee. I think that in assembling the team that will carry out the public inquiry, the Prime Minister is also reviewing the work that was done in this committee--some of it very good. That's not to say we agree with everything that went on before the committee, but I think we'll all agree there was a lot of effort that occurred here. I credit members of all sides of the committee for having made those efforts--you among them, Chair.
So having sought, and maybe even received, a degree of consensus around the table that this is going to be an arduous process for whoever the unfortunate soul who heads it up turns out to be.... I think it's going to be very, as I say, unfortunate, because I think it's going to be very challenging work and they're going to deal with some very challenging personalities, chief among them Mr. Schreiber, who has demonstrated a capacity for dramatic fiction that is perhaps unsurpassed in this place for a very long time.
How do you deal with someone like that? That takes time. Finding someone who can rein in the disparate personalities of a conflict of this kind ain't easy. As I look around, I see there are a lot of heads that should be nodding.
That brings me to conclude on a positive note. Every once in a while around this table something special happens, and that's when we all agree on something. I offer a friendly amendment to Mr. Murphy to move this date to September. Wouldn't it be a wonderful way to end this Thursday afternoon, if we were all to agree on that change?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.