PROC Committee Report

The precise issue in this case is whether SCPHA should or should not recommend to the House of Commons that the House waive parliamentary privilege with respect to the use of testimony of witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (“PAC”) for the purposes of cross-examination of such witnesses before The Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities (“the Commission”).

Despite the excellent expert evidence heard before the subcommittee, the Conservative Members are of the view on a careful balancing of the issues at stake, that SCPHA in this case should recommend that the House waive its privilege but only for the very limited purpose of the question before it and for no other purpose with the express proviso that under no circumstances would the particular waiver in this case be regarded as a precedent and would be limited to the unique facts and considerations in this case.

Those facts and considerations are that the Commission was established as a result of the findings by the Auditor General of Canada of possible corruption and criminal activity involving the awarding of contracts by the government of Canada, with such activities reaching the very highest levels of the government and the current ruling Liberal Party. If substantiated these activities could well constitute the most serious incident of corruption in the political life of our country.

It is for that reason that the Prime Minister and the governing Liberal Party, with the agreement of all parties in the House in order to (in the Prime Minister’s own words) “get to the bottom of this” established the Commission.

Despite the strong constitutional and historical arguments for preserving the privilege of the House and to deny the Commission the right to use such testimony even for the limited purpose suggested could very well impede the work of the Commission.

In addition, not allowing the testimony to be so used before the Commission would create the absurd situation in which average Canadians would be fully aware of any discrepancies between any evidence given by those witnesses before PAC and any evidence given by the same witnesses before the Commission but with Justice Gomery unable to make use of such testimony to assist him in assessing the credibility of those witnesses thus impeding him in his purpose of “getting to the bottom of this matter”.

This committee and thus the House of Commons itself must not just consider what is in the best interests of Parliament, as was suggested by one of the expert witnesses that appeared before the sub- committee, but rather what is in the overall public interest of Canadians. Is it to at all costs protect and preserve parliamentary privilege or is it rather to best ensure that the Commission on behalf of all Canadians determines the truth in this matter? The Conservative members of the committee come down clearly in this case in favour of the latter and thus the overall public interest.

Therefore, the Conservative Members of this committee recommend to the House of Commons, that it waive its parliamentary privilege in this case but limited to the cross-examination of one or more of these witnesses before the Commission and for the sole purpose of determining if there is any inconsistency between any of the evidence they gave before PAC and any evidence they have given or may give before the Commission going to their credibility. In waiving its privileges in this case, the House should expressly indicate that such waiver is not to be considered by the House as any sort of precedent for the future but is limited to the very unique and pressing circumstances in this case.