Russ Hiebert

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 25th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

First, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since the last election, I would like to thank the constituents of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for returning me with a renewed vote of confidence as their member of Parliament. It is truly my privilege and honour to serve them for a third time and I will work hard to keep their trust, in this Parliament.

The Speech from the Throne sets out the government's objectives for this Parliament, with the primary emphasis on the global financial situation. Without a doubt, the developed world's economy has to be the primary focus of Parliament and our government at this time.

Canadians elected us because we tackled the problems facing families and businesses in these times of economic uncertainty. The Speech from the Throne describes the crucial measures we are taking to keep our economy moving and to support the hopes and dreams of our families and communities.

The Speech from the Throne laid out five key elements of our government's approach to addressing the global financial situation: to ensure sound budgeting by further scrutinizing spending; secure jobs for our communities by encouraging skilled trades and support workers facing transition; reform the global financial system in co-operation with our allies and trading partners; make government more effective by reducing red tape, simplifying the procurement process and improving the management of federal institutions; and expand investment and trade by seeking out new foreign trade agreements and removing barriers to internal trade investment and labour mobility.

While I do not have the time to address all five of these in detail, I want to elaborate on a few of them and highlight what the government has already done to protect the financial security of Canadians.

To start, it is important to note that Canada leads the G8 in economic performance. The reason Canada is leading the G8 is because of our government's commitment to lower taxes, a balanced budget and our aggressive paydown of the national debt. We have paid down $37 billion of the national debt in just the last two years. While other nations have been engaged in deficit spending, Canada has been spending within its means and delivering nearly $200 billion in tax relief to Canadians, including nearly a 30% cut in the GST. This prudent approach to our nation's finances has allowed all Canadians to benefit, even during these uncertain economic times. Not only are taxes lower, but unemployment is at historic lows, as are interest rates, and inflation is under control.

Canada remains a great place in the world to invest.

It is clear that some sectors of the economy are facing real challenges right now. The automobile, forestry and aerospace industries have been particularly hard hit. Our government recognizes that and is making strategic investments in these industries to help them adapt to future needs.

My province of British Columbia hosts a huge forestry sector. As the B.C. MP, I have been very pleased by the actions our government has taken to support the industry in the last few years.

Since coming to office, our government reached an agreement with the United States over the softwood lumber trade. That ensured B.C. foresters and lumber mill workers stable, predictable access to the U.S. market for at least seven years.

In response to the pine beetle epidemic ravaging the forests of B.C.'s interior, our government delivered $200 million in aid to support workers in communities in transition in B.C.'s interior. We have also delivered assistance and support to workers transitioning to the skilled trades. Already our government has invested $100 million a year in apprenticeship incentive grants to encourage more young Canadians to pursue skilled trades careers.

As well, we have provided a total of $200 million a year in tax credits, that is up to $2,000 per placement, to encourage employers to hire apprentices.

We have also committed $3 billion over six years for new labour market agreements with the provinces to assist those who do not currently qualify for training under the employment insurance program.

We must help workers get the training they need to build the new economy and ensure the prosperity of all Canadians. Our government saw what British Columbia needed, and it took and is taking measures to meet those needs. For example, in the throne speech, the government focused on the importance of enhancing trade opportunities.

Whether it is the just concluded free trade agreement with Colombia or the negotiations toward a free trade agreement with Europe or Korea, the government is determined to ensure that Canadian companies have access to markets right around the world.

Again, as a British Columbia MP, I am pleased because Canada's increased focus on markets in Asia, including Korea, China and India, is of particular benefit to my province. West coast ports will benefit from the increased trade with Asian and Pacific Rim nations. Our government has recognized the potential created by increased trade across the Pacific and has invested over $1 billion in the Asia Pacific Gateway initiative to grow and modernize our west coast ports. It has been estimated that the expansion of our west coast ports will lead to nearly 50,000 new jobs within a decade.

Of course, our government is investing in more than just port infrastructure. Our Building Canada fund will invest $33 billion in new infrastructure, such as highways, bridges and public transit, over the next seven years. This new infrastructure is critically needed in the rapidly expanding communities of the lower Fraser Valley, including the communities of my riding. The fact is that traffic congestion and resulting pollution has become a major problem in the Lower Mainland.

Outdated infrastructure is leading to gridlock and even increased traffic accidents and deaths. Until now, our transportation infrastructure has not kept up with the incredible growth our region is experiencing. The Building Canada fund will help to reduce congestion, increase safety and, ultimately, protect our environment.

British Columbians are also concerned about crime.

