Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Peterborough.
I also want to thank the House for this opportunity to respond to the motion introduced by the member for West Nova. The motion simply states:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should end its delays and immediately commence the public inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.
I cannot in good conscience support this motion because to do so would in effect denigrate the efforts of our Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the work of Professor Johnston.
In fact, this issue came up last night during our committee meeting as well and after some debate we had a vote on the question. I watched later that evening on the cable public affairs channel as our committee chairman suggested that there was unanimous consent in the committee to recommend an immediate public inquiry. There was not.
I believe it is important to correct the public record on this issue. Members of the government expressed that the public inquiry cannot commence immediately for some simple and logical reasons which I will explain in the coming minutes.
There was a vote. My government colleagues and I voted against the motion because of the hasty and intemperate language that would insist on forcing the government to act inappropriately.
As my hon. colleagues are well aware, members of the ethics committee have been hard at work for several months investigating the various allegations made by the former Prime Minister and Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber. To launch a public inquiry before this committee has had the opportunity to complete its work, table its report and recommendations, would not only show a great deal of disrespect for all those involved, but handicap the public inquiry before it even started.
As we all know, our committee has spent the last four months studying four aspects of this matter. We looked at the Bear Head proposal, the Airbus libel settlement, the consulting agreement between Brian Mulroney and Karlheinz Schreiber and the handling of correspondence by the Privy Council Office.
We heard from Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber, and we heard from a number of witnesses who had direct knowledge of their business dealings.
The government made a commitment to Canadians that we would work to seek out the truth in this matter. We asked every witness who appeared a series of questions. In fact, we asked each witness whether or not they had any knowledge of any wrongdoing by any public official regarding Bear Head, Airbus, the consulting agreement and the Privy Council Office. Not a single one did.
Every witness, including Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber, confirmed for us that there was no wrongdoing with respect to these issues. Somewhat ironically, after having made certain allegations, the only wrongdoing we became aware of during our proceedings was Mr. Schreiber's own failure to declare the importation of a large amount of currency into Canada and the United States.
Nevertheless, Canadians are still left with a bad taste in their mouths because a former public office holder took large cash payments. While there may have been nothing illegal about the transactions, it certainly created the appearance of conduct that falls below the standard we expect of former prime ministers, as Mr. Mulroney himself acknowledged in his testimony. He will have to deal with the shame of this matter for the rest of his life.
Surely, after each member of the committee, both government and opposition members, spent so much time examining this issue, it would be foolish to commence an inquiry before the committee has had the opportunity to give its report.
I anticipate that the committee's report will, among other things, identify some specific recommendations regarding the terms of reference for a potential public inquiry. Indeed, I would like to ask the opposition members who currently support today's motion what was the point of hearing the number hours of testimony and scouring through thousands of pages of Karlheinz Schreiber's submissions and numerous other documents if we are not going to offer the House the benefit of our counsel.
Holding hearings for four months is not an insignificant expense, yet that seems to be of no concern to the members opposite.
The opposition insisted in the fall, and we agreed, that a public inquiry was the best way to handle these allegations. Yet, in its haste, the opposition decided to pre-empt a public inquiry with the committee hearings.
We disagreed with that approach, but we respected the will of the majority and participated faithfully in those hearings. And now in haste once again, the opposition is attempting to have us ignore the work of our committee over the past four months and prematurely move to a public inquiry.
To insist on the one hand that the committee hold these hearings and then not take them to their logical conclusion is irresponsible.
Members should recall that the Prime Minister asked Professor Johnston to finalize his recommendations on the terms of reference for the public inquiry once the committee has completed its work.
Until we file our report and give the House and the public the benefit of our wisdom and counsel on this matter, our work will not be complete. Members need to be reminded that although holding hearings and gathering evidence is laborious and time consuming, it is not the full work of our committee. In fact, it is only half of our job.
The other half is to synthesize what we have heard and learned, and condense that knowledge into useful recommendations and conclusions. Often that process does not take as long as the information gathering phase, but it is no less important and that has not happened. Until it has, the committee has not completed its work.
When Karlheinz Schreiber made his allegations last fall, Canadians demanded to know what transpired between Brian Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. At that time this government committed to securing the truth and sharing it with Canadians. We took timely and effective action on this matter.
The Prime Minister appointed an independent adviser to conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney. The mandate assigned to the independent adviser included four areas: first, to conduct a review of the allegations concerning financial dealings between Mr. Schreiber and the right hon.. Brian Mulroney; second, to make recommendations as to the appropriate mandate for a full and public inquiry into these allegations including the specific issues that warrant examination; third, to determine whether any prima facie evidence existed to suggest that criminal acts have taken place; and fourth, to indicate whether any additional course of action was appropriate.
To fulfill this mandate the Prime Minister appointed Professor David Johnston, the president of the University of Waterloo. Professor Johnston has impeccable credentials and is widely admired for his considerable legal experience and expertise. During his career Professor Johnston has served on numerous provincial and federal task forces and committees, so there can be no doubt that he is perfectly suited to conduct a thorough and thoughtful review, and provide sage independent advice to the government on this matter.
Nevertheless, soon after Professor Johnston accepted his mandate, the ethics committee initiated its own review of the matter. This move by the opposition pre-empted proceeding directly to a public inquiry because this government respects the sub judice principle. That means the government will not hold a public inquiry while a parliamentary committee is examining the same matter.
Over the past four months the committee subsequently heard the testimony of the two men at the centre of the affair and a number of other witnesses who have knowledge of some elements of this issue. Unfortunately, to its discredit, the opposition overreached its hand and brought witnesses who had no knowledge whatsoever concerning the matters the committee was studying.
Regardless, in honour of the commitment made to the Prime Minister, the independent adviser released a report in January of this year and the Prime Minister accepted it. To quote from the Prime Minister's statement of January 11, he said:
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.
In order to effectively complete the study the opposition insisted on last fall, the standing committee must have the opportunity to carefully analyze the testimony it has heard and render fair and accurate recommendations.
I am confident that once we have supplied Parliament with our recommendations and the full benefits of our work over the last four months, that the independent adviser will provide sound guidance and wise advice regarding a public inquiry into this matter.
The hon. member's motion, however, seeks to short circuit the process. It suggests that the current approach, studied, deliberate and respectful of the serious issues at stake should be immediately set aside and replaced by a public inquiry, but that public inquiry would not have the full benefit of the work we are doing and the knowledge we have gained as a result of these hearings.
The motion would have us ignore the informed counsel of the committee membership and the recommendations we would make based on the last four months of testimony we have heard and the evidence we have examined.
I therefore urge the House to reject this rash, impulsive action.
