He might know at this point that he's not going to be in the House on that day, so there's no harm in having somebody that he's personally not interested in hearing from, I conclude from his previous comments to this committee, and this would be a fine day, or between now and that day would be appropriate.
But to suggest that the reasoning behind his subamendment is to put the feet of the government to the fire I think is going a little bit too far. I think he should reconsider his motives behind this. I think if he genuinely wants to hear from Mr. Mulroney, it would be more appropriate to leave the schedule open.
Perhaps Mr. Mulroney has commitments. He's a former prime minister, and through his own words he has claimed to be an international consultant. He did say those things. Members may laugh, but we have to take his word at face value. I know the chair is kind of muttering and suggesting that we need to hear evidence of what international consulting he is doing. Fair enough--he has claimed that. Maybe it's the case that he's not available.
Instead of putting an arbitrary deadline like June 12, why wouldn't it be better to simply say “no later than the end of June”, or “when he's available”, or “at the earliest possible moment”, or something that doesn't define it quite so strictly? Let's give this guy his due. He's a former prime minister.
I'm now not referring to the busyness of his schedule. I'm saying let's respect his office.