Property crime rates in our communities are among the highest in the country, and, like other Canadian communities, B.C. communities find the increase in violent youth crime particularly worrisome.

As we stated in the throne speech, Canadians have to feel safe at home and in their communities, which means that we have to crack down on violent crime, including gun crime.

Our government continues to take action focused on eliminating the smuggling of guns by increasing penalties for gun crimes. Our focus will be on the criminal misuse of firearms, not on criminalizing the millions of law-abiding Canadians who own firearms.

Our reforms to the Youth Criminal Justice Act will ensure that sentences better reflect the seriousness of the crime.

As co-chairman of our party's task force on safer streets and healthy communities some years past, I could not help but be struck by the universal comment from Canadians that the existing youth criminal justice legislation does not provide a sufficient deterrent to those youth who would consider serious violent offences.

The most common comment I heard was that our youth know they will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. For some young people, the current Youth Criminal Justice Act does achieve its desired objectives. Some first-time minor offenders receive the stern and serious rebuke of the law, learn from it and do not go on to a life of crime. However, for other young offenders, the current lenient sentences for serious violent and repeat offences do not keep these young people from an adult criminal career.

We cannot simply stand, mouths agape, before this tragedy. We have to intervene to prevent potential repeat offenders from embarking on a life of crime.

We have to protect society from violent crimes and property crimes committed by young offenders.

We will continue to make the safety and security of Canadians our highest priority. We will continue to move forward with our tackling crime agenda.

As members know, British Columbians are always on the cutting edge when it comes to democratic reform. In modern times, we have often been the first province in our Confederation to consider reforms such as citizens' assemblies, recall, fixed election dates and the election of senators.

In the throne speech, our government has committed to pursuing the popular selection of senators and limiting the length of term of senators to eight years. We are proposing to reform this ineffective and unaccountable 19th century institution and make it more accountable and more effective as we move rapidly into the 21st century.

Our government has also committed to act to ensure the principle of representation by population in our lower House, the House of Commons.

British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, the three provinces with the fastest growth in recent years, will gain seats in this House to properly reflect their populations.

For far too long, some regions of the country have been under-represented in Parliament. The Lower Mainland, part of which I represent, is one of those regions. I would really like it to have more representation in this House.

I am confident that all members will want to support the legislation our government brings forward to ensure greater fairness in the seat distribution and uphold the principle of representation by population.

Speaking of fairness among the provinces there is another issue that our government will be addressing in this Parliament, as mentioned in the throne speech. We are committed to working with the provinces to further remove remaining barriers to interprovincial trade, investment and labour mobility. Working cooperatively with the premiers, we were able to make progress on the enforcement of the agreement on internal trade.

The agreement will be amended by this coming January to reach the goal of full labour mobility for all Canadians. This will result in the mutual recognition of occupational credentials between all the provinces and territories. Of course, when we speak of credentials, our government must also continue with its important initiative to recognize foreign credentials.

Our economy depends on having the best educated, most skilled and most flexible workforce in the world. We recognize that more needs to be done to ensure that immigrants are able to use all the skills and knowledge they have acquired.

We launched the foreign credentials referral office in May 2007 in co-operation with the provinces and territories. The office helps those trained overseas who want to work in Canada to have their credentials assessed and recognized in Canada more quickly.

The ability of all workers, including foreign trained workers, to have their credentials recognized everywhere in Canada will lead to a stronger, more efficient economic union. In fact, strengthening our economic union is more important now than ever, given the current global economic uncertainty.

We do not have to look far to see the positive impact that labour mobility can have on a national economy. Our major trading partner, the United States, eliminated most barriers to trade and labour mobility many decades ago and has long experienced economic growth that has outstripped ours as a result.

Reducing barriers to internal trade is not the only way our government can give the economy a boost. As a former small businessman, I know that red tape also costs our economy and results in lost productivity. Time spent filling out forms, reporting to government to obtain various licences means time not spent serving customers, producing products and creating value for shareholders.

Our government is intent on streamlining the way it does business and is committed to reducing the administrative and paper burden on Canadian businesses. Our current goal is a 20% reduction in the paper burden, but we have already taken other actions to save businesses time and money.

For example, we have already eased the tax compliance burden on businesses by reducing record-keeping requirements for automobile expense deductions and taxable benefits. We have also launched the new BizPal service in many municipalities across Canada, including in Surrey and White Rock in my community. BizPal allows businesses to quickly obtain all the forms and licences they need to comply with the requirements of every level of government with an efficient visit to a single website.

