Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Proulx has indicated how he intends to vote on the subamendment, the amendment, and the motion. I can tell you, I'm going to be voting against the motion, but the principles that have been put forward by Mr. Van Kesteren and the principles that have been put forward by me I support. This may sound contradictory. It's a difficult issue when you can support an amendment and a subamendment but not the main motion, but that's the way it goes.
Mr. Proulx mentioned other investigations, and he talked about a criminal investigation by the RCMP and raiding the offices of the Conservative Party of Canada. That fits into a little bit of what I'd like to talk about with respect to the matters that are before us.
There is an investigation by Elections Canada, which is how, of course, the RCMP made its investigation. There is a lawsuit by the Conservative Party of Canada against Elections Canada. For all we know—and we don't know unless someone admits that they've made a request—there may well be an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner on this matter. She's not supposed to tell us if she is having an investigation on some request for an ethical matter, allegations against a public office holder. She's not supposed to do that. I suppose it's free for a member who made the request to do it, although he or she is taking a chance on doing that, but it's possible.
Without blinking an eye, I can see three real investigations that are under way and one potential investigation. That's one of several reasons I am opposed to the initial resolution brought by Mr. Hubbard.
Now, I know, Mr. Chairman, I'm probably skating on thin ice, that you want me to speak directly to the subamendment, but all these other comments were made by their members, and I think it's fair that I respond to those who were responding to my subamendment.
I'd like to talk about that, because I remember when the Conservative Party was in opposition and we were asking questions of the Liberal Party on the scandal. One of the answers was, “Well, let Mr. Gomery do his work.” The former minister stood up day after day—he did a great job, I'll have to say—and he had the script down pretty good. Of course, we were asking him a lot of questions, but he kept saying, “Let Mr. Gomery do his work.”
The member from Nova Scotia, the former minister, Mr. Brison, would make those comments, and of course what he was referring to was the issue of the fear of prejudicing the Gomery proceedings, that the House in dealing with those issues would prejudice the Gomery proceedings. In other words, would there be harm or injury as a result of the House of Commons discussing, either in question period or in some resolution, what Mr. Gomery was doing in his inquiry?
The Liberal government of the day refused to answer those types of questions, generally specific questions, because they were afraid it was going to prejudice the Gomery proceedings. So I think it's fair for us to look at these proceedings and determine whether or not....
I know, Mr. Chairman, you've said this motion deals with the ethical standards expected of public office holders, and that's different. Well, you can make a pretty good argument that it's not different, and I intend to make what I hope is a pretty good argument that it's not different.
It's true that the courts, whether in the civil proceedings of the Conservative Party of Canada or potentially in criminal investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, may be looking at legal matters, at civil or criminal matters. It has been suggested that we're going to be dealing strictly with ethical matters and ethical standards, but there's no question in my mind that matters will overlap. Matters involving these civil proceedings by the Conservative Party of Canada versus Elections Canada or the criminal investigation--and I don't know whether it's finished or whether they're still under way--by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or proceedings by the Ethics Commissioner will overlap. They're bound to overlap; matters of law will get into the picture.
Presumably we're going to have the Ethics Commissioner here. Quite frankly, I doubt if she'll want to tell us anything, because for all we know, she's going to have an investigation on this matter under way, and it may be an investigation of other parties. It may be an investigation of the Liberal Party. Notwithstanding the presentation made by Mr. Proulx, it may be an investigation of the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois. It could be. We don't know that.