Evidence of meeting #111 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was identification.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Were you present for the deposition of any of the witnesses in the robocall investigation?
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
It's a matter of public record. I believe investigator Matthews testified to that during the trial.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
The Conservative Party wasn't under suspicion, so I was not there—
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
We had witnesses and, as I told you, the Prime Minister's directive was clear and I supported that directive.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
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?
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Did any of the witnesses you assisted in finding provide very similar testimony that was later discredited?
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
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?
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
I don't remember that piece of transcript, no.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
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?
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
I can't speak to that. I would not have been involved in that strategy by the crown.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
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?
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
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.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
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?
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
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.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Do you oppose these powers being given to the elections commissioner?
6:20 p.m.
Lawyer, Conservative Party of Canada
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.