The throne speech also outlined another way our government will give the economy a boost through the creation of a national securities regulator. In a time of global economic uncertainty, investors are looking for stability and security.

Foreign investment in Canada means jobs for Canadians and growth in the economy. While Canada is already an attractive investment destination, greater certainty is provided to potential international investors by a single national standard for securities regulation rather than numerous different provincial standards.

We will work with the provinces to put in place a common securities regulator. I note that financial institutions in Canada already benefit from the existence of a national financial institutions regulator. A common securities regulator will allow Canada to respond swiftly and efficiently to any developments in the financial sector and to speak with a common voice.

Some of the advantages of a common securities regulator would be reduced compliance costs for companies offering securities and improved enforcement. Canada's lack of a national securities regulator has been identified as an area for reform this year by both the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Our government recognizes that lasting prosperity for Canadians comes through entrepreneurship and sheer hard work. Government does not create jobs, but government can help to create and support an economic environment in which those jobs will be created by the private sector.

Another way we are helping to support job creation in the private sector is by extending the benefits of maternity leave available to other workers, to self-employed business owners through the employment insurance program.

Facilitating child rearing for the self-employed allows entrepreneurs greater flexibility in pursuing their dreams. No longer will the self-employed have to consider giving up their business ventures in order to raise a family. Instead, they may keep their businesses going for the benefit of their families and the other workers they employ. I have already heard from many small business owners in my community who are very enthusiastic about our plan.

As well, the throne speech recommits our government to legislation that would provide better oversight of food, drugs and consumer products. The legislation would strengthen the power to recall products and increase penalties for violators. Our 2008 budget provided nearly $.5 billion over five years for the food and consumer safety action plan and to support the legislation we will be bringing forward.

We have all seen news items in recent years regarding unsafe food, health or consumer products, including toys. As the father of a two-year-old, I can assure everyone that I am personally concerned about the food my daughter eats, the medicine she may take and the toys she may play with. Reports of melamine in imported food products or lead in paint in children's toys worry parents like myself.

Our legislation would ensure that federal inspectors have the power to enforce standards that parents can have the confidence in. Protecting and promoting the health and safety of Canadians, their families and communities is of paramount importance to our government.

The secure and efficient flow of goods, services and people is also essential to a trading nation like Canada. As members will know, my riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale contains the busiest border crossings in western Canada.

The trade corridor linking Vancouver to Seattle and the west coast of the United States goes through my riding. The throne speech commitment to continued expansion of gateways and border corridors is essential to Canada's economic growth and cultural prosperity. It is particularly important to ridings like mine.

I am pleased to report that our government has already delivered on major investments in modernizing our land border infrastructure to accommodate the growth in west coast trade and tourism. This is particularly important for my region in preparing for the upcoming 2010 Olympic Games.

Our government is also delivering for other regions of the country, including a long overdue expansion of the critical border crossing at the Windsor-Detroit border.

While upgrading our gateway and corridor related infrastructure is essential to extending our trade and our economy, I am pleased that taxpayers will benefit from over $13 billion of planned and committed private sector investment in this infrastructure over the next three years.

As I conclude, I want to return to the main theme contained in the Speech from the Throne: the economy. We recognize that we live in uncertain economic times and stickhandling our way forward is a major challenge for our government. As I already mentioned, our prudent approach to fiscal policy since forming government has left Canada in an enviable position compared to other developed nations during this challenging time.

Even so, the slowing global economy and its impact on Canada creates challenges for our revenue stream. That is why our government will be further scrutinizing all areas of government spending in an effort to keep our national finances on track. I am confident that additional savings can be found without unduly impacting the essential services and responsibilities Canadians count on the federal government to provide.

I encourage all members to work together to support this government's agenda as outlined in the throne speech.

[Points of Order, May 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that a moment ago the member for Scarborough—Rouge River suggested that it might be appropriate for the ethics committee to have ruled on this particular matter, because the member for West Nova, over whom this matter was first raised by the Ethics Commissioner, was a member of the ethics committee.

I simply want to point out that the member for West Nova was not and is not a regular member of our committee, the ethics committee, so I think that should be set aside.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, a report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on its recent bilateral parliamentary visit to Nuku'alofa, Tonga, from January 15 to 22.

[Israel, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the people of Israel on the 60th anniversary of the founding of their nation.

We are proud that at the United Nations in 1947 Canada was one of the 33 countries that voted in favour of the creation of the Jewish homeland. We are also proud of the friendship that has continued to grow between us. The signing of a free trade agreement between our nations in 1996 has brought us closer still.

