Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
Before we move into debate on this, I have a ruling on the admissibility of this motion. I am going to rule it out of order. Mr. Comartin, you know that each parliamentary committee works within its individual mandate as provided by the Standing Orders of the House. The mandate of the justice committee is laid out in Standing Order 108(2), and that Standing Order states as follows:
The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), 3(f), 3(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House.
In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on: (a) the statute law relating to the department assigned to them; (b) the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness in the implementation of same; (c) the immediate, medium, and long-term expenditure plans and the effectiveness of implementation of same by the department; (d) an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives; and (e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.
I also wanted to quote from O'Brien and Bosc. You'll find this on page 1054:
Generally, the rules governing the admissibility of motions in the House of Commons apply in the same manner to parliamentary committees. For example, a motion should not contain offensive or unparliamentary language. As in the House, the use of a preamble in a motion in committee is not recommended. A committee has the means to explain the motions it adopts in the body of the report it presents to the House, if such explanation is needed. Furthermore, motions moved in committee must not go beyond the committee's mandate or infringe upon the prerogative of the Crown relating to the appropriation of public revenues.
I note that this motion calls on the committee to conduct a study into the alleged actions of one individual in relation to one specific case. Standing Order 108(2) does not list, as part of the mandate, a study of a specific case involving a specific individual.
I also note that this committee has not been called upon to act as a second trier of fact or to be an appeal tribunal or a court of appeal.
I also note that the matter and the case Mr. Comartin refers to was disposed of by the court in Ontario, and the Ontario Attorney General has actually made a statement, which stands on its own. My suggestion is that the appropriate way of dealing with this particular case is for Mr. Comartin to refer all further inquiries to the Attorney General's office in Ontario.
Again, I note that while this committee is fully able to undertake studies into matters concerning the Criminal Code or policy matters within the Department of Justice, it does not examine or make attempts to determine facts in individual cases. If the motion were crafted in a way that was a much broader study of, say, prosecutorial discretion or, say, plea bargaining, it might be in order. In this case, I have to rule that the motion, as currently written, is inadmissible, because it exceeds the mandate of this committee.