Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I had the occasion to speak with the Ethics Commissioner, and I was shocked, frankly, after having the conversation with her, to hear just how dangerous this ruling is and the extent to which this precedent is one that must be expunged immediately. I'll give you a few examples that I ran through with the Ethics Commissioner.
It was said by Mr. Hiebert a second ago that you can make general statements about an industry, but not specific ones about a company. Now, you can imagine, when we were dealing with Taser International—and I'm not saying anything for or against Taser International, but it certainly was a big issue before Parliament—if a member of Parliament had expressed concerns about Taser's technology or practices, they could simply launch a lawsuit that would cost them, by the way, just $1,000, and you wouldn't be able to say anything else.
I think all of us know, as members of Parliament, that in conducting our business it is imperative that we don't just speak in committee and in the House, but we also speak out of the House, to reporters or to our constituents, whatever the case may be. That's a continuum that occurs. If you're going to say something in the House, you're going to get asked about it outside the House. And what are we supposed to say? That our role as members of Parliament is now limited to saying things only in the House lest we be terrified by a lawsuit that's costing somebody only $1,000 to drop on us to totally silence us? I think all of us, as parliamentarians, need to take a pause here and to think about the serious ramifications of this.
Look, the government members were in opposition for a long period of time. They asked some tough questions, tough questions that I may have thought inappropriate or thought crossed the line or didn't like, of a minister or of a particular individual within government. But the idea that after a member is getting successful, maybe after a year of working on a file, putting in all of that time and effort, all you'd have to do to silence them, to shut them up, would be to spend $1,000 and initiate a lawsuit, send a letter--you don't even need to take them to court. After you file your statement of defence you can let the thing drag out as long as you want, for up to two years. So with minimal expense you can shut people down for two years, and just start going through the list. And why not?
I don't think we should look at this on the basis of Mr. Thibault, or even me, being in a similar circumstance. Ask the question about what the precedent is that's established here, and where it's going. And yes, absolutely, we as parliamentarians should at the first opportunity decry this, say that this is outrageous, it impedes our ability as parliamentarians to do our job and attacks our very democracy. Because if you say that parliamentarians are not able to ask legitimate questions, questions of importance of the day, simply because somebody has brought a frivolous or vexatious lawsuit, or maybe even a lawsuit that turns out to carry.... The courts determine that. But to shut us down....
I think we should all be jumping at the first opportunity to send something before Parliament to change this to ensure that doesn't occur, because it scares the heck out of me, and frankly, it should scare the heck out of us all.