Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House that everything I have stated here today has been said at committee in testimony and any documents that I referred to have been available to the committee.
We have received reams of documentation, most of it was without value but some of it had a certain value. As I have said from the beginning, the only way we will get to the bottom of this is with a public inquiry.
I would refer the member to a letter dated October 29, 2007, written by Mr. Schreiber to the Prime Minister. One could argue as to the validity or the truth of anybody's correspondence, and I do not make that case, but I will read one paragraph. It states:
During the summer of 2006, you again asked for a certain letter from me to be able to support my case, which I have sent to you on July 20, 2006 for your meeting on July 30, 2006.
The meeting of July 30, 2006 was a meeting between Brian Mulroney and the current Prime Minister at Harrington Lake.
The letter of July 20, 2006 is the letter that was shown at the committee that had been brokered by Elmer MacKay. He had done the first draft on the facts and that was modified by Mr. Schreiber prior to signing it.
What he stated again is, “able to support my case”. Those words are important. If we had only heard them from Mr. Schreiber, then perhaps we would need to cast them aside, but we also heard them from a close personal friend and long ime associate of Brian Mulroney, Mr. Elmer MacKay. He said, in my questioning, that the reason that he brokered the letter was that without it Mr. Mulroney could not be helpful to Mr. Schreiber.
There was clearly an intent, at least between those three individuals, that this letter would assist Mr. Mulroney in getting assistance for Mr. Schreiber from Mr. Harper in 2006.
The only thing I can imagine is that it could have been for the extradition matter. The only counterpart that I could imagine that Brian Mulroney would have had in it is that the lawsuit against him by Mr. Schreiber would have been dropped and all the facts based on the $300,000 would have gone the way of the editorial board of the National Post and would have been swept under the rug.