Mr. LeBlanc actually aroused an interest in me to partake in this discussion. It was a comment that he made about getting back to the business that this justice and human rights committee is supposed to be doing. I think it's probably the most salient point he's made in the last four meetings during which we've tried to work through this.
With all due respect, I would like to remind him that it's very clear that the motion that he has moved has nothing whatsoever to do, through you, Mr. Chair, with the work and the responsibilities of the justice and human rights committee.
It's pretty clear that if his suggestion is--and in fact if he's prepared to move a motion--to get back to the work and the efforts that this committee was doing prior to the introduction of a motion that at the ethics committee was actually turned down by a colleague of his who chairs that committee and who actually said that the motion was out of order there.... It arrived here at the justice committee not because it was changed, not because it was corrected, not because it was made to fit the confines and responsibilities that we have as a committee, but simply as the exact same motion that ended up not being heard at the ethics committee.
Perhaps it's debate, Mr. Lee, but I don't think so, because what Mr. LeBlanc suggested was that we get back to the business of the committee. All I'm doing is taking his comments and expanding on them a little bit in terms of what our responsibilities are at this committee.
In fact it's very clear. The motion proposes that this committee conduct a study to determine the facts of a particular case. While this committee is fully able to undertake studies into matters concerning the Criminal Code, it does not have the authority to examine particular cases or make attempts to determine facts or investigate the conduct of a particular individual or individuals.
It can't be any clearer. It is the ruling of the chair. It is the ruling of the chair here at the justice committee. It is the ruling of the chair at the ethics committee. It is the exact same ruling.