Debates of June 5th, 2008

Opposition Motion — Conflict of Interest Code

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary and find his logic just a bit inconsistent.

In my 11 years of being in the House of Commons, the Standing Orders have changed from time to time. I have to tell the House and Canadians who are watching on television that I venerate this institution and I do not think changes should be made lightly.

However, there is no doubt that from time to time Standing Orders change. As a matter of fact, the Standing Orders were changed substantially when there was a Liberal minority government. The opposition members at the time, and the member's party was then in opposition, were very enthusiastic about changing some of the parameters around opposition days and what was votable.

Those changes seemed to be a success and have been made permanent. However, any change to the Standing Orders, regardless of the venue through which it flows, must come back to the House for a vote, an expression of the will of the House of Commons.

I find a disconnect in his logic. He argues that this is not the place where the debate should happen or where the vote should take place. In essence, this is where the House expresses its will, no matter in what avenue this change is brought to the House. Our motion does support the Ethics Commissioner in her decision, in which she asked for clarity around this. This is an appropriate motion and this is the place where we should be debating and voting on it.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the experience of my colleague, who has been here for 11 years. Like her, I am not against change. On the contrary, things change and so do the rules of procedure. I am a lawyer by training, and I know that law and procedure must be based in reality. There is no doubt about that.

However, my friend says that my logic may not be consistent. What I am saying is that we have to look at the big picture. What we are talking about is the fact that the commissioner issued an opinion and made a decision concerning the matter involving the member for West Nova. Now, we are talking about changing the rules and referring the matter back to the commissioner.

This raises a question. A highly partisan motion, if I may say so, has been introduced, relating to an item that is in the news. A private lawsuit is involved. What we are saying is that we need to look at this more closely and discuss it in a much healthier and more neutral setting.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this point today. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

I am speaking in support of this motion sponsored by my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. This is a very important motion. As a matter of fact, it is fundamental to how we operate as members in the House of Commons.

There are several objectives in this motion.

First, it affirms the confidence of the House in the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. I think that is fundamental to this motion. This in no way says that we disagree with the commissioner. As a matter of fact, I was very impressed with my colleague when he stood up to say that he did accept the ruling of the commissioner.

Second, it amends the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House, which is an appendix to our Standing Orders. Our Standing Orders are basically the rule book under which this House and committees operate.

Third, it refers an inquiry report that concerns specifically my colleague, the member for West Nova, and which was tabled in the House on May 7, 2008, back to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for reconsideration in light of the amendment we are considering today.

Finally, the motion calls upon the House to reaffirm all of its well-established privileges and immunities, especially with regard to the freedom of speech. It is this privilege in particular, the freedom of speech, on which I want to concentrate my remarks today.

Parliamentary privilege is defined in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 50. It states:

--the rights and immunities that are deemed necessary for the House of Commons, as an institution, and its Members, as representatives of the electorate, to fulfil their [parliamentary] functions. It also refers to the powers possessed by the House to protect itself, its Members, and its procedures from undue interference, so that it can effectively carry out its principal functions which are to inquire, to debate and to legislate.

These rights and immunities can be grouped into two categories, the first group being the rights of the House as a collectivity. The second group consists of the rights and immunities of individual members of the House.

With respect to the rights and immunities of individual members, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is in parliamentary proceedings. Quite frankly, without it, members would be unable to function in their parliamentary roles. These functions include debating issues and legislation as well as being able to ask questions: questions of the government, questions of other members, and questions of witnesses who appear before our communities.

Any form of interference or intimidation that impedes these privileges which allow the members of the House of Commons to fulfill their parliamentary functions must be dealt with immediately. I would like to remind members of the comments of Speaker Bosley on December 11, 1984, in a ruling concerning an alleged contempt of Parliament.

On page 1114 of the House of Commons Debates, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you have probably read these many times, Speaker Bosley notes:

--the privilege of a Member of Parliament when speaking in the House or in a committee is absolute.

I underscore the word “absolute”. Of course, this important privilege, this absolute, carries with it great responsibility. As past Speakers have stated, members must use great care in exercising their right to speak freely, both in the House and in committee.

In the end, all members of the House are ultimately accountable to their constituents and may well pay a political price for abusing this privilege that is necessary in order that each of us individually, and all of us collectively, are able to carry out our parliamentary functions.

