Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River wants to add the following paragraph to his motion:
“(b.1) consists of being a party to a legal action relating to actions of the Member as a Member of Parliament; or”;
I want members to think about those words.
Was the Mulroney-Schreiber lawsuit a result of the member for West Nova being a member of Parliament? A member of the House could be involved in some personal matter, not as a member of Parliament, a matrimonial matter, for example. He or she could be involved in some matter involving his or her spouse which involves money, support payments, or some other kind of thing. It could be argued both ways, I suppose. This motion would not cover that. In fact, I do not think the motion covers the matter that is before us.
I have a question for the member. Is this really appropriate for the amount of time that we will be spending on this? Should a committee not be reviewing these matters, and listen to the Canadian Bar Association, legal people who know things--