On the motion, I, too, have concerns that this is a little too case-specific, and that in this case perhaps there are some discretionary aspects of prosecutorial behaviour that we ought not to delve too deeply into; however, Mr. Comartin's point is extremely well made. The system of justice has depended on public confidence from time immemorial, and public confidence has been eroded. People have questions about how this case, high-profile as it is, was handled.
I would like to support the motion on the basis that we would learn a lot about prosecutorial discretion if we had provincial prosecutors or, more pertinently in this case--because it may have dealt with issues of federal jurisdiction--the Director of Public Prosecutions and DOJ officials in to explain to us how prosecutorial discretion works, how it is that sometimes cases are thrown out, based on weak evidence, based on poor search and seizure techniques, and how all of this happens every day in courtrooms across this country.
So on that basis I support the motion. I don't support the motion to rehash what must have been a very trying time for one of our former colleagues. That's not the issue. The issue is about public confidence in our system and the role that discretion plays every day in our justice system vis-à-vis prosecutors, judges, and, for that matter, defence attorneys.
It's something this government hasn't felt a deep urge to get into in the four years I've been here: that element of discretion, that element of how these things are dealt with every day in the weighing of the likelihood of success with respect to a conviction or a defence. It happens every day, and it's time for this committee to hear that reality. So I'll be supporting the motion.