Why must our freedom of speech be free of intimidation or obstruction when we seek to debate issues and when we seek to legislate or inquire? Quite simply, to get to the truth and to better serve our constituents.

Our privileges are so fundamental that the Speaker, on behalf of all members, seeks these privileges at the beginning of each Parliament. Therefore, it is appropriate to deal with this motion today and to allow all members of the House to express their views on the motion before us.

In the end, a final decision as to whether or not the Standing Orders need to be amended belongs within the House as a whole. In the end, if modifications to the Conflict of Interest Code are required, that decision rests with this House as a whole.

True, the motion in the name of the member of Scarborough—Rouge River, if adopted, would amend the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons. However, in her ruling concerning the member for West Nova, the Ethics Commissioner admits that the code could be adjusted.

Earlier today, the member for Dufferin—Caledon, as well as other Conservative members, suggested that any proposed amendment to the Standing Orders or to the Conflict of Interest Code should be done appropriately at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He suggested that there, and only there, was the proper place for such matters.

He blamed any logjam on the opposition. There is indeed a logjam, as this committee has been filibustered for seven months by government members to the point where it is now suspended without a chair because there is nobody from the government willing to stand up and have this committee go forward.

I believe the member for Dufferin—Caledon needs to be reminded that any proposed amendment to the Conflict of Interest Code or Standing Orders made by a standing committee such as the committee on procedure and House affairs must ultimately be ratified by this House as a whole.

The member also suggested that other avenues existed to make these proposed changes. Again, it is the House of Commons as a whole that has the final say on these matters, regardless of what avenue is chosen to pursue them.

Allowing all members to express themselves, it is appropriate that this motion be here today. This motion follows a ruling of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner on May 7 with regard to the member forWest Nova. In order to not take up a lot of House time or to be repetitive, I would invite all members to actually read this report.

By concluding that being a defendant in a libel lawsuit constituted a private interest, the Ethics Commissioner's ruling prevents the member forWest Nova from speaking on certain matters, not to mention that this report purports to remove the right of the member for West Nova to vote on the Mulroney-Airbus matter.

This is indeed a very slippery slope. The effect of this ruling potentially validates and gives credibility to a libel claim of any person or corporation deciding to sue a member of this House, before there is any conclusion to the suit. This libel chill could ultimately be used to prevent members from speaking freely in the House or during its proceedings.

I want to remind all members that this does not just apply to my colleague, the member for West Nova. It applies to each and every one of us in this House as parliamentarians. The best way to describe the seriousness of this issue is to quote my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River, when he stated on May 26, 2008:

Our free speech privilege is here. It is living. It is protected from the police. It is protected from the king. It is protected from the powerful. It is protected from the press. How could it be lost by the simple filing of a lawsuit at the hands of a single plaintiff who makes such an allegation?

To the credit of the Ethics Commissioner, she does state on page 20 of her May 7 report that the member for West Nova:

--expressed a concern that a Member's role not be lightly set aside and that recusals based on lawsuits against Members could create a chilling effect upon Members' ability to fulfil their public duties and functions.

She went on to say:

I agree that Members should not be precluded from participating in parliamentary votes and debates unless there is a serious justification for doing so.

In essence, the Ethics Commissioner did report the legitimate concerns of the member for West Nova. She also agreed about precluding a member from the House of Commons from participating in parliamentary votes and debates unless there is a serious justification for doing so.

In her final observation, she admitted that the code could be adjusted to except libel suits from the “ambit” of private interest.

The motion sponsored today by my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River simply does what the commissioner suggested be done in her report, while at the same time expressing confidence in her as the commissioner. I am sure all members from all parties will be able to support this important non-partisan attempt to protect and reaffirm members' rights and privileges.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Kitchener Centre. She has stated that this is a very important motion and it is indeed a very important and serious motion. She has also said that changes should not be made lightly and I quite concur with that.

I think she is even acknowledging, and she will correct me if I am wrong, that the more appropriate place for this matter would be in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I am also aware of what she said, that the House of Commons makes the final decision, but we have not heard what the Ethics Commissioner thinks about this particular topic. We have not heard about what other authorities think about this particular topic. We have not heard what maybe some of the legal people, who get involved in these matters, think about this particular topic.

She is a whip. There are whips around here. They can work out arrangements. I am just a guy sitting in the backbench here, but I have noticed that if whips want to solve problems, they can solve problems. This matter could be dealt with if the whips got together and this thing was worked out. I am sure she is going to challenge me on that but I honestly believe that.

