Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 5th, 2018

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Were you present for the deposition of any of the witnesses in the robocall investigation?

[Arthur Hamilton]

It's a matter of public record. I believe investigator Matthews testified to that during the trial.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

What was your objective in being there?

[Arthur Hamilton]

To assist the investigation.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

To assist the investigation or the Conservative Party?

[Arthur Hamilton]

The Conservative Party wasn't under suspicion, so I was not there—

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Then why were you there?

[Arthur Hamilton]

We had witnesses and, as I told you, the Prime Minister's directive was clear and I supported that directive.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If you were there and you were acting as a lawyer for the Conservative Party with witnesses who...anyway, is there no conflict of interest there?

[Arthur Hamilton]

None.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Did any of the witnesses you assisted in finding provide very similar testimony that was later discredited?

[Arthur Hamilton]

That was later discredited?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, in the trial.

[Arthur Hamilton]

No, not that I'm aware of at all.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In the trial, it came out that Michael Sona was overseas at the time that all the witnesses stated that he had come around to talk to them. Is that true?

[Arthur Hamilton]

I don't remember that piece of transcript, no.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Prescott was given an immunity deal for his testimony. Do you have any idea why that might have been necessary?

[Arthur Hamilton]

I can't speak to that. I would not have been involved in that strategy by the crown.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Could the use of compelled testimony have perhaps not required as many deals and perhaps got more truth out of this investigation?

[Arthur Hamilton]

I don't think so, because you're into the same problem where you're going to butt up against the right of a party to remain silent as guaranteed by the charter. I don't see how a piece of legislation without notwithstanding clause-type language in it would overcome that charter value.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Do you believe it's in the interest of democracy to allow the commissioner to have any power to compel or is it against [Inaudible—Editor] mostly for that?

[Arthur Hamilton]

I think the power to compel probably is back to the “horse is already out of the barn” problem. I would suggest that this Parliament spend more time preventing the harm in the first place. You've heard my statement on third parties and the harm that that represents. That's where our efforts should be focused, because then you're not butting up against charter rights. We're all talking about the integrity of the vote, as opposed to effectively coming in to clean up the mess after it has already been made.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Do you oppose these powers being given to the elections commissioner?

[Arthur Hamilton]

I just think they're going to have their limits. If someone's holding this out as the panacea that's going to fix everything, it's not, and that's one more of the holes that I've made reference to.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you. My time is up.