House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think were you to seek it you might find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I declare Motion No. 6 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 7 to 20 defeated.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, again I think if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, in reverse.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, we are in agreement to proceed in the following way, but I would point out that the member for Halton has left the chamber, so that is one less Liberal.
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Speaker, regarding the member she just referred to, it was more important to answer a phone call instead of voting.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
The Speaker Peter Milliken
I see the problem is resolved. The member is back.
Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?
Budget Implementation Act, 2008Government Orders
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, on a couple of occasions the question has been posed to the Prime Minister about what the delay is in calling the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.
It was back on November 12 that the former prime minister acknowledged he had accepted money from a certain person, Mr. Schreiber, and the very next day the Prime Minister--
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Mississauga South. There is a lot of noise in that corner over there. I need quiet because we have work to do here.
The hon. member for Mississauga South has the floor.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, on November 12, Mr. Mulroney issued in a statement:
--I have come to the conclusion that in order to finally put this matter to rest and expose all the facts and the role played by all the people involved, from public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to the police authorities, as well as journalists, the only solution is for the government to launch a full-fledged public commission of inquiry which would cover the period from 1988 to today.
Only then will the whole truth be finally exposed and tarnished reputations restored.
The ethics committee conducted hearings into this matter and agreed. In fact, the very next day, the Prime Minister himself acknowledged the need for the public inquiry and told Canadians that there would, in fact, be a public inquiry.
Before the ethics committee finished its hearings, it issued two reports. One was simply to reaffirm its request that a public inquiry be called. A second report was issued that the committee had finished its witness phase of the hearings and encouraged the Prime Minister to move forward with the appointment of a commissioner.
On April 2 the committee issued its final report and tabled it in the House. That is two months ago. The Prime Minister promised a full public inquiry back on November 13.
Our final report was issued on April 2. That is a full two months to the day that the committee completed its work and is waiting the commencement of the inquiry.
We are told that there are some problems trying to find somebody to do the job. The Prime Minister made that indication back in November. He also said that he would follow Dr. Johnston's recommendations with regard to the scope and terms of reference. He has had two reports from Dr. Johnston on that already. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that we should not have the appointment of a commissioner.
Just like in the legal sense, justice delayed is justice denied. This is an important matter that was dealt with by a parliamentary committee. We take the Prime Minister at his word and we ask again, when will the commissioner be appointed so that a full inquiry can be undertaken?
Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, it is fairly well known, and we have stated it on a number of occasions, that an inquiry will be held, but of course it has to be done in a proper manner.
Right now, we are examining and determining the terms of reference. We are looking for an individual who may be a suitable commissioner to head up the inquiry. However, we will not rush into things until they are done correctly.
What we have seen, quite honestly, is the Ethics Commissioner making a ruling on the admissibility of a certain member, the member for West Nova, who participated in the ethics committee inquiry of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. In other instances, that inquiry, chaired by the hon. member for Mississauga South, on many levels, was nothing more than a gong show.
We do not want to enter into a situation like that. When we have an inquiry, it will be done properly and by using taxpayers' dollars, it will done for the benfit of all Canadians.
Again, I have to point out some of the absurdities that we saw coming out of the ethics committee inquiry into the so-called Mulroney-Schreiber affair because not only did we have an opportunity to actually shed some light and put a good face on Parliament but all we had was political opportunism.
I would point out one glaring example where the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier asked a question of one of the witnesses and it was later found out that this question was written by a member of the media.
To make things worse, the member himself went on national television on the Mike Duffy Show and denied that he had taken a question from members of the media. He said, “I write my own questions”. Later we found out through an internal investigation by CBC that that was completely false. That member lied on national television because, in fact, that question was written by a member of the media.
This was just a microcosm of some of the things that happened during those committee meetings that actually brought more shame, I believe, to the institution of Parliament. When we have the inquiry, it will be done properly for the benefit of all Canadians.
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised a public inquiry. He also indicated that he would follow the recommendations of Dr. Johnston. Dr. Johnston has done his job. He reported on April 4, almost two months ago. The member said that the government is going to start the process of looking. The Prime Minister promised last November that there would be a public inquiry. Why is it that the government is just starting to look around to see how it might do this?
It is very clear from the answer that the parliamentary secretary just gave to this House that the Conservatives are stonewalling this process. They are concerned that Dr. Johnston has put them in a hole that they cannot get out of. It is very clear that the subsequent revelations of Senator Lowell Murray with regard to the activities of Mr. Mulroney with regard to ACOA and the Bear Head project in fact contradict Mr. Mulroney's testimony on many counts. The member may say it was a gong show, but it did show that money was taken by the--
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Speaker, once again, this is nothing more than an example of the official opposition members trying to create a scandal where none exists. This is even more desperate than their normal line of attack. Now they are going back 15 years to try and somehow, through guilt by association, smear the current government with the actions of a former prime minister.
We have seen time and time again, and it was exhibited again tonight, that those members do not have the courage of their convictions. Even though they criticize the government, how many of them actually show up for votes on confidence matters? By my count today there were 11. If the Liberals truly believed that there was anything wrong with the so-called Schreiber-Mulroney affair, they should have the courage of their convictions and stand in this House when they should, and take the opportunity during confidence motions to bring down this government and let the people decide the fate of this government in the next election. They will not do that. They will never ever do that.