There is clearly a substantial amount of opposition to this motion in this House, so for a matter as serious as it is, I would think that there should be an effort to try to reach unanimity on something as serious as this, and the only way we can do that, I believe, is in a standing committee.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the faith that he puts in whips, all of us as a group. I do enjoy working with my three fellow whips.

However, this decision and this change is very important. It is appropriately debated in this House and it is appropriately voted on in this House. While one of the avenues would be to go through procedure and House affairs, and because that committee is suspended and not working, I would say that this is an appropriate venue and again would reiterate that any decision of any committee would end up back here in the House and be voted on by all members of Parliament.

I would also underscore that this impacts every member of this House and their ability to function as parliamentarians. Therefore, it needs to be dealt with expeditiously. I would also point out that the bugbear of any kind of legislation for me is always unintended consequences.

We have not had this ethics legislation for very long. Clearly, we are working our way through this. I think the commissioner did express her view in the report on my colleague from West Nova and therefore it is appropriate that we both debate and vote on this today.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I will be supporting this motion. It goes to the very heart of why we are here.

I should point out that the Ethics Commissioner, in her report, invited the House to make the amendment that we are making today. All it takes is $50 lawyers and they are off the committee, off the topic, and off the issue. Anyone could be thrown off any case or any issue if this ruling were allowed to stand, including of course the very first person, the Prime Minister, who started a claim against the Liberal Party of Canada. He would not be able to participate in debates in this House, if this ruling were allowed to stand, which I do not agree with.

We have a situation here, and the members across seem to debate this issue but do not seem to have any logical or rational argument against the motion except that it should be studied further. To that extent, I have a certain amount of sympathy for that argument. Yes, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would be the logical committee, but as the member has indicated, it has been basically shut down for seven months and I would ask her to elaborate to the House as to why this committee has been shut down for seven months.

What are the circumstances that led up to the committee being shut down? Is there anything that the majority of Parliament, the majority of Canadians, can do to stop this? Does the Speaker have any supervisory role? Just why is it that this state of affairs has been allowed to continue?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, committees, historically and in my experience, have been very non-partisan places. I have been on finance, foreign affairs and health committees where there have been unanimous reports brought forward.

Unfortunately, in this climate, it has become very partisan and my colleague from Cambridge, who was the Conservative chair of that committee, I think felt somewhat uncomfortable, but continued to bang down the gavel and allowed government members to be acknowledged and filibuster.

Basically, it was all in avoidance of dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer and Commissioner of Elections Canada, who have refused to give rebates to the Conservative Party alone due to an in and out scheme. The Conservatives' refusal to deal with this motion and have it voted on at committee is what led to seven months of filibustering by government members.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to engage in this debate but for different reasons than the ones that have been enumerated so far. They have all been very eloquent and to the point.

I want to associate myself not only to the motion but to my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River who had the temerity and wisdom to put his motion forward before the House. I think it is called trying to solve a problem and he should be commended for that.

The problem, as I see it, and not as everybody else has necessarily seen it, is that this is not essentially what we are here to do. This is a correction of the mechanisms that we utilize to do what we are supposed to do. In other words, he is suggesting that we are being deprived of the tools that make us capable of fulfilling our duties.

I am surprised that government members are actually objecting to this motion, that other members of Parliament in the House would actually propose a solution to an impediment that would allow members of Parliament to work and do their jobs properly.

Some may wonder where I am going with this. Like all of those who are watching this sitting, they are saying they really do not understand what it is that the members of Parliament are complaining about. I will give an example of what this really means.

If a member of Parliament is in any way constrained to speak his or her mind on a matter of great importance to the general public because there is a dilatory action, like a lawsuit threatened or real, then we might as well shut this place down. For example, just this morning I picked up a newspaper and there I read, much to my surprise, that the Minister of Finance was going to come to the aid of General Motors. He was going to use a $250 million fund in order to accomplish that objective.

We can go to the heart of the matter for a moment, but just imagine that I said that this person is making promises he cannot keep. The Minister of Finance is leading people down the garden path, his government is deliberately distorting what it can or will do for the auto sector, and in particular the employees in Oshawa, because there is no such fund. He has no right to make such a promise. There is no such fund. Yes, there is an allusion to it in Bill C-50, but Bill C-50 has not passed the House yet.

