Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm certainly struggling with this motion. I have great respect for Mr. Comartin and for what he stands for, normally. But I can't help thinking, after having assessed this motion, that this motion has very little to do with policy and quite a bit to do with politics.
I'm saddened, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, that the members of this committee saw fit to overrule your ruling that this motion was out of order. The mandate of this committee is set out, and it appears to me that this proposed study doesn't fit with any of the five provisions of what this committee is mandated to do.
I said I'm torn because as much as I think all members of this committee, and certainly myself, want to see the administration of justice not brought into disrepute--and I have every confidence that if this motion is successful and if we go down this road, at the end of the day we will come to that determination--nothing untoward occurred that would bring, to use the words of the preamble, the “loss of faith in the integrity of the criminal justice system”. I'm confident that if we go down this road, my and the public's confidence in the administration of justice will be maintained.
But I do have one concern that I want to share with the members of this committee before they cast their votes, and that's the convention of sub judice. With this specific case, I don't know the exact date of the disposition, but I know it was in the month of March. I'm not a practising lawyer in Ontario, but if the appeal rules are anything similar to Alberta, there would be a 30-day appeal period, and I would think this committee would want to exercise caution in assessing a matter that is still before the courts of Ontario.
Those are my comments, Mr. Chair.