By Andrew Perez
Ottawa has once again been seized by a spectre – a spectre of a public inquiry. After nearly 20 years, Canadians might finally get some answers in the Airbus affair. Meanwhile, the parliamentary press gallery cannot contain themselves, relieved that something new is haunting Ottawa, aside from Stéphane Dion’s leadership woes.
But wait, a public inquiry? Canadians have surely seen this ‘one-trick pony’ before. Air India, Maher Arar, Adscam, and now Mulroney-Schreiber? A public inquiry will take forever. It will cost millions. It will inevitably turn into a ‘witch-hunt’ that will drag good names through mud in a scene plagued by charge and counter-charge with only one result: further public cynicism with our elected officials.
Even former prime minister Jean Chrétien has weighed against the idea of calling an inquiry. “It’s not the best way to solve problems,” he told reporters at a Montreal book signing last week. “We have police for these things.”
The current prime minister, though it is too late now, would have been wise to follow his predecessor’s advice. All Harper had to do, as Chrétien wisely suggested, was to say that an illegal act had been committed, that this was for the police to investigate. Instead, Harper naively gave into the cries for a public inquiry, imposing on Canadians yet another costly hearing that will likely bring cynicism in politics to an all-time low.
And so, it is Harper who is most to blame for the dismal spectacle that Canadians are about to witness in the months to come.Now public inquiries are not always a bad thing. The inquiries surrounding the Air India bombing, and the gross mishandling of Maher Arar were both necessary and crucial – and by all accounts – Canadians demanded them. Even the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal was necessary, for it investigated the questionable activities of a party that was still in power.
But a full-blown public inquiry? An inquiry whose key witness will be a questionable businessman who has already contradicted himself several times, and is clearly willing to say anything to avoid extradition to Germany?
Canadians should be wary.
Now Mulroney committed a colossal error of judgment in accepting cash payments totaling $300,000. Moreover, he outright denied his actions for several years through his long-time spokesman, Luc Lavoie.
Despite this, are Mulroney’s private transactions, or for that matter, his lack of honesty, a concern for Canadians in 2007? Surely the Canadian electorate would rather have their representatives in Ottawa focus on matters affecting them directly.
Of course, Mulroney called for a public inquiry himself, but surely the government does not take orders from a man who is obsessed with furthering his legacy and seeking revenge on all those who he believes mounted a vendetta against him. Mulroney has his own self-fulfilling agenda – to clear his name – no matter what the cost, whether it be millions of dollars lost to an inquiry, or further cynicism with our political system. If Mulroney really wants to clear his name, he ought to write another book – something he seems to quite enjoy.
But enough with Mulroney — the real culprit here is Harper. Harper has already made several blunders in the Mulroney-Schreiber saga. His first was of course to call the public inquiry in the first place. His second mistake was to publicly humiliate Mulroney – going as far as to forbid Conservative MPs, senators, and senior party officials from even talking to the man. Such an attack came as a shock to many Ottawa insiders, including Conservatives, for Mulroney won two massive majority governments, is credited for significant policy initiatives, and until recently, was one of Harper’s most trusted advisors.
Yet, it is not surprising that a prime minister as petty, bullish, and unrelenting as Harper, opted to treat his former ally as a convicted criminal. After all, it is well documented that Harper had nothing but contempt for Mulroney, until recently when the former prime minister became politically convenient for Harper to further his own agenda.
Unfortunately for Canadians, a public inquiry will seize the political discourse of this country for the coming months. The environment, child poverty, and Canada’s lagging productivity, will all be put on the backburner in the coming months as our elected officials engage in a partisan circus.
Schreiber ought to be sent to his fate in Germany and Harper should scrap the idea of holding an inquiry into minor events that took place long before he even came into the public eye.
Few Canadians will be served by this inquiry, and few would object to its dissolution. The only Canadians that stand to benefit from a full-scale inquiry are the reporters who have staked their careers on reporting the Airbus affair, and the big law firms who will inevitably become involved. A small minority of Canadians by my count.