If I were to say that the Minister of Finance is making this suggestion--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington is rising on a point of order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to encourage, if I could, the member to say something that has some relevance, even a peripheral relevance, to the matter under discussion, just for novelty's sake.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Maybe the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence could bring his remarks to the point of the motion.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know you are always a dutiful listener. The members on the other side probably are not, so if they had been a little bit more patient, which is a virtue that they cannot exhibit, at least not publicly, although I acknowledge that he has indicated he was incorrect in what he had heard already.

I was going to say that if I accused the Minister of Finance of deliberately abusing the position that he had in order to satisfy his own electoral, and therefore personal and financial, needs in Oshawa in a way that he did not do anywhere else, all I would have to do is wait to receive a legal notice so that I could not vote on this in committee, that I could not express myself because I would be in some way disadvantaging someone, or in fact advantaging myself.

The member for Scarborough—Rouge River, with this motion, is saying he wants members of all caucuses to be able to go to committee and to raise the questions that they need to raise in the fulfillment of public policy. For example, in this instance, since Bill C-50 has not passed, since there is not a regulatory process for inviting applications for funding, and since the due diligence has not yet been put in place for the funding of any application, why would someone deliberately mislead a significant segment of the auto industry or the manufacturing sector in order to realize their own personal gain?

That is a logic that the Conservatives would think was acceptable when they are trying to shut down my colleague from West Nova. We have to exercise a little bit of caution here. We need to be able to tell the world that in Canada members of Parliament are going to be unconstrained as they seek solutions to problems.

For example, I would have wanted to ask the Minister of Finance where he got some of the information that he was going to be able to sprinkle some money on General Motors in order to put on a third line for a product that nobody knows exists and that nobody knows is under development. How did he get that information? Who gave it to him? Did he go to General Motors and say that the $200 million it received for the Beacon project entitles us to ask what is being done in the community, for the people who not only work at General Motors but the community that depends on its functioning for its livelihood.

Where is it going with the money that we gave it to stimulate research and development, to train people for a new technology, to bring in new technologies so that we could ensure the health and continuity of this part of this sector or the manufacturing environment?

Conservatives could easily come forward and say that here again I am attributing motive and therefore not being fair, and suggesting, for example, that his silence when the auto sector was complaining about problems associated with engine plants in Windsor, Chatham, St. Catharines and Brampton, that all of these had nothing to do with personal interests.

Suddenly, the Minister of Finance is faced with the problem in a riding adjacent to his own and immediately talks about parliamentary process that has not yet seen its course, but he is prepared to put up whatever amounts of money in order to protect his own interest.

Would that be a fair comment by any member? Clearly not, but they are legitimate questions to ask in a parliamentary environment. Certainly, they would not merit an attack on legal grounds, which I think is what my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River is saying. Let members debate the issues that are important to people.

Is the substance of this debate of great and central importance to all of those people in Oshawa and in the manufacturing sector in Ontario? What they want to know is that the argument, whatever is in the essence of this motion, goes to the heart of members of Parliament being able to resolve the problems that they face on a day-to-day basis for themselves and their families.

I would have asked why, for example, we would be looking at some of these statements that are gratuitously thrown out in the press as an opportunity to gain some accolades and perhaps some support from an electoral point of view if this motion did not go through, if the government insists on beating down a motion that addresses the fundamental rights of members of Parliament to promote the interests of Canadians everywhere, we could, collectively, bring similar kinds of motions forward with respect to a finance minister who is being so irresponsible as to gratuitously throw out the public's money before it has been authorized for distribution.

That is a lot more serious accusation than the one against the member for West Nova, who has been forceful in getting to the heart of matters that are important to Canadians everywhere, that go to the issue of accountability and responsibility in government, which the government said were important.

The Conservatives said that accountability, responsibility, openness, and transparency were the things that counted in government but suddenly they are part of a big libel chill in order to silence the voice of members of Parliament everywhere.

For example, somebody like me could not ask the Minister of Finance if he has engaged in conversations with his Ontario counterpart on the auto sector or the manufacturing sector. I could not ask if he spoke to his colleague, the human resources minister, about job transitions for those individuals who will be facing unemployment today at that plant and elsewhere in southern Ontario. I could not ask him if he talked to his colleague, the Minister of Industry, to see whether he would support that kind of initiative and whether he managed to get it passed in cabinet so the general public could employ all of its resources to achieve such an end. That is what the motion really means.

