I always come back to the Dykstra case, because I want to understand. I have the code here in front of me and subsection 10(1) states the following: “A Member shall not use information obtained in his or her position as a Member that is not generally available to the public to further the Member's private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person's or entity's private interests.”
The idea of holding a fundraising event appears to have originated during a conversation between Mr. Dykstra and Ms. Bonnell at a downtown Ottawa restaurant in early spring 2009. Mr. Dykstra and Ms. Bonnell happened to bump into each other while they dined at the restaurant. Your report was clear, the suite was not available, it was not advertised as being available on the website and the member used information obtained in his position as a member. He met with Ms. Bonnell, a lobbyist, and asked her—it doesn't matter who brought the subject up—if the suite was available. The information was obtained in the course of his position as an MP. In light of subsection 10(1), I have a bit of a problem with your finding.
Regarding the Dykstra ruling, did you examine subsection 10(1) which stipulates that a member shall not use information that he or she has obtained? This was, after all, information obtained in his position as a member. He met with a registered lobbyist in a restaurant and inquired—it doesn't matter who raised the issue—whether the suite was available. Your finding does not sit well with me because it will surely be viewed as a precedent. You cannot reverse your findings. What this means is that anyone will be able to hold a fundraising event in a suite at the Bell Centre, in the owner's suite that is not available.