That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
But there are a number of other legal issues that could arise, and that's why I hesitate to comment specifically on the circumstances here, because there could be circumstances of an exonerating nature that apply and could be overlooked in any comment I might make about the possible application of this act, or the committing of an offence by any member of this committee under that act. So, in fairness to those individuals, I'm just not going to go there, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman. They are entitled to their own private legal advice as to what their position might be, and they may want to do that. But there are other aspects of this letter I can return to later, perhaps, if these are of interest to members of the committee.
The legal status of evidence taken is that of protected testimony. This was affirmed by the Federal Court yesterday—but only in respect of the internal disciplinary proceedings the RCMP is undertaking with regard to the applicant, Deputy Commissioner Barbara George.
The reason the court had jurisdiction there is that it's covered by statute. The Federal Court is a creature of statute. It derives its authority—its jurisdiction—by virtue of statutory provisions giving it jurisdiction. If it doesn't have its jurisdiction found in a statute it doesn't have what we lawyers call original jurisdiction, as the superior courts in the provinces would have.
The result is that the court found it had jurisdiction with respect to the proceedings pertaining to internal discipline, because those are carried out under the regulations of the RCMP Act, but it did not have jurisdiction with regard to the criminal investigation, because those proceedings are not carried out under any statute as such. They're carried out under the general common law power of police to investigate allegations of criminal offences.
The Federal Court affirmed that the testimony of the witness to this committee was not available for purposes of that internal disciplinary investigation. The court did not order the investigation. It couldn't go ahead; it can't use testimony to this committee. To the extent it relies on testimony to this committee—which seems, frankly, to be central to that proceeding—the proceeding cannot go forward.
The history of swearing in of witnesses—