Canadians want to know that members of Parliament can ask those kinds of questions without the libel chill that the government wants to put as a veil over transparency and accountability. The Conservatives want nothing to do with that. We want to open it up.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost afraid to ask the member for Eglinton—Lawrence a question for fear he will talk about something completely off topic, but I will take a chance.

I believe the Conflict of Interest Code is working. The member, obviously, does not because he is saying that the motion should carry.

The commissioner, in her report concerning the conduct of the hon. member for West Nova, made it clear that the effect of her interpretation would only apply in the rarest of cases. She does not have to hear every complaint that comes to us. A section in the code says that if she believes a complaint is frivolous or vexatious she does not have to hear it. The same goes with lawsuits. The courts can turf these things out if they are frivolous or vexatious or if they mean nothing.

I have a short question for the member and I hope he sticks on topic. God bless him, he has his right to grumble about the government, but this is an issue, as your whip said, that is very serious. I would ask him to do his best to stay on topic, although I know it is tough for you. Do you not trust the Ethics Commissioner to make a good decision?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I heard a lot of use of the second person there by the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon. I am going to assume that he was asking the member for Eglinton—Lawrence the question and not myself.

We will go now to the hon. member for Eglinton--Lawrence.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It is a question by proxy, Mr. Speaker.

Because the hon. member is also a lawyer, he would know that when he says that not all things have to be done all of the time, he is really suggesting that once it meets the test of the court's judgment, we will know one way or another whether it works.

Parliament works a little differently. It says that members of Parliament can speak all of the time, not until a judge says that it is okay to open their mouths and not until a lawyer says members can go ahead and say what they want. The hon. member, who has been here a short time, will know very soon the importance of being able to speak immediately to the interests of Canadians.

Canadians do not want to know whether a judge says that it is okay to say something in six months, seven months, eight months, ten months, next year, according to judicial decisions. These things do not have to be brought to court before we can speak to them. The test of the metal of members of Parliament is to be able to stand in this place and in its extensions, the committees, and address the issues that are important to Canadians as they emerge.

I want to take advantage of the opportunity of having a practised member of Parliament sitting and listening to this in great detail, my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert, who said the following about the Ethics Commissioner:

Her unfortunate decision, if allowed to stand, is a dangerous infringement on the protection of freedom of speech in Parliament which is enshrined in the Bill of Rights (1689) (U.K.) and forms part of the Constitution of Canada.

I think that member spoke most eloquently and directly to the fundamental rights of members of Parliament everywhere. I want to encourage his colleague, who was heckling me, as I used to do when I was in the classroom, that perhaps he should sit by the member's side and garner a few lessons on the practice of Parliament and the rights of citizens as they are expressed through parliamentarians and then he will support my colleague's motion.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as he is an experienced member, does he think the debate on this appears to be a little on the partisan side? Normally on privilege matters like this it is not so partisan, which is one of the reasons we send it to a committee. It is less partisan and we usually end up with consensus and unanimity on these Standing Order changes.

I think the same speech writers write for all of the Conservatives speaking to this. We can see the theme in all of the speeches. It is more partisan than we would like it.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not even make any comments about how much the speech writers are getting paid in order to repeat the same speech.

I would like to call on the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge River, but I would ask his permission first. He has been in the House a long time and has identified himself as an example of non-partisanship in this place. He was non-partisan when his party and my party was in government, he was non-partisan when the Liberals were in opposition and he again is now demonstrating his leadership and non-partisanship. I invite government members to pay attention and to support him.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Gatineau, the CBC.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, like some other days when I come to speak, with some particular interest in this subject, which may be, quite frankly, of primary interest or exclusive interest to those members who are elected and sit in the House both currently and those who might sit in the future.

We are here today debating a motion from the Liberal Party on its opposition day that involves a fundamental issue for parliamentarians in Canada. It grows out of a series of events that involves the member for West Nova and really started as a result of certain comments he made on public television with regard to Mr. Mulroney. Those comments elicited a lawsuit from Mr. Mulroney against him for defamation.

Subsequently, the same member, who sits on the standing committee on ethics in this Parliament, had the opportunity to examine Mr. Mulroney when he appeared before that committee.

Subsequent to that, a complaint came from a member of the Conservative Party to the Ethics Commissioner that the conduct of the member for West Nova, in questioning Mr. Mulroney in front of the committee, broke the ethical rules that we are all bound by in the House as members of Parliament.

