NDP MPs Pat Martin and Joe Comartin sent the following letter to David Johnston who is expected to report this Friday to the government about the Mulroney-Schreiber inquiry:
Friday, December 21, 2007
Dear Dr. Johnston,
Thank you for taking on the task of recommending the mandate for the public inquiry into the Schreiber-Mulroney affair.
On behalf of the NDP, and after consultation with NDP representatives on the committee, we would like to present the following observations and recommendations to aid you in your work.
While we cannot submit an exhaustive list of recommendations and observations – especially given the fact that the committee's study is ongoing – we hope that the suggestions below will be useful to your work.
Ethics Rules and Codes of Conduct
The terms of reference must allow the Inquiry to address the question of whether anyone's actions broke ethical rules governing parliamentarians and public office holders at the time. Furthermore, the terms must direct the Inquiry to provide any relevant recommendations with respect to changes to current ethical rules, including the Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Code, to better protect against future wrongdoing and begin the crucial task of rebuilding Canadians' faith in these important public institutions.
The Inquiry should make a priority of probing the question of possible inappropriate use of money to influence – or attempt to influence – public policy decisions. This must include addressing the questions of whether any Members of Parliament personally benefited from any of these decisions, what were the sources of the money; where the money originated; was this money ever used, or intended to be used, to influence government policy decisions with respect to decisions taken involving the Messerschmitt Bolkow-Blohm (MBB), Bear Head and/or Airbus projects and what the role of Government Consultants International (GCI) was in these projects.
We believe that the terms should be set to include review of the rules making lobbying more transparent, conflict of interest rules governing Parliamentarians and code of conduct rules for senior public office holders. We would also like to insure that the findings of the public inquiry include recommendations for how these rules need to function better so we can ensure that MPs aren't trading on their status.
Forensic investigation
The Inquiry must have sufficiently broad terms of reference to be able to “follow the money.” Our committee found overlapping trails of money and for the Inquiry to do useful work, these threads must be untangled. This must include not only examining the Airbus deal, but also the MBB deal to provide helicopters to the Coast Guard and the Bear Head/Thyysen project, including the circumstances surrounding the Memorandum of Agreement between the Canadian government and Thyysen with respect to the Bear Head proposal and the role of GCI in these negotiations.
The evidence we have already heard before our Committee has raised quite a number of serious questions and concerns about the role of some lobbyists and consultants in setting government policy. While there have been some changes to lobbying rules recently, we think the Inquiry should consider whether further changes are needed. Canadians deserve to know what the relationship has been like between lobbyists and the government and what lessons we should learn from this, including whether there has been an adequacy of enforcement.
Role of the Department of Justice and the RCMP
The Inquiry must also examine the role of the federal Department of Justice and the RCMP in their investigations into these matters and specifically their decision to settle Mr. Mulroney's $50 million lawsuit against the Canadian Government.
We heard evidence that Schreiber was never questioned by the government or the RCMP at any time while the RCMP investigation was active. This has to be determined, along with additional questions such as why did they send a letter of apology to Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Frank Moores in light of the fact that they were not party to the Mr. Mulroney's defamation lawsuit? Who suggested, requested and approved these letters of apology?
Defamation lawsuit settlement
We also feel strongly that the mandate must include conducting an investigation as to whether the $2.1 million settlement of this lawsuit paid by the taxpayers of Canada to Mr. Mulroney could be set aside.
If recovery is possible then the Inquiry should have the mandate to recommend a course of conduct to the federal government as to how this recovery could be accomplished.
This should include recommendations for appropriate sanctions for Mr. Mulroney if the Inquiry concludes that he gave a misleading deposition with respect to the lawsuit.
We also should clarify that repercussions in this context shouldn't be taken to be exclusively legal repercussions but must include possible sanctions resulting from breaches of ethical and conflict of interest rules governing Members of Parliament or former Members of Parliament.
Recommendations for sanctions
The Inquiry's final report should also address whether the sanctions provided for in these codes are sufficient and whether a Prime Minister or former Prime Minister should be held to a higher ethical standard than other members of the cabinet.
Furthermore, if the Inquiry concludes that no appropriate sanctions exist for a real or apparent breach of these codes of conduct, then the Inquiry should have the latitude to suggest appropriate sanction for parliamentarians to consider.
In the meantime, it goes without saying that if committee members identify a breach based on the committee's study, then this breach should be reported back to the House of Commons for action immediately.
While the committee's work and evidence will be provided to the public inquiry, these investigations are also independent of each other and each must come to their own conclusions based on their own mandates.
Breaches of certain Acts
Specifically, the Inquiry should determine whether there was a breach of lobbying rules; the Parliament of Canada Act; the Conflict of Interest Code; or the Income Tax Act.
The Inquiry should further be tasked with reporting any findings of political interference in government decision making with regards to decisions taken on Airbus, MBB and/or Bear Head projects and the role of officials from GCI in making or influencing these decisions.
Findings of political interference
The Inquiry should report any findings of unethical or unusual interference into any of the investigations into the conduct of public office holders with respect to any of these projects.
This must of course include the conduct of all governments from 1985 to the present day.
Administrative and process mandateIn order to ensure Inquiry helps to restore the public's faith, all proceedings should be kept in public, excepting clear national security concerns. Similarly all the reports should be made public in their entirety, excepting cases where the release of this information is a clear threat to national security.
The Inquiry must have sufficient time to fully and completely fulfill its mandate and, keeping in mind our desire for fiscal prudence, must be provided sufficient resources to compete its work.
Building on the experience of the parliamentary committee, we recommend that the Inquiry be given specific direction to pursue the release of relevant documents. We strongly feel that for the Inquiry to be successful, it will need to have access to all documents, including tax records, and will need to employ forensic accountants to properly unravel these interweaving projects.
We al
so recommend that Mr. Schreiber remain in Canada under subpoena for the duration of the Inquiry.Conclusion
We want to thank you again for agreeing to take on this work. The successful completion of this important public inquiry will go a long way to restore Canadians' faith in their public institutions.
The NDP believes strongly that our political system can be reformed to provide greater checks and balances and better oversight within government and between government and Parliament. While there have been some steps towards limited reforms, we still witness a lot of apathy and voluntary disenfranchisement that we believe has come about in no small part as a result of years of government and political scandals.
We can all do better and the NDP pledges to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Yours sincerely,
Pat Martin, MP Joe Comartin, MP
(Winnipeg Centre) (Windsor-Tecumseh)