Of course, while the nation of Israel is relatively young, the land of Israel, which I have seen personally, is a place of incredibly vibrant history and heritage going back millennia.

As we celebrate the birth and success of this important democracy, we also join in celebrating the rich spiritual inheritance that Israel has granted the believers of many faiths. Shalom.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 9th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present a report from the Canadian Branch Commonwealth Parliamentary Association dealing with the CPA, UK branch conference on tackling drugs, changing communities, challenges for parliamentarians in London, United Kingdom, from February 3-8, 2008.

[Committees of the House, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly respond to my colleague's question, although I regret he has not had an opportunity to follow this matter as closely as perhaps he would have liked. Had he had that opportunity, he would know it was the opposition, his party in fact, that provided the list of witnesses. Perhaps he should be asking his own colleagues on the committee why they did not call Senator Lowell Murray as a witness before our committee.

In fact, they have called absolutely everybody else who could be considered. Why they did not include Mr. Murray, I am not sure. In fact, they called so many witnesses that they stretched the bounds of credibility by even calling the former chef of 24 Sussex Drive, Mr. François Martin, who, unfortunately for him, was put on the spot with nothing to offer to this committee. He did offer his recipes, but they were not really relevant to the study we were taking upon ourselves at that time.

However, if he has to question as to why Senator Murray was not invited, perhaps he could call on his colleagues to answer that very question.

My colleague from the Bloc earlier made a statement that suggested that the Prime Minister would call a public inquiry immediately once our committee had finished its work. I want to quote what the Prime Minister stated on January 11, which clarifies this matter. He stated:

I have also asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry on an expedited basis once the Committee has completed its work. I am pleased that he has agreed to do so.

There we have it. Once the committee has completed its work, we will be in a position to have Professor Johnston provide recommendations to the Prime Minister. However, we have not completed our work yet. As I have said earlier, our work will be done when we have tabled the report to this chamber, which summarizes our testimony and perhaps includes some recommendations and conclusions.

[Committees of the House, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member would ask this question. If I recall correctly, this was the same question she asked about two weeks ago when I spoke to the matter as well.

She misrepresents the facts. She is suggesting that the government made a commitment that it did not make. The government made a commitment to address this matter at the appropriate time, based on the recommendations of Professor Johnston.

Professor Johnston's mandate is clear, I spoke to it a moment ago. His obligation to the Prime Minister, not to this chamber, is to provide some recommendations as to the scope of an appropriate mandate for a public inquiry.

At no time did the government or the Prime Minister say that as soon as the committee had completed listening to witnesses, that they would proceed with a public inquiry. What the Prime Minister said, and this was affirmed by Professor Johnston, is once the committee had completed its work, or words to that effect.

Our work is not done until we submit a report to this chamber. To suggest otherwise is a bit offensive to the members who serve on the numerous committees in the House.

It is not our job to listen to witnesses and then once they are finished speaking, to say that our work is done. That is not the case at all. Our obligation is to listen to the witnesses, synthesize and consider the testimony we have heard. Once the witnesses have all departed the chamber, then we take some time to summarize the testimony we have heard, thankfully, with the able assistance of so many of the researchers on these committees. The researchers are able to help us with the draft of the testimony, summarizing the key issues.

Once that is all considered and we have had a chance to look at it, we put our minds to recommendations or to the conclusions that we have heard, things that we can share with the government based on our new-found expertise in a particular subject matter, things from which this chamber and this government can benefit from.

The member opposite is suggesting that we should not take the time to do any of that. Because we have finished hearing from witnesses, the government should immediately proceed with a public inquiry. That is a little irresponsible.

She is suggesting that her own contribution to our report would not be worth reading or listening to. That is an offence not only to me, but to her own contributions on this committee. She diligently works on other reports that are currently before our committee. In fact, she puts forward numerous motions, recommendations and amendments to the draft documents that we have considered from previous studies we have done.

Yet now she inconsistently suggests that the contributions she makes in one study should not be considered in another area of study. It is quite hypocritical for the member opposite to think that her contributions in the area of the Afghanistan report, which we are currently working on, are worthwhile and deserve the time to diligently make amendments, word by word, throughout the document. However, on this other study, she has nothing to add. In fact, she is making the assertion that no member should have an opportunity to review a report or to make edits or recommendations to a report. It is a bit hypocritical and ironic that the member makes such a statement.

[Committees of the House, March 14th, 2008]

I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. It seems ironic that the opposition is calling for a quorum call at this particular moment.