On May 7 of this year, the Ethics Commissioner presented her findings and recommendations. The report put forth a number of findings.

Perhaps I will just digress for a moment. The motion by the member of the Liberal Party, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River has, as one of its components, an acknowledgement that, in spite of the fact that he is obviously concerned about the ruling by the commissioner, the motion today, if it passes, will acknowledge that the finding she made and the determination and analysis she brought to bear is one that we are not criticizing. It is appropriate for that be part of the motion and I applaud my colleague for having included it. I think the last thing this Parliament needs is further criticisms of public servants and individuals who report to Parliament as parliamentary officers.

I have to say that there are points that could be argued as to whether her analysis was accurate, but at the end of the day it was a reasonable interpretation of the ethical code that we are bound by in the House. I believe we must recognize that and recognize the role she played, the integrity and sincerity in the analysis that she did and the results that she came to, in spite of the consequences that it has. The rest of the motion is an attempt by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River to correct those consequences by making amendments to the code and to, in effect, clarify what the proper role would be for a member of the House, who continues to sit in the House, having been made a party to a lawsuit.

We are all assuming that this would always be the type of lawsuit that would involve libel, slander or defamation, but it could be any number of other issues in terms of a relationship between the plaintiff suing a member of Parliament. I think we need to be cognizant of that fact.

In her determination, the Ethics Commissioner did take into account the concerns raised by the member for West Nova if it was found that he had breached the code by questioning Mr. Mulroney in the types of questions he asked. He raised a number of concerns, but fundamentally the concern he raised was the difficulty for members to perform their duties if in fact members of Parliament were compelled to recuse themselves in all situations where a lawsuit crossed over.

One of the concerns I have in terms of the burden it puts on us is the wording the commissioner used, that the work one is doing as a member of Parliament has to be closely related in terms of the interest that is at stake in the lawsuit. It is no more definitive than that. I think her ruling is in keeping with the code but it leaves a very serious consequence in terms of a potential abuse by someone taking a civil suit against a member of Parliament.

The concern is that in this Parliament in particular, and I am being very careful to not be partisan here, I believe there have been lawsuits of a greater number that have occurred in the last two and a half years than in any previous Parliament historically in Canada. The concern is that if this ruling stands and the interpretation that has been applied by the Ethics Commissioner is enforced on an ongoing basis, are we left with the potential abuse that a number of members of Parliament would be restricted from doing what had been their duties at that point?

The very basis of the conflict we are confronted with by the ruling from the Ethics Commissioner and by the motion that we have before the House today is to try to find the proper balance between the privileges we have as members of Parliament to freely speak on all issues at all times, perhaps very forcefully and aggressively at times, in order to properly do our jobs as members of Parliament. That is the one side. The other side is the potential abuse of performing those functions where it overlaps and contradicts the nature of the lawsuit that is going on. Trying to find that proper balance is really what today's motion is about, but it clearly sets out that conflict.

We have had comments on both sides from some of the other members who have spoken today, perhaps in some degrees to an extreme, but let me address those extremes on both sides.

The reality is that we do have some restrictions as members of Parliament in the way we conduct ourselves. I am going to use as an example the lawsuit that carried on, I think all the way to the Supreme Court, but it certainly went to the Federal Court of Appeal, on whether the human rights legislation applied to members of Parliament here on the Hill. Ultimately it was determined that in fact it did in that like all Canadians involved at the federal level in issues, in that case it was an employment issue, the human rights legislation applied to us and in some respects curtailed our conduct. We have accepted that.

It is generally accepted that we are bound as members of Parliament by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as all Canadians are. We hear from some, and I think again there are some members who have spoken today who have pushed it too far, that generally we have those restrictions but other than those, we have and should have absolute free rein.

Again, I would say, going back in history for hundreds of years, that in terms of our responsibility regarding our ability to do our jobs, we try to make any restrictions as absolutely minimal as possible so that we can represent our constituents as freely and, on a number of occasions, as aggressively as we possibly can. That is the idea, that restrictions are minimal, allowing us to do our jobs as broadly as possible.

On the other side of this balance, I can point to practices that have grown up, rules that have been put into place that give us as part of the privilege of being members of Parliament, permission to conduct ourselves in ways that we do not give to any other citizen in the country. We know that we can stand in this House and libel, slander and defame someone with absolute immunity. Civil courts cannot touch us. Criminal courts cannot touch us, or could not, when we had criminal libel. That is the epitome of the freedom that we have here.

