It just simply dies. Thank you very much.
Now, on the issue, first of all I have to take some exception to Mr. Zed's language. I'm sure he didn't mean it on purpose, but the Ethics Commissioner did not interfere in this case. The Ethics Commissioner was asked to review the law as it stands now in the Standing Orders, based on the information she provided, based on an inquiry from another member of Parliament who happens to be with us here today. She did a professional job in reporting back on the law as it stands today. I do not call that interference, and I think that was a poor representation of the commissioner doing her job. I'm sure he didn't mean it that way, but that's the way it could have come across.
That being said, I am not going to support the motion as it comes forward. I've been listening to the conversation here. I think there are limits. Just because you're a member of Parliament doesn't mean you can be libellous of somebody. It doesn't give you that right. In my view, this has that opportunity. For a wild example—and this is obviously a wild example—what if somebody is libelling me as a cheat and a liar from across the way? Based on the law now that if I can prove and have proof, I guess, that it is not correct that I've stolen money from a bank or whatever it is, I have the right as a Canadian to take that person to court. If they happen to be a parliamentarian who says that about me, based on this change they can continue to say this as long as they want, as far as I can see. I'm not positive about that, but I don't see where there are some limitations.
There should be limitations on all Canadians, including parliamentarians, on what they can say about individuals or organizations. Just because you got elected should not exempt you from all pecuniary interest you have on this. This could do that. The ruling from the Ethics Commissioner isn't whether he had the right or not to say that to the individual, but it was a pecuniary interest they had because they would have to pay out and it affected their pocketbook based on the lawsuit. It was the lawsuit that drew the pecuniary interest, the financial implication to the individual.
I'm concerned that if we give a carte blanche to anybody to say anything they want in any forum, as long as they're a member of Parliament, it's a very dangerous precedent for us to set. I'm not in favour of this change. I think we have lots.... I was surprised, as a new member of Parliament, how much immunity we have to say whatever we want in committee and in the House of Commons. That immunity should not continue on outside, whether you are talking to your friends at CBC or CTV or Global. There have to be some limits to it.
The fact of the matter in the particular case that's in front of us is that Mr. Thibault spoke outside the realm where he has protection as a member of Parliament, which we all share, and that's what got him into trouble--not what he was saying in the House, not what he was saying in committee, but what he was saying to the television cameras and print reporters. That's how they were able to bring that action against him.
I think we have a tremendous amount of protection as members of Parliament to speak on behalf of our constituents, both in the House and at committee. But there still needs to be a line drawn for what we can say in public, to the press, at public meetings, or wherever it might be. I think the law as it stands now protects not only the member of Parliament but also those who might be damaged by those comments. So I will not be supporting the motion that's in front of us.