Mr. Chairman, I want to say hello to everyone.
I'm here in full respect of Parliament and its institutions, a respect that I have always had and that has never left me. I am, of course, surprised to find myself here, as, since April 2004, there has been a commission of inquiry, which lasted months, and an exhaustive report that further engaged the judicial system, whereas a judicial review of the report has been requested of the Federal Court and will not be heard until early 2008.
I was surprised to read in your evidence that I had refused to come. If you look at the letter that my attorney sent your clerk on May 28, which ends with the following two lines, “For these reasons, I would be grateful if you would ask the committee to withdraw its invitation until the said legal proceedings have concluded,” that does not indicate that I refused to come. Given that the credibility of witnesses will be central to the judicial review proceeding before the Federal Court, I thought it might be important, for that reason, to delay my appearance here until the Federal Court proceedings were completed.
That said, Mr. Chairman, I would very much appreciate it if you would correct your minutes to show that I did not refuse to attend, but rather asked that you postpone the invitation.
You sent me three questions, and the questions by the members of your committee will be limited to those.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that, upon reviewing the texts of the Gomery Commission and this committee, I do not see any contradiction. I will of course have the opportunity to say more on that in response to questions.
But first I want to say and repeat that it never occurred to me to try to mislead your committee. If there are grey areas, let us clarify them, but I have in no way tried to mislead your committee. I have too much respect for Parliament and its institutions to do that.
Mr. Chairman, I am now prepared to answer the questions that members will want to ask me.