Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to have the opportunity to explain my motivation for putting this motion forward on May 8.
I believe that an unintended consequence of the Standing Orders conflict of interest codes has been recognized and reported to us by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It is that an unacceptable libel chill has been created among members of Parliament, and if we don't nip this in the bud there will be so many lawsuits flying around here you'll think you're in a snowstorm, believe me. Good people are going to be silenced by strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits. The oldest corporate trick in the book is to silence dissidents or protestors with a SLAPP suit that threatens them with a lawsuit and prevents them from doing their jobs.
I raise this today with the utmost urgency and full knowledge that you would rule this out of order because it is properly before the procedure and House affairs committee. But that committee has been logjammed by a filibuster that has gone on for months and months by the Conservative Party. They've made the procedure and House affairs committee unable to do their job and protect the parliamentary privilege of members of Parliament by making the necessary changes to the standing order.
On this motion I've put forward today, I know the language is kind of legalese, but let me simply say all it does is make it abundantly clear that a member of Parliament is not in a conflict of interest just because they find themselves as a defendant in a libel suit on a matter pertaining to their work in Parliament or in committee.
There would still be exceptions, if a member of Parliament is embroiled in a lawsuit on a piece of real estate or shares he owns in a company, when they would and should be barred from taking part or asking questions. But if it's a matter of the ordinary business of a member of Parliament in the context of their work, you should not be able to be silenced by some vexatious and frivolous SLAPP suit that's clearly designed to shut you up.
I was shocked to learn--and members here would be shocked to learn--that you don't even have to be served papers before you're silenced. All the other party has to do is file the statement of claim, and from that moment on you are barred from making any comment on that subject matter in the House of Commons or at a committee. This is what happened to our colleague Mr. Thibault. No had even served him with notice that a civil suit had been launched against him when, according to Madam Dawson, he was in that situation where he was unable to speak.
So let me simply say we cannot let this continue. I believe it is clear that the motion urges the committee to recommend reporting to Parliament--I hope in the strongest possible terms--that the conflict of interest code as it pertains to members of Parliament has to be amended immediately. I hope we can make a report to that effect to the House of Commons as early as tomorrow. I hope you, Mr. Chairman, can stand up in the House of Commons and explain what an impossible situation we find ourselves in here. Believe me, if it can happen to Mr. Thibault, it can happen to you or you.
For instance, if I were to criticize one of the big drug companies and accuse them of gouging because they were extending their drug patent laws, and one of them slapped a frivolous lawsuit at me saying that I had been speaking untruths about their company, that would prohibit me from asking any questions about that industry sector in the House of Commons until the suit was settled. That could be 18 months down the road, or at the end of this Parliament. That would put me in the terrible situation of possibly losing my home trying to defend myself in a frivolous lawsuit, because not all lawsuits are picked up and covered by the Board of Internal Economy.
We have to protect ourselves from this situation. If this motion I put forward today gets passed, I believe the Board of Internal Economy would be more likely to support members of Parliament with their legal costs, should such a scenario happen. I know one of my colleagues here today finds himself in that situation and may want to add some comments as well.
Colleagues, we can do this quickly. We have witnesses here waiting, and this shouldn't take more than a few minutes. You either agree or you disagree with this fundamental change to the Standing Orders and the conflict of interest codes for members of Parliament, to make it abundantly clear that we are not in a conflict of interest just because somebody slaps us with a lawsuit in a matter pertaining to our ordinary business as a member of Parliament.
Thank you.