Mr. Chair, the sub judice rule exists, but it does not apply here because the matter is not before the courts. Even if it were, the rule is very clear: it does not prevent the government from looking into a matter. It must simply be careful in the way it proceeds.
I am very familiar with the sub judice rule. In this case, I am absolutely convinced that it does not apply. A procedural clerk or some other authority on procedure could quickly confirm that for us. That is the first point.
The second point is that the motion as worded causes me some difficulty. First, if we want to speak to an institution, we do not need to speak to the president of that institution; we could speak to its representatives. Second, we have to tread carefully. I cannot support a motion whose object is to investigate a particular case. But I feel that it is legitimate to seek an understanding of policies that deal with how people employed by the CBC can interact with members of Parliament.
I have a compromise suggestion. For the moment, we would ask our research staff to gather information on the CBC and to prepare a quite detailed report on the rules that apply to the present problem. When we receive that report, we will be able to decide if we want to call the CBC to clear up any matters.
At this stage, I do not have enough information. The information can be gathered. I suggest that we seriously consider this approach. It would not prevent us from calling the CBC later, but we would do so with more information than we presently have.
That is my suggestion and I hope that it will be given due consideration.