The term “conflict of interest”, Mr. Chairman, is used in a variety of contexts. One of those contexts is the code of conflict of interest for members of Parliament. That, however, deals with private interests, as against the larger public interest. A lawsuit, as such, isn't a private interest in the sense that the code contemplates members having private interests. However, is there some other kind of conflict of interest here? Obviously, members who are in lawsuits have a keen interest in that lawsuit and its eventual outcome. But I don't know that it's an interest of a kind that causes the member to be disqualified from participating in the proceedings of this committee, although it may be something that some members might think warrants some constraint or restraint by the member, given that the other side of the lawsuit is participating in the same proceeding.
There is the sub judice rule, which is a practice of the House. It's not a rule, as such, but it's a well-established practice of the House that members in debates or proceedings such as this do not comment on matters that are pending before the courts. That's out of respect to the judicial function so that it is afforded ample opportunity to consider those issues without any seeming interference by the legislative branch. Having said that, this is not to say that a member of Parliament who finds himself met with a lawsuit is thereby disqualified from participating in debates or proceedings pertaining to matters that relate to the subject matter of that lawsuit.
Fundamentally, the bottom line—sorry it takes so long—is that it's a matter of personal judgment and perhaps the personal preference of the committee as to whether this particular lawsuit warrants any intervention by the committee to the member.