What possible connection could there be you are thinking between what is going on in Ottawa now in relation to the Public Inquiry involving the former Prime Minister and the Windsor Utilities Commission fiasco.
You are also probably thinking that this is the usual tabloid-type headline designed to tease a reader into looking at the story.
Now really, would I do something so transparent as that?
On the contrary, I am serious. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from what is going on in Ottawa compared with what has happened already in Windsor.
Let me set out first for you the relevant questions and answers being asked in the House of Commons in Ottawa during Question Period so it should be obvious to you what I'm getting at:
- Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to limit the political fallout from the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, so he prevents Dr. Johnston from investigating the behaviour of the Conservative government over the last 22 months.
The terms of reference for Dr. Johnston include only specific financial dealings between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber. They do not include any negligence, wilful blindness, interference, invasion or concealment by the Prime Minister, his office, his ministers or Conservative insiders.
Why did the Prime Minister exempt himself from this investigation?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, we did no such thing. Mr. Johnston is free to propose any terms of reference that are in any way connected with the events in question.
Canadians understand that the events in question occurred between 10 and 20 years ago. These are rather pathetic attempts by the opposition to link them to this government. - Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not Dr. Johnston's credibility that is at stake here; it is the Prime Minister's.
Dr. Johnston has been hired to look only at Mulroney-Schreiber financial dealings, nothing more. He cannot examine Privy Council officials or political staff about the paper trail into the Prime Minister 's Office. That would be beyond his mandate. He cannot find out who ordered the justice department to stop a fresh investigation, which the department began last year, because that would be beyond his mandate.
What is the government so afraid that he will find?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, Professor Johnston can recommend any terms of reference that are in any way related to the affairs at hand.
I would not say the only person's credibility, but one of the people's credibility who is very much in question this week is the member for Wascana, who actually suggested that the government would break the law and release private tax records.
When we hear that kind of recommendation, we understand why the previous government had to pay out $2.1 million in taxpayer money. - Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the question was whether Mr. Mulroney complied with the law.
The Mulroney-Schreiber issue reignited in the media only days after the government came into power. There are damning letters in the Prime Minister's Office, but the paper trail is hidden.
Ministers deliberately refused to be briefed. A justice department review was started and then suddenly stopped. Some ministers consult Mr. Mulroney daily. He has numerous personal encounters with the Prime Minister. Was Mr. Schreiber ever discussed?
Will the Prime Minister change the mandate to include specifically whether the government was involved in a cover-up?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, all the allegations made by the member for Wascana are completely baseless. They are complete fabrications.
All they are is designed to try to prove that other people are just as corrupt as the Liberal Party of Canada. I am afraid the Liberal Party of Canada has the trademark on corruption. - Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that by not asking Mr. Johnston to investigate the actions of the current government, the Prime Minister is trying to do some damage control. His government's actions with respect to this issue have been questionable.
The Prime Minister admitted to having met with Brian Mulroney at Harrington Lake in the summer of 2006, as Mr. Schreiber indicated. However, we still do not know whether they talked about Mr. Schreiber. Mr. Johnston's terms of reference do not allow him to investigate that.
What is the Prime Minister trying to hide from Canadians?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the process is very clear. Right after Mr. Schreiber testified that there were allegations, the Prime Minister started the process. That process will give us the answers we are looking for. Canadians want answers. We launched the inquiry process. - Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that is not all. Mr. Johnston will not investigate whether the letters Mr. Schreiber wrote to the Prime Minister actually reached his office. He will not investigate why the Minister of Justice is refusing to accept any information about the $2.1 million paid to Brian Mulroney or whether the minister put an end to his own department's investigation into those millions.
Will the Prime Minister let Mr. Johnston find out whether political interference occurred to hide these facts?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, once again, the process is clear. Mr. Johnston can set the terms of reference for the inquiry and ask important questions for himself, for Canadians, and also for us. - Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the mandates given to David Johnston and Justice Gomery are completely different. After appointing Justice Gomery it took the government nine days to establish the terms of reference for the inquiry. The Prime Minister has just told us that he is giving David Johnston 57 days to determine the parameters for the future public inquiry, which takes us to January 11, 2008. That is too long.
Rather than dragging things out, should the Prime Minister not be ensuring that the facts come to light as quickly as possible?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnston is free to provide his report much more quickly, if possible. That will be up to him. - Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, given that there are allegations about the involvement of other individuals, Conservatives and Liberals, in the activities of Mr. Schreiber, it is important to establish as broad a framework for the commission as possible. If the Prime Minister wishes to get to the bottom of it all, it is in his best interest for the commission to review all of Mr. Schreiber's dealings with Canadian politicians in general.