Before I was interrupted, I was providing some background as to how we got to this place. The Prime Minister had asked for Professor Johnston to provide a preliminary report but before Professor Johnston could complete his work, the opposition members took it upon themselves to force this matter on to the ethics committee.

The ethics committee had other issues that it was in the process of investigating. In fact, we had put forward some issues related to the Privacy Act that needed to be addressed urgently but all of these matters were set aside because of this matter that had come before the media and Parliament.

Seized with this new opportunity to investigate a 15 year old incident, the committee took upon itself the obligation of requesting witnesses and the first witness, of course, was Mr. Schreiber. We heard from Mr. Schreiber, I think, on four occasions, for a total of eight hours initially. He later came back and provided us additional testimony. Following that, we heard from Mr. Mulroney and then a number of other witnesses.

I want to note that throughout the entire time, at least at the point when we heard from Mr. Schreiber, it was apparent to government members that there was no evidence of wrongdoing, certainly at that point. The member opposite stated just a moment ago that there was substantial evidence of wrongdoing. In fact, he has declared that a number of the witnesses, without naming them, actually lied to the committee. I find that quite a surprising statement coming from the chair when he himself had the opportunity to confront those witnesses, had he chosen to do so, when they were before the committee.

Needless to say, based on the testimony that we heard, we reviewed the Parliament of Canada Act and the code of conduct that applied at the time and, based on the testimony we heard from Mr. Schreiber, there was no evidence of wrongdoing. However, the opposition insisted on inviting, initially I think it was close to 40 witnesses before the committee, but it later pared that down.

I need to note that Conservative members did not ask for any particular witness. We did not think it was appropriate to do so but we listened to the witnesses who were provided by the opposition.

We went through the scenario every Tuesday and Thursday for two hours, and sometimes double appointments in some meetings. We heard from witnesses who came before the committee and offered what they knew about the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. However, in not one instance did anybody offer anything of substance in terms of ethical wrongdoing.

The reason I can say that with such certainty is that with every witness who came before the committee, I or one of my colleagues dutifully asked the question of whether that witness had any evidence of any wrongdoing by any public official related to this matter. Not one of the witnesses provided such evidence and, in fact, not one of them could even refer to such evidence existing, whether the witness knew it or not. Each one of them, given the opportunity to clarify for Canadians whether they were aware of any evidence of wrongdoing, dismissed the question or denied having any evidence.

However, the committee persisted and we continued to listen, at least on my part, with some hesitation. I was always fearful and said from the very beginning that I thought this was going to turn into a political partisan witch hunt, which, at times, it certainly did, and at other times appeared to be a bit of a political circus.

This continued and we heard from all the witnesses. Mr. Schreiber came back after the other witnesses and had nothing new to offer, despite his claims to the media that he had documents that had not been released. We got to the point where we had heard from all the witnesses and the committee had to decide whether it would call more witnesses or call it a day and try to summarize its evidence.

At that point, the committee had a discussion and decided that enough was enough, that it would not call any more witnesses. The opposition admitted that it had dragged this on long enough and the committee notified witnesses and the chamber that no more witnesses were needed and that it would summarize the evidence.

The committee agreed to the third report of the ethics committee. It is very brief so I will take a minute to read it. It states:

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics has the honour to present its THIRD REPORT

Your Committee met on Thursday, February 28, 2008 to discuss the Mulroney Airbus settlement and agreed to the following recommendation:

As your Committee has now completed its examination of witnesses in this matter it recommends, as it did in its Second Report to the House; “That the Government immediately initiate a formal public inquiry into the Mulroney—Schreiber affair”.

Then it goes on to give some details of minutes tabled and that sort of thing.

This is the motion that we are now debating before this chamber. I find this quite ironic because concurrence in this motion is simply that. We are simply acknowledging that no more witnesses will be called. The silence behind this motion basically indicates that we will be putting together a report, which is exactly what we are doing right now.

We are taking the time to summarize the testimony that we heard from the witnesses and to compile the thousands of pages of documents that were submitted to our committee. We are putting them together so we can fulfill our responsibilities as members of this committee and provide this chamber with a summary, a conclusion or recommendations of what we heard in the four months of testimony that we had.

Why we are now debating this particular motion is rather ironic and perhaps unique to this chamber. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might know how often in the history of this chamber such a limited non-motion or non-report has been discussed. However, that is where we find ourselves.

I want to make a few more comments on why I think it is inappropriate for this committee at this point to even pretend that we have a report to discuss.

