I appreciate your comments regarding the Clerk. I think, unfortunately, the message of the Clerk was somewhat garbled in the media to the effect that somehow the time this committee would spend looking into this matter would be a waste of time. I simply wanted to bring that issue forward to say that if, in fact, this committee determines who is criminally responsible for certain actions, that could well be not the best utilization of this committee's time. I think there are better things.
That's why I said that a focus on how this type of intimidation impacts on individual members is a study that is worthwhile for the committee to look at, given the growing utilization of the Internet and other electronic means of communication. I'm glad you brought that forward. I think that in its proper context, the Clerk's comments were....
We should be mindful of the proper role of this committee. We should be careful not to stray into areas where the committee does not have expertise or jurisdiction.
Similarly, Mr. Comartin, in respect to what exact charges could be laid, I can only point at this time to what is publicly known, and that is the issue of the clear intimidation on the YouTube video. In my experience as a prosecutor, had that type of comment been made by a specific individual, there would be charges under the Criminal Code relating to intimidation or extortion.