Mr. Chair, first, I would like to apologize for being late. I was at a meeting attended by officials from the department of international trade. It involved a file dealing with the export of lumber, which is a very important issue in my riding. I will apologize to the minister personally when I see him.
That said, I wanted to take part in the debate on this motion. I was a defence lawyer for 30 years. When a crown prosecutor decided not to lay charges, we would rarely meet with him to ask him to explain his decision. Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleagues who do not share my opinion, I think that the legal system needs to remain independent from the political system. And we are underscoring the importance of that independence by opposing this motion.
The way I see it, it would be very dangerous to accept this motion as it would throw into question the judicial discretion of a sworn officer of the court. And that is what is going on here. Before examining a case, crown prosecutors take an oath to protect and defend the public within the context of that case. That is a crown prosecutor's job.
As my colleague, Mr. Ménard, so eloquently articulated, it is clear to us that accepting this motion would go against the important principle of the division of powers between the judicial branch and the political one.
Here, we make decisions on amendments to the Criminal Code, we learn about the effects those amendments will have, and we seek out the opinions of those who will have to deal with the Criminal Code as amended. However, I think that if we allow ourselves to call prosecutors as witnesses in order to ask them why they interpreted certain sections in such and such a way and did not lay charges, we would be interfering. We would become the judge and the defendant.
Mr. Chair, with all due respect for opposing opinions, I think that we should vote on this motion and reject it. I understand what my colleague, Mr. Comartin, is trying to do, but I do not think this is the place for that kind of debate.