We are beginning to consider a draft report. It is many pages in length, simply summarizing the issues that we have heard and, as I said earlier, none of it has any evidence of wrongdoing. For the opposition to press this chamber to consider this issue, as it did two weeks ago, is a bit misplaced. I will explain why.

Two weeks ago we had an opposition day motion in this House where we debated whether or not the government should proceed with the public inquiry immediately. At that time I argued very strongly that because this committee had not finished its work it would be improper for us to do so.

Here we are again. This feels a little bit like Groundhog Day, where we are coming back to an issue that was addressed some weeks ago. The bottom line is that Professor Johnston has a mandate to provide recommendations to the Prime Minister as to the scope of a public inquiry. The Prime Minister hired him to do that and he has partially completed his responsibilities by providing an interim report in January. However, he cannot complete his report until he has seen the report that our committee is supposed to provide him.

We are in the process of working on that report but we are nowhere near completion. However, we do hope that in the next couple of weeks we will be able to complete it.

It is a bit nonsensical for the member opposite to suggest that the government proceed immediately to a public inquiry when it does not have the benefit of what our committee has put its hand to for the last four or five months. We have heard 25 to 30 hours of testimony from more than a dozen witnesses. It would be improper for the government or even Professor Johnston to recommend to the government the parameters of a possible public inquiry without the benefit of hearing from our committee.

Again, our job as committee members is not simply to listen to testimony and say, “okay, enough is enough, you guys go off and do the rest of the job for us”. We need to finish our work and for us to finish our work means that we need to compile the testimony and debate whether or not there are recommendations that the committee should make to the House. Perhaps there are some conclusions that we can draw.

Personally, I am quite skeptical as to whether or not there are any recommendations that we can make in light of the fact that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. I am also skeptical of the fact that we may not have any conclusions that we can provide for the very same reason.

Nonetheless, the committee has an obligation to fulfill its responsibilities and finish its work, and, hopefully, that will be done in the very near future.

However, for the party opposite to suggest twice within a two week period of time that it is imperative that the government proceed with this public inquiry before it has had the benefit of a report is a little bit nonsensical.

I would ask the opposition to perhaps put more forethought into its use of the time that this chamber focuses on this in the future. Nonetheless, we are here debating this issue. I think it is a bit hasty to suggest that the government proceed with this without that further information, but that is its purview.

I want to draw attention of the House some points that I made the last time we had this debate, because they are particularly relevant.

I remember telling this chamber about the mandate that was given to the independent adviser, Professor Johnston. The mandate assigned to the independent adviser included four areas: first, to conduct a review of the allegations concerning the financial dealings of Mr. Schreiber and the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney; second, to make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a full and public inquiry in these allegations, including the specific issues that warrant examination; third, to determine whether any prima facie evidence existed to suggest that criminal acts had taken place; and fourth, to indicate whether any additional course of action was appropriate.

To fulfill this mandate, the Prime Minister hired Professor Johnston, who is a very reputable individual. He is the president of the University of Waterloo. In fact, he has impeccable credentials, which are widely admired because of his considerable legal experience and expertise.

It should be noted that during the course of his career, Professor Johnston has served on numerous provincial and federal task forces and committees. He is therefore perfectly suited to fulfill this responsibility. However, nevertheless, I think it is improper for us to expect Professor Johnston to fulfill and to complete these responsibilities until he has had a chance to see our final report.

Again, here we have the opposition simply trying to manipulate the process when it is obvious to everybody who has been following this issue that this is not necessary. We are all confident that once our report is complete and Professor Johnston has had a chance to review our ethics report, he will make the recommendations that he chooses to make to the Prime Minister. At that point, the Prime Minister will look at those recommendations and make a wise decision, as he always does.

However, at this time, I have said all that is necessary to be said on this topic.

[Committees of the House, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's vigilance, as he now leaves the chamber and the opposition is now vacant. It is quite ironic that they are calling for quorum when their own members are not even present.

[Committees of the House, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this subject.

It comes as a bit of a surprise that we are even having this discussion because I do not think anyone expected concurrence in this particular motion since the motion that we are here to debate is an extraordinarily small motion. In fact, it is quite unique I think in this chamber that we are having this debate at all.

I will give a bit of background. Our committee began its investigation into this matter last November after some spurious allegations were printed in the paper. At that point, the Prime Minister indicated that he would appoint someone to investigate the matter. He subsequently hired Professor Johnston to look at this issue and provide a report to the government that was later tabled in January.

However, not satisfied with the steps that the government was taking--