Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my comments to my friend, who is a former RCMP officer. In particular, I want to direct his attention to a letter by Mike Duheme, the RCMP commissioner. I am going to work on the assumption that, as a police officer and a member of this chamber, he wishes to see justice, with the perpetrators of this alleged crime brought to court and successfully prosecuted. However, Commissioner Duheme indicates in his letter that proceeding in the manner in which the hon. member wishes would taint the evidence and effectively destroy whatever possibility there is of obtaining a prosecution.
He stated:
The RCMP has also reviewed the implications of the Motion in a potential criminal investigation. Before taking any investigative steps...the RCMP must comply with...legal standards [of] investigation or prosecution.... For the reasons set out above, the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act…give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the Motion where privacy interests [exist] could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation.
In other words, if this motion proceeds in the way the hon. member wishes it to do, there is no chance—