Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I have to say that I'm shocked and saddened that Mr. Comartin, who I understand is an esteemed counsel with the bar of Ontario, would bring forward this motion. He well knows that it is inappropriate to compel a prosecutor to reveal the facts of a case like this. He knows that, and he is doing it for partisan political reasons, and everyone in Canada knows that's the reason this motion is being debated here. Every member of the opposition knows that too. They're all trained lawyers, I believe, and they all understand that the presumption of innocence applies to everyone who stands before the criminal justice system in Canada. If I were a cynical person, I'd ask Mr. Comartin to add the words that the committee conduct two days of hearings on the “cases of Mr. Rahim Jaffer and Mr. Svend Robinson”. We could maybe examine that. Perhaps we could throw in—if I were a cynical person—a few dozen other former members of Parliament in all parties. Maybe we could do that, but I'm not asking to, because I don't think that's what we ought to be doing here.
The Attorney General of Ontario gave a very clear answer on this case. He said:
In this case, the Crown stated the basis for the withdrawal of charges in Court; namely, that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction because there were issues relating to the admissibility of evidence that was available.
That is what was put before the judge in the presence of defence counsel when the charges were withdrawn. The prosecuting crown has the duty to make such assessments and is in the best position to do so based on all the facts available. Where there is no reasonable prospect of conviction, the presumption of innocence and basic considerations to the accused limit the ability to comment on the case. As a matter of justice, it is important that this principle apply to all accused, regardless of their name or office. The chief crown prosecutor for the province has reviewed the case and is entirely confident that the crown acted properly and in keeping with the proper administration of justice.
In my view, that should be the end of this matter. Everyone is entitled to the right of presumption of innocence. It is the basic fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system. If this committee chooses to go forward with this study, in my view it's simply saying to the people of Canada that the presumption of innocence does not apply to everyone and that we will do anything we wish for partisan political gain.
As I said earlier, once the crown prosecutor has decided that there isn't sufficient evidence to convict, that's the end of the matter; it's as if the criminal charges never existed. It's the crown prosecutor's job to decide if there's a reasonable prospect of conviction. They do that every day, as you know. Every day they put to the courts--