Public Accounts committee  As Mr. Tardi indicated earlier, there are other proceedings where testimony has been given under oath that may give further indication of how the testimony given here was false or untruthful. I suppose in a sense the advantage you have is that the committee was the first step, so all the other stuff came later and makes the comparisons easier.

Public Accounts committee  I can only say, Mr. Williams, I'm not aware of it going the full distance, where someone has actually been taken before the bar and found in contempt. There may have been debates like we're having now in Parliament, on a number of occasions, about some witnesses. But I'm not aware of it actually getting to where someone is summoned in front of the bar in the House for contempt.

Public Accounts committee  The only problem with that, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Williams might want to hold off the public discussion until you've had an opportunity, if you choose to do this, to hear from the witnesses about the discrepancies. If you publicly point out the discrepancies and how you find the discrepancies to be worrisome, you're simply offering an opportunity to the witness to rehearse subsequent testimony in a way to avoid any accountability.

Public Accounts committee  I don't know that the Attorney General is necessarily that concerned in what form the information reaches him or her. Once the information is there, he has a duty in the public interest to prosecute where a criminal offence has taken place or to not prosecute, along the lines that Mr.

Public Accounts committee  As far as the Attorney General is concerned, I don't believe he could insist that you go to the House. However, that might be the Attorney General's preference and it might be the House's preference that you do that.

Public Accounts committee  My view is that yes, there is no need for the witness to be swearing on a Bible before he or she gives testimony. They are obliged to speak truthfully to a parliamentary committee. However, if you walk over and seek remedies under the Criminal Code, then the rules of the Criminal Code may be brought to bear.

Public Accounts committee  Let me offer this in that regard. Technically and logically speaking, you're quite right. If you ever want to prosecute under the Criminal Code, perhaps that has to be there. But go to the dynamics of each meeting. I can remember many meetings where if the witness was already very nervous and apprehensive about the event and you then put a Bible in front of them—this might be enough to put them over the edge in some cases.

Public Accounts committee  I don't recall that there was one. Frankly, the idea of a perjury prosecution or a holding for contempt in the House is like hanging a dead person, if you'll pardon the expression or the metaphor. By that point, with the damage done to the individual from the scrutiny given to his or her testimony, comments by the committee, a report to the House, and the House perhaps concurring in the report, what's left to be done with regard to that person?

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chair, the simple answer to that, without being simplistic, is the old adage about beauty is in the beholder. Perjury is what the House considers in its judgment to be perjury. Having said that, it would want its judgment to be respected, so it ought to adhere to conventional understandings of what perjury is, without necessarily addressing all the legal tests that are required in a court of law for a criminal conviction.

Public Accounts committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be once again before the public accounts committee. It has been a while, in my case, as law clerk and parliamentary counsel. I have with me the senior parliamentary counsel, legal services, Greg Tardi, who has been working with Brian O'Neal of the Library of Parliament research branch, who is here today, of course, on the staff of the committee in reviewing the testimony given to the committee in the 37th Parliament.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Chairman, I've already instructed the lawyers to stay here until the end of this meeting and make themselves available to members. Richard, I think, is able to stay as well. Certainly we're of service.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  In answer to your question, Mr. Murphy, parliamentary privilege, and all that that is about, is constitutional in nature. The Conflict of Interest Act is a mere statute. If there are remedies available to a person, a minister, a parliamentary secretary, or a member with respect to provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act, and those remedies are found in parliamentary privilege, they will argue parliamentary privilege has a priority set of laws because it's constitutional in nature, whereas the Conflict of Interest Act is merely a statute.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The two can live together, but there is a priority; there is a hierarchy, and the constitutional prevails over the statutory.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm concerned by some comments made earlier that since there haven't been many instances of a problem under section 463, there is therefore nothing to be concerned about. As far as that goes, that's true. Again, some may feel I'm overstating the case, but I would like members of this committee to consider what their reaction would be to this bill, and I'm going through a hypothetical just because I don't want to get into the debate about this bill.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes, when a member of the public sits in front of a committee, as I am here now, they enjoy all the protections of that committee meeting. It's a proceeding of the House and they are fully protected. We had to very quickly move to protect that rule when the Gomery commission wanted to use evidence of a witness before the public accounts committee in those proceedings, and we were successful.