There are other more minor ones. As an example, if we are involved either as a party or as a witness in a civil suit, we cannot be compelled as members of Parliament to testify or to pursue those lawsuits, either as a claimant or as a defendant, while the House is in session. There is a very broad interpretation about what it means for the House to be in session. We saw this as recently as a few years ago, in 2004. There were several lawsuits that involved one of the deputy prime ministers at that time where attempts were made to compel him to come and testify. In fact, there was an initial ruling by one of the courts that did say he had to and then, when it was pointed out what the history was, what the real rules were, it was struck down and he was permitted not to have to testify until he actually retired from office. We have those kinds of protections.

We have a number of privileges, some of them simple ones. We have access to this building; we can walk in freely, without going through security. Other citizens of Canada, other people attending this building, cannot do that. There are a lot of those simple privileges. We have very minimal restrictions. We have very broad freedoms in this House.

Fundamentally, the issue we are faced with today is the freedom of speech, the ability to speak out on an issue, including in this case, to question a witness in front of a committee, even when that questioning is going to overlap the very issues that are involved in the civil lawsuit that has been brought against the member for West Nova.

The determination we have to make in the vote later today is whether we are going to say that under those circumstances, the member is going to be allowed to continue to do his or her job, is going to be allowed to continue, again in some cases aggressively, to speak out on the very issue that is the essence of the lawsuit.

I think that every member of this House and every Canadian would like to think, and maybe it is a fond hope, that every member of Parliament would always conduct himself or herself in a responsible fashion, that we would not deliberately defame or libel anyone, that we would not take advantage of our freedom of speech here, our extended freedom of speech beyond what any other Canadian has even at other levels of government, that we would not treat that lightly, and that we would always treat it in a responsible way. That is obviously ideal. That is not going to happen. The reality is that on occasion there are going to be members of Parliament who are going to abuse it. I think we would all be extremely naive to think otherwise. That is one of the realities.

On the other side of the coin is the other reality, that if we do not accept that at times there will be that kind of abuse, hopefully extremely rarely, that there will be the other abuse where an individual, sometimes even another member of Parliament, will sue a member of Parliament as a means of shutting the member up. Someone will bring an action either with merit or without merit against the individual member of Parliament in order to ensure that the member is no longer engaged in the debate that is going on around the particular issue, that the member has to recuse himself or herself from all debate and involvement in that regard.

It is my personal position as a member of Parliament that that abuse is the greater risk than members of Parliament being abusive and irresponsible in their use of the very special privileges we have as members of Parliament.

As a lawyer, I can think of some of my comrades here who will say that if the lawsuit is without merit, one can move fairly rapidly in court to have it dismissed because it is vexatious or frivolous. Those are the kinds of terms that are in our rules of practice, actually and are pretty common across the country. Having been involved in some of those lawsuits, I can say that in trying to get lawsuits dismissed at an early stage, the reality is that our courts bend over backward--and I am not being critical of them; I think the approach they have taken historically is the proper one--but the courts are very unwilling to find at an early stage of a lawsuit that it is vexatious or frivolous and should be dismissed. It just does not happen very often. In fact, it is close to being in the rare category.

Even though we are not a particularly litigious society, we still have a lot of lawsuits. Very, very few of those get dismissed at an early stage because they are without merit. The case usually goes on, sometimes to the eve of the trial and sometimes through the trial, before the case is dismissed, even though in retrospect it may have had little or no merit.

We cannot rely on the courts to protect members of Parliament in that regard. If it appears on the surface that the case has any particular merit, it is going to be allowed to continue.

Then what we are faced with is the member of Parliament being shut out from the debate and from involvement in the debate sometimes for several years. It is not unusual for civil lawsuits in my province of Ontario to take that long.

At the end of the day, there are two potential abuses here that we are trying to deal with. This motion by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River addresses the more serious potential abuse, maybe even the reality since we are faced with it right now in one case. Therefore, members of the NDP are supportive of the motion. We will be voting in favour of it. Hopefully, that abuse that inevitably will come from certain irresponsible members of Parliament either in this Parliament or in the future will be an extreme rarity and we will never have to deal with it.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully, as have the members of the House, to the comments made by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I personally have a huge amount of respect for his opinion and the manner in which he has addressed the conundrum that we face.

