News

Rebuffed by Brian Mulroney, the House of Commons ethics committee will respond with a written report rather than a subpoena and pass the file on to a public inquiry that the former prime minister no longer supports.

The report, which could come as early as tomorrow, is likely to give Mr. Mulroney a slap on the wrist for failing to give MPs full answers to their questions, Liberal MP Robert Thibeault said Wednesday.

“Not showing up wouldn't be the question, I think. But not providing the information that he's engaged himself to provide to Parliament might be cause to consider contempt,” Mr. Thibeault told reporters.

Over the past three months, the all-party committee has been examining the former prime minister's cash payments from lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber. But all parties agreed yesterday the time has come to wrap up.

Mr. Mulroney was asked to appear Thursday as the committee's final witness, but his lawyer and his public relations spokesman will explain Thursday in Ottawa why the invitation was declined.

Further, Mr. Mulroney's lawyer, Guy Pratte, wrote in a letter to the committee Wednesday that the government should scrap its plan for a public inquiry into the issue because the facts have now been aired.

“Not only have no legal or ethical violations been identified, but the ethics committee has failed to unearth any evidence that would justify a costly public inquiry into those matters,” states the letter. “Mr. Mulroney has now explained the facts surrounding his business relationship with Mr. Schreiber and apologized to the Canadian people, although he has done nothing illegal or unethical. What else can be demanded or expected of him?”

The letter concludes by requesting Mr. Mulroney be provided a draft version of any committee report for comment before its public release.

Committee members insisted Wednesday that an inquiry is still needed. But it was clear that MPs don't have the appetite for engaging a former Prime Minister in a stand off over their invitation to appear before them a second time.

“You know, you have to pick your fights, don't you?” said NDP MP Pat Martin. “We could drag him here. We could put handcuffs on him and throw him in the back of a paddy wagon I suppose but you have to ask yourself to what end?... There's nothing more useless than a hostile witness. His high-priced team of PR guys would advise him to just restate the statement he already gave us. So why would we go through the exercise? It's not worth it to us.”

In contrast to opposition members of the committee, Conservative committee member David Tilson said he has no problem with Mr. Mulroney's decision not to appear.

“I honestly don't know what Mr. Mulroney could add,” Mr. Tilson told reporters following his party's closed-door caucus meeting.

Mr. Tilson said there are clear discrepancies between Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Schreiber's version of events, including over how much cash was paid.

“It's up to us to determine who we'll believe. Maybe we'll believe neither of them,” he said.

The Conservative MP rejected the argument that Mr. Mulroney should be called back to answer questions about the lobbying in France, Russia and China he said he did for Mr. Schreiber in exchange for cash.

“That's his testimony. He made these trips. He made an interim report to Mr. Schreiber in his visit to New York. I guess we can ask him to come back and repeat what he's already said. I don't think there's any unanswered questions at all,” he said.

Committee chairman Paul Szabo, a Liberal MP, said MPs will revisit the issue of summoning Mr. Mulroney and or his tax records if the government backs down from its pledge to hold a public inquiry.

“If there is no public inquiry, the committee will do exactly that,” he said.