Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of Members

Freedom from obstruction, interference, intimidation and molestation: Member casting aspersions on another Member over a matter before the Ethics Commissioner

June 1, 2006

Debates, pp. 1853-4

On May 31, 2006, Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance) rose on a question of privilege,^[1] calling upon Mark Holland (Ajax–Pickering) to apologize for having alleged, during Statements by Members on May 18, 2006, that the Minister had used his position to benefit a family member.^[2] The Minister then tabled a letter from the Ethics Commissioner declaring that there was no conflict of interest.^[3] On June 1, 2006, Mr. Holland responded that his concerns were well-founded and that the Ethics Commissioner’s letter did not exonerate the Minister.^[4]

The Speaker interrupted Mr. Holland during his intervention and reminded him that it is contrary to the practice of the House to raise a question on a matter that has been referred to the Ethics Commissioner. Consequently, the Speaker asked the Member to take up any concerns that he might have with the Ethics Commissioner directly.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Order. I have grave concerns about this matter being raised in this way. When matters are referred to the Ethics Commissioner, Members are not to comment on those matters.

This matter was referred to the Ethics Commissioner. The hon. Member apparently, from what I have heard so far, is dissatisfied with the answer that came back. It seems to me that the proper course for him at this point is not to raise this matter on the floor of the House but to raise the matter with the Ethics Commissioner.

Getting into debate here is contrary to the practice, as he knows. When a matter is referred to the Ethics Commissioner, it is not to be raised on the floor of the House. In fact, I usually get a letter from the Ethics Commissioner telling me that the matter has been raised with him and therefore I should not permit discussion of that matter here.

I think if the Member is dissatisfied with the answer he has received, his argument is with the Ethics Commissioner. It is not here with the Minister on the floor. He is free to point out to the Ethics Commissioner facts that he thinks are relevant.

It seems to me that he ought to make sure that avenue is fully exhausted before we are having debates about these kinds of matters on the floor of the House. I know that the question can be asked. It clearly was in this case. I assumed it was asked before the matter was referred to the Ethics Commissioner and the reference was then made. The Minister has come back with an answer and tabled it in the House because of the allegation that was made.

I do not know the exact order of all these things, but I am concerned that getting into this kind of debate about Members’ personal financial affairs, when there is an avenue for doing this outside the House and that is by an independent person who makes these adjudications, is only going to get us into severe difficulty. I urge the hon. Member to take the matter up with the Ethics Commissioner.

I know that the Minister yesterday asked for an apology. It is clear that he is not going to get it today from what I am hearing so far, but I would rather have the matter resolved properly there than have endless debate about it on questions of privilege in the House which the House cannot resolve and is unlikely to resolve in the circumstances.