Mr. Speaker, I do want to respond to my hon. colleague who was basically challenging my interpretation of why the committee chair of the ethics committee should recuse itself.
I would point out that the member for Mississauga South, who is the chair of the ethics committee, is quoted in the Toronto Star as saying that the minister is clearly in a breach of ethics. In other words, he has made up his mind.
One cannot be neutral or impartial if one has already been quoted, stating a decision. He has stated that there is a clear breach of ethics in his opinion. How in fact is that impartial?
Quite frankly, the whole issue of a question of privilege is ludicrous. The freedom of speech of the member has not be curtailed, and that is the key element in determining whether there is a question of privilege. The reason his freedom of speech has not been curtailed is underscored by the fact that he has just made a demonstration that his speech has not been curtailed with his rant in this House.
Beyond the fact that his question of privilege is irrelevant and should be dismissed, the fact is that as chair of the ethics committee he has already been predisposed to an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the member in question.
How in the world can he stay on as chair? I would suggest that he cannot. I would suspect that if he does not step down himself, committee members should deal with this expeditiously.