I would certainly oppose this kind of a motion on a couple of grounds, and a procedural one as well, from a point of order.
I don't think we should, as a committee, get into specific files and start looking into an individual's files at a committee level. That's something that would be better left to others. We may instruct, give general directions, and give instruction as to what the policy should be and how they should proceed. I think we should refrain from becoming involved in a specific case. I think that's probably not a good practice for us to use, regardless of the situation. The case, whether it's Mr. Taylor's or someone else's, is just not where we should go.
I think the other part of it is—and Mr. Karygiannis mentioned it himself—that the case is before the courts. I think that while the case is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for us, as parliamentarians, to interfere in that process. I know there's a rule of Parliament and a rule that has been recognized by various parliaments that is called a sub judice rule, which exactly deals with the issue of the matter being before the court.
I looked at Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. We're referring to that. They said,
Rightly, we have absolute privilege for anything that we say in Parliament. The courts cannot interfere with what we say or do in the course of proceedings in Parliament. That absolute privilege must not be abused, and the sub judice rule is a means to prevent abuse. As the joint committee said, “the rule provides that matters awaiting adjudication in a court of law should not be brought forward on motions, debates, questions or supplementary questions...”—