Does the Prime Minister have something to hide?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, once again, Mr. Johnston is free to recommend any terms of reference for the commission. That is up to him. The government has given that power to Mr. Johnston, an eminent and impartial individual. The government has not written the terms of reference for this public inquiry. - Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, legal experts agree with the official opposition that Dr. Johnston's mandate is constrained because it is limited to a review of Mr. Schreiber's allegations about his financial dealings with Brian Mulroney.
In other words, it does not include any examination of how this deeply conflicted government has managed this whole mess, nor will it answer the key question about what the government knew and exactly when it knew it. Why is it so?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, members opposite apparently wanted to see a full public inquiry and it really is curious to see that as soon as one is announced they are shocked. Their leader could not get over it, but he finally understood that it is going ahead. Then they came out supporting Professor Johnston's appointment, but now they are critical of work that is really just beginning.
I think they should just settle down a little and send recommendations to Professor Johnston, by all means, but not prejudge the man before he gets to work. This is going to be a full public inquiry. We want answers to these questions. - Ms. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister is just grasping at straws. Words in the House of Commons do not change the legal mandate.
Canadians want to know what the Prime Minister knew about the allegations against his political idol and chief Quebec adviser. Dr. Johnston's written marching orders handcuff him from looking at what steps the government took over 22 months to shield Mr. Mulroney.
Will the government make it clear, in writing, that the government itself is included in Dr. Johnston's review?
Hon. Stockwell Day (Minister of Public Safety, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite knows anything about the sterling reputation of Professor Johnston, she would know that he is not the type of person who would take kindly to the thought of being, as she said, handcuffed. That is not going to be happening. We want a full public inquiry.
Professor Johnston has served governments at a variety of levels. The Leader of the Opposition has come out in support of his appointment. His reputation is very well known. We expect that he will deliver that mandate for a full public inquiry.
I'm sure that you understand exactly what I'm getting at now. What is fundamental in any inquiry are the Terms of Reference. Let's be more precise, the Terms help determine the result.
If you look at the questions raised by the Opposition, the whole point of what they are asking is whether the Terms will be framed broadly or narrowly. Of course the Prime Minister is stating that Professor Johnston can do whatever it is that he chooses to do. But I would suspect that as a lawyer, Professor Johnston will stick exactly to the Terms of Reference that he has been given for setting out the Terms for the Public Inquiry.
I must admit that the Conservative approach of appointing an expert to determine what are the Terms of Reference for the Public Inquiry strikes me as being very sensible in a political matter such as this is. Of course, the expert must be given freedom to determine those terms are or else the entire process is just a fraud designed to fool the public into believing that there is a proper Inquiry.
The other interesting comment was the one that stated that the Gomery inquiry was set up so quickly while this one may not get a decision on the Terms of the Public Inquiry until mid-January. By the time the Public Inquiry gets rolling it could be several months later. By that time a lot of the brouhaha would have died down.
So if we look at the Windsor Utilities Commission fiasco... what do we see:
- no investigation into the political side of this matter even though it was alleged that "politics"played a role and why we had this fiasco in the first place
- no investigation to determine whether previous Administrations were the cause of the problem or the Administration in power after 2003
- why did it take so long to start the process in the first place and why was the public tendering process not followed
- a section 9 inquiry only as determined by the Minister limited to financial matters and not a sections 9 and 10 as requested by the City or a full forensic inquiry dealing with the financial, business, and operational affairs of WUC including its relationship with Enwin as desired by citizens
- Terms of Reference determined by the Ministry without any involvement by those affected namely the citizens of Windsor
- a fee for services of around $150,000 which means that a full forensic accounting investigation will not take place given the low amount of the fees
- everything being done in secret with no public involvement that I'm aware of at all
- an Inquiry that was put off for months even we were led to believe that the Inquiry would be started immediately
- a Report that may or may not be released to the public
- questions about why the Mayor contacted the Auditor General and what was said
- questions about what our two Senior Cabinet Ministers/MPPs said to the Minister Of Municipal Affairs
- questions about why the Ministry of Finance was involved
- questions about why the Minister Of Finance attacked the head of WeACT personally
- lack of OMB response in a timely manner
- no investigation into whether there has been a cover-up.
And the latest development from the OMB...just read Chris Schnurr's BLOG about the latest shocker http://chrisschnurr.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/omb-no-jurisdiction-weact-to-take-further-action/
It just gets uglier and uglier.
I am sure if you sat down and thought about it for a few minutes, then you could add in additional matters that are of concern.
What happens next... in a perfect world, a letter to the Premier would get a thoughtful response back and perhaps an examination into what happened so as to satisfy the Public's need that a proper investigation is being done. But we know that's not going to happen.
I am certain that WeACT will do the right thing for Windsorites again now!
No comments:
Post a Comment