David Tilson

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when we go to a committee, one of the favourite lines of an opposition party is that there has been no consultation, that the minister has not consulted, has not talked to anybody, and is just trying to ram this through.

Well, this has been raised in this place. The member for Scarborough—Rouge River has said he has consulted with a few people and has consulted with some very academic people. I am sure he has.

This matter is so serious to this place, surely to heavens we are not just going to talk to parliamentarians, surely we are going to look to other people, people in ethics, the Ethics Commissioner, and legal people. Why would we not do that? The only place we can do that is in the standing committee.

My question to the member is: What does he think we should do as far as obtaining further expert advice as to what we should do with this particular motion?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

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?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

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?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

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.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when I first arrived in this place, one of the first things I received was a book on procedure from the member for Scarborough—Rouge River. I have never thanked him for it and will thank him now. I know that he has put a lot of thought into procedure in this place, but with due respect to him, I think it is quite clear from the debate that is going on today that this motion is defective.

A number of things need to be looked at. We need to have a lot of discussion on the whole topic.

Much time has been spent on the issue of contingent liability and whether we should or should not have it and on the issue of whether this applies to the private actions of members of Parliament. Clearly the resolution does not apply to that.

Finally, there is the very issue that is before us today, the issue involving the Schreiber and Mulroney matter. Is that a matter of a private action of a private citizen against a member in his capacity as a member or is it a matter of a private citizen versus another private citizen? The resolution does not clarify that.

My question for my colleague is this: should more discussion take place, not necessarily in the House of Commons?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will provide the member with a couple of examples. One could be the situation where a member and his or her spouse is involved in a family law matter. There could be a matter that involves the House under the Divorce Act.

Another example could be where the home of a member of Parliament, as a private citizen, is involved in a matter that could be an environmental issue and an issue of the environment could be debated in the House or in a committee.

The reason I raise these issues is that I believe the motion being debated in the House is defective and that there are other areas that need to be considered. We are rushing this through. It has never been done before. A matter such as this normally goes to a committee and it is more appropriate that the committee reviews these things.

Perhaps the commissioner who made the decision could come and talk about these things. Perhaps the counsel, the Canadian Bar Association and other people who have been involved in these issues in the past could come and provide their advice to members of Parliament.

Why would this matter be dealt with in this place and not in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. The motion says specifically that this amendment will deal only with actions with respect to members as members of Parliament. In other words, it will not apply to members of Parliament as private citizens. Commissioner Dawson's report will still apply if a member is sued or sues as a private member.

The question is, does she still support the resolution? If she still supports the resolution, should there not be a definition in this change that will define an action for and against a private citizen and an action when it involves a member of Parliament?

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in his presentation, the member gave the impression that if this rule is not changed, we are all going to lose our freedom of speech in this place and it is going to happen more and more frequently.

I am sure the member has read this because I know he is a very diligent member and likes to read things, but I am going to read a brief paragraph from page 21 of Commissioner Dawson's statement:

The lawsuit instituted against [the member for West Nova] resulted from his statements to the media outside Parliament. Furthermore, the questions before the standing committee were substantially overlapping with the very statements that were the essence of the lawsuit. A similar conjunction of circumstances is unlikely to occur frequently. Only where questions debated and voted on by the House or committee relate to the private interest of a Member is he or she not permitted to participate.

I would like the member to comment on this, that it is obviously very rare that this situation could occur.

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

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--

[Business of Supply, June 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the Ouellet case where he said something derogatory about a judge outside this House, goes through the whole court process and is found in contempt of court.

The question is: Should he be allowed to come back into this place or into a committee and deal with that in this place? Is this the appropriate forum for him to do that because it involves him personally? He was held in contempt of court. Should he be allowed to come into the House of Commons or into a committee and, for his own personal advantage perhaps, try to persuade the House of Commons to do a resolution, like it is now, and notwithstanding what the judge said, pass a resolution that will overrule that. Conceivably, that could happen.

Under the current law, Commissioner Dawson, I believe, if we follow the rationale in the scandal of the hon. member for West Nova, would simply say no, that he cannot do that. Under the resolution that is being suggested now, he can. He can come back into this place and take advantage of his position as a member of Parliament to try to persuade Parliament or even a committee to change the decision of the court or for some other reason, for his own personal advantage.

The question is--