Madam Speaker, I think that two issues are being conflated here. The separation of the executive, judiciary and legislative functions is less formalized here than it is under the United States Constitution. People often regard these as being much more systematic silos here than they actually are. What I think is really going on here, to the extent that it is legitimate, is an issue of what we would call the sub judice convention. This is the idea that when a matter is before the courts, it ought not to be discussed here. That is a convention. It is not a hard and fast rule of law.
None of this stuff is actually before the courts now or before the courts yet. The RCMP might choose to lay charges at some point. The thing about this right now is that the motion calls for these documents to be submitted to the House of Commons, not for the purpose of making them public but for the purpose of having them go directly to the law clerk.
Once they were in the hands of the law clerk, there would be about 30 days for the law clerk to go through them and determine what should be released to the RCMP. I believe that is what the motion states. The RCMP would be in a position to co-operate with the law clerk to confirm that, yes, this should be excluded or, no, that should not. This would be based upon the investigatory parameters that they are going to face and the restrictions that might be placed on wrongly obtained evidence being used in a trial. That can only happen if the materials are submitted. Withholding them is depriving the law clerk and the RCMP of their ability to do their job.