Let me say first of all, particularly to the Conservatives, and this is not partisan on my part—Mr. Dechert, listen to me—if you had followed the position I took on the Cadman affair, when a similar motion was brought forward, and supported by both the Liberals and the Bloc at that time, I took the opposite position because that was going to put this committee in a position to conduct a criminal investigation. That was the only way you could describe that. And I stood by that position, I supported your chair at the time and the position he took. If I was partisan at all on these issues, I would have taken the opposite position at that time.
With regard to the comments about Svend Robinson, I think that's quite frankly below you. If you understood that case, the charge against him was the charge that he pleaded guilty to. There was no suggestion in the country that he was treated favourably at all.
Let me finish with the point that Mr. Lemay made in his comments, and the ones Mr. Ménard made as well.
I understand the implications here of crossing that line, in terms of the sovereignty, the autonomy, of the provinces in the administration of justice. I think I've set out sufficient reasons to say it doesn't exclusively apply here and that we should take that risk because of the notoriety of the case and the undermining of credibility and the integrity of the system in the public's mind, but I want to make this final point.
Mr. Lemay points out—and, again, I don't think, Mr. Dechert, you caught this—this isn't an issue of presumption of innocence, and there are rare cases when prosecutors, sometimes the attorneys general on their behalf, do come forward in circumstances like this and give explanations. This is not completely unheard of. It's rare, I admit that, but this is one of the circumstances where that rarity should be applied, and we should do it.
Thank you.