Mr. Speaker, the incident that I believe the leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday brought forward and myself again today relates to a personal attack that was launched by the parliamentary secretary during the emergency debate on livestock on February 13 in the House. You can refer to that debate and see the remarks.
I have in my hand, and I would be willing to table it, a letter that is directed to the parliamentary secretary, signed by Stewart Wells, president of the National Farmers Union. He states clearly:
I am writing regarding a personal attack that you launched against me during an emergency debate on "livestock" on February 13, 2008 in the House of Commons.
You are hiding behind your parliamentary immunity by attacking me in the House of Commons, where I cannot defend myself nor can I find a remedy for your defamation through the courts. Your comments in the House of Commons are unacceptable and a disgrace to you and your party.
You have deliberately implied—
This is the meat of the evidence, Mr. Speaker:
—to the House of Commons that you know how I market my grain through the Canadian Wheat Board. The only way you could have any knowledge of my personal business dealings is if you have been abusing your powers and investigating my transactions with the Canadian Wheat Board.
On the parliamentary secretary's point that he just raised, the minister yesterday, in response to the question by the leader of the NDP, said that this information was requested from the board.
Therefore, this is a serious matter of commercial confidentiality coming from the board that the member released in the House.
Mr. Wells goes on further to say:
Have you been abusing your office as Parliamentary Secretary and investigating my personal business transactions with the Canadian Wheat Board? Either you have intimate knowledge of my business dealings with the Canadian Wheat Board, or you are lying to the House of Commons when you pretend to know how I market my grain-which is it?
I will conclude by the request that Mr. Wells made, directed to the parliamentary secretary, when he said:
Do you have the integrity required to stand in the House of Commons and apologize to your colleagues and then make a further apology to me for your unsubstantiated, defamatory, and incorrect remarks?
That relates to the point of order raised. Clearly the member has used confidential commercial information in attacking a constituent in his own riding and a president of a national farm organization.