“Parliamentary Privilege Wasn’t Designed to Avoid the Truth”

October 26, 2004

While I haven’t revisited the notorious sponsorship scandal, also known as adscam, in my weekly column for some time, it hasn’t been forgotten. No one can, or should, forget that a couple hundred million dollars of taxpayers’ money either went missing or was spent with little or no value in return.

Stephen Harper and fellow Conservative MPs continue to demand answers from the Liberal government and Prime Minister Paul Martin about his involvement, and that of other cabinet ministers, in the affair. The PM likes to dodge the issue by arguing these questions are to be answered by the judicial inquiry, headed by Commissioner John Gomery. However, now the inquiry’s very ability to do that job may be compromised by Parliament itself.

The trouble surrounds the concept of ‘Parliamentary Privilege’ and whether it will be applied to the Gomery inquiry. Parliamentary Privilege is designed to encourage witnesses to testify freely before Parliamentary Standing Committees without fear of self-incrimination. A parliamentary committee (Public Accounts) conducted hearings and swore a number of witnesses to an oath to investigate the sponsorship scandal. Mr. Gomery’s judicial inquiry is now tasked with exactly the same job six months later.

Even though witnesses were promised “parliamentary privilege” if they came forward at the Public Accounts Committee, ‘privilege’ should never be used as a shield to lie or avoid telling the truth.

Witnesses who’ve appeared so far at the Gomery inquiry have contradicted Alfonso Gagliano’s testimony at the Public Accounts Committee when he stated he had little to do with directing the sponsorship program. If Mr. Gagliano were to appear before Mr. Gomery and contradict his previous committee testimony, parliamentary privilege means there is little Mr. Gomery can do.

More significantly, future witnesses appearing before such a committee will know there is no penalty for either misleading the committee or withholding the truth.

Many will argue, and I agree, that parliament needs some immunity to do its job properly. Debate and free speech can be a messy business. If citizens and elected representatives have to fear legal reprisals for every word uttered within the Parliamentary chambers and committee rooms, there wouldn’t be much room to allow truth and democracy to flourish.

Parliamentary privilege dates back to when the British Parliament was sorting out its rights and relationship with ruling Kings and Queens in the 17th Century. Now, House of Commons lawyers are arguing that the very foundation of our parliament is at risk if the Gomery inquiry is allowed to challenge proceedings that took place before the Public Accounts Committee.

There remains a number of ‘hypothetical’ scenarios surrounding contradictory testimony and the Gomery inquiry. A lot depends upon what Mr. Gagliano, Mr. Martin (if he appears before the inquiry) or other witnesses have to say.

However, the Canadian public cannot be left with any doubt because they believe someone is hiding behind parliamentary privilege. At this point it’s unclear whether the House of Commons would support even a ‘partial waiver’ of this privilege, but in the interests of learning the truth, it should!