You might be upset, Mr. Martin, about what the procedure and House affairs committee is doing with their agenda, but we can't simply take over that responsibility, whether we want to or not.
Let's talk about the substance of this matter for just a moment. What are we talking about? We're talking about a change to the Standing Orders that would provide additional power to members of Parliament to beat up on individuals who are perhaps rightfully suing them for libel. We're not talking about some hypothetical situation. We're talking about situations in which somebody has said something very offensive and very egregious outside of parliamentary privilege. We're not talking about what happens in committee. We're not talking about what happens in the House of Commons. We're talking about some other statement that was made outside of parliamentary privilege that has offended somebody to the degree that they are willing to take it to court.
First of all, we know there is no real history of this happening. These kinds of suits are rare. They are the exception to the rule.
Second, there are counter-measures that a member of Parliament can use. They can counter-sue if they think it's frivolous. A judge might rule a case completely out of order and force the frivolous plaintiff to cover the costs of the defendant. There are all kinds of natural consequences that prevent these kinds of frivolous things from happening, which is why we don't have a history of this happening. This is very rare.
In addition to that, let's contemplate what consequence this ruling might have had on our very committee had the Ethics Commissioner ruled in advance of our completing our duties. What would that have meant? It would have meant that Mr. Thibault would have been prevented from asking questions on an individual who had him in a lawsuit.
Does that mean Mr. Thibault is not allowed to do his job as a member of Parliament? Of course not. There are any number of Liberals who would have taken his place, and in fact many did during our hearings of Mr. Mulroney. Substitute Liberals came in and asked the tough questions. There was no limitation on the type or thoroughness of our investigation at that time. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Mr. Thibault does not speak as the sole person for the Liberal Party. Other members can do the same. As we see here, other members are taking the place of normal members as well. There's no impact on our committee's work.
In terms of his parliamentary work, he can go about participating in debates, voting, if he would choose to--which I won't go into--on any number of issues as a representative of his constituents. The only thing he's prevented from doing is raising a particular issue about a particular individual in this committee, and only for the duration of the lawsuit. It's hardly menacing, and it's hardly a constraint on his function as a member of Parliament.
Mr. Martin asked what would happen if a drug company wanted to sue him--would that not prevent him from speaking about these issues? Of course it wouldn't, because the code of conduct has a rule of general application that says that laws of general application are exempt. If it's a law of general application, it applies not just to Mr. Martin, but to all Canadians or to a large population, and he can continue to ask those questions. I would invite him to review the code of conduct more thoroughly. There's no constraint on him asking questions of a general nature about drug company pricing or anything like that. He would be prevented from asking questions of a specific drug company if they were related to the lawsuit he's engaged in.
So there's no limitation here on dealing with the substantive issues in question. What he's proposing is providing a bully pulpit for members of Parliament to attack their litigious plaintiffs, which I think is unjustified. I don't think Canadians want members of Parliament to be able to throw stones from behind the wall without facing the consequences like every other ordinary Canadian, and that's exactly what he is proposing.
I think it's ironic that the opposition is attempting to rewrite this code. I think we all recognize that the code's place is to prevent members of Parliament from using their public office to perpetuate or benefit their private interest. I think the ethics ruling is correct, that when somebody faces litigation, it's tantamount to a liability, and if an individual can have an influence on an outcome of a case, certainly that's an advantage they have that an ordinary Canadian doesn't.
So I think in terms of procedure it's out of order. It's ludicrous that we're considering it. In terms of substance, I think it's not appropriate, and I would ask this committee to simply put this issue aside and let us get back to our work.