I am not a lawyer, but to try to put it in a layperson's terms for the people who are watching this, the member relates to lawsuits that would be either a deliberate or an indirect attempt to muzzle a particular member and that this would not be in the interests of the diligence, and the due diligence, that goes through the committee system with respect to a matter.

He balanced that out with respect to the manner in which a member might impugn, in a further way, someone who is before a committee and that the member is a part of the lawsuit.

My colleague comes down more or less in the centre and says that it would be a far greater abuse if we were to deny the member the opportunity to continue having the facts before him or her and to do what the public expects the member to do.

Is there anything further though that could be done to empower either the Speaker or the committee chair to closely observe the proceedings and to maintain that balance? Is there anything more that is necessary in terms of the Standing Orders to empower the committee chair?

Is there any training that should be brought into the whole committee system through the chair to make those proceedings quasi-judicial in nature when it comes to these kinds of legal conundrums? After all, it is every person's right to have due process also in natural justice, and that could be denied. I am sure this is a further principle with the member would agree.

Would the member care to expand a little on the nature of the proceedings and how the chair could be more emphatic with respect to maintaining that balance?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I practised criminal law for seven or eight years at the start of my career. Criminal lawyers see themselves as a bulwark of defence of our liberties and our criminal justice system. Within that context, they are very protective of any impingement on their ability, even in the extreme, to defend their clients from the power of the state. This is the approach at which I tend to look.

I am not willing to suggest we are taking any power away from the Ethics Commissioner. Her role is to make that interpretation of the rules. It is our responsibility to set those rules, collectively as a Parliament. The resolution before us today does that. It gives her, or any subsequent commissioner, a clearer guideline as to how to handle this kind of fact situation.

I would not go any further than that. The resolution is appropriate, as it stands, to give her that clearer guidance.

There are other disciplines here though. There is party discipline for a member who is prepared to abuse his or her role as a member of Parliament. It behooves the party leaders, the House leaders and the whips of their respective parties to consider that. In my short time here, less than eight years, I have seen a number of times where I thought there should have been that intervention. I suggest for all whips in particular, but for party leaders as well, that if they have somebody who needs to have the reins pulled in, that they do so.

The final control is the electorate themselves. If members are so blatant in abusing their powers here, they need to pay the penalty in a subsequent election.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conflict of Interest Code makes it clear that our interests as members of Parliament must always give way to the public interest. Yet here we are, by way of an opposition motion, attempting, in a short debate, to make such a major alteration of a code that goes to the very core of our public interest versus private interest.

How can the member support such a resolution when that is taking place? Will this decision not make the public more cynical than it already is of our process?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me give two quick answers.

For me this is not a short debate. I have been analyzing and debating this issue within my own intellect since the report came out from the Ethics Commissioner, so it has been going on in my mind for at least a month now.

In terms of the issue of public interest versus the private interests of individual members, I do not know how we can perform our jobs here in the public interest without doing that with an absolute maximum of freedom of speech. The essence of parliamentary democracy is the Westminster model. I do not think we can separate that.

Maybe I will finish with this. As politicians, we all see the polls where we stand. Lawyers are in a much different category, but the reality is it is always the other politician, not the one who represents me.

My constituents expect me to stand in this chamber and in committee and argue for their interests and to do it as aggressively and as strongly as I can. This resolution would allow us to continue to do that.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate, prior to the hon. member's remarks, there was a statement by one of the Conservative members. It was his understanding that the motion would impact outside the House and committees and that it would give members rights and freedom that they do not have now.

I did not quite understand that, but I would ask the hon. member this. Is that any part of his understanding of this and would he not agree with me that all the motion does is reaffirm the rights and privileges of members to free speech, as they have always been, virtually forever, in this place? It does not create anything new outside of Parliament. It is solely within the House. It clarifies the continuing existence of those privileges right up to the present.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the comment as well. I do not see this expanding in any way the traditional freedom of speech we have had, and those very special privileges. It is not taking anything away from them, but I do not see them expanding.

The concern the member had, and again I may be misinterpreting, was whether this would somehow influence the judge and the jury in the civil suit. I believe there was a response. Anything that comes out in the House or in committee cannot be used in the courtrooms of the country. I do not know what the concern is there. That seemed to be the route he was going, but that is an unfounded fear.