Mr. Speaker, page 221 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , describes that:
A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee--
What we have here with respect to the sponsorship program is a scandal and a cover-up, a cover-up that no one denies exists.
We also have the Auditor General reporting that misleading information involving the sponsorship program was provided to Parliament.
A cover-up involves deceit. On page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May, it is stated:
Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
It is not inconceivable that the people involved in the sponsorship program scandal were deceitful and knowingly provided misleading information to someone in the department who, knowingly or unknowingly, provided that information to Parliament.
It is not important at this phase to conclude that a minister knew or did not know. As with the case of the RCMP precedent, it was sufficient to argue that someone along the line provided misleading information deliberately.
No one can argue that there is sufficient cause to believe that the people involved in this scandal and the cover-up of the scandal would deliberately provide misleading information about their activities.
Under the circumstances, I would argue that the evidence on its face is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to committee.