First, Mr. Speaker, it hardly behoves the hon. member to challenge the facts and then when the facts are explained to him to describe it as hair splitting. The facts are the facts whether the member likes them or not.
In so far as journalists are concerned, I have made it a matter of public record from the outset. I have been frank and direct in saying that I was fixed with information early on after I became Minister of Justice. In respect of that information, I sought advice. I consulted with the deputy minister. I consulted the solicitor general. On the basis of that consultation, I communicated the information to the authorities, discharging my moral obligation to do so, and for them to do with as they saw fit.
The police eventually reported that they had looked into what I had said, that there was no reason for further inquiry and that they were closing the file.
May I also say that is a practice that has been followed in the past. Indeed, it was revealed last week by John Turner that when he was minister of justice he followed exactly the same procedure.
I would like the hon. member to tell the House whether he thinks that if a Minister of Justice and Attorney General is told something
about allegations of serious wrongdoing that he ought not to pass it on to the authorities? That to me is a startling proposition.