Debates of Oct. 24th, 2025

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister asked Canadians to sacrifice more. At the same time, the Minister of Immigration advertized Canada's free health care system on Twitter to bolster the already unsustainable level of immigration the Liberals have undertaken. They did this all while emergency rooms are overflowing and most people cannot access basic primary care or diagnostics. Seniors cannot access long-term care. This is not fair to anyone, including newcomers.

With the health care system barely being able to serve the people in Canada right now, will the Liberals apologize for falsely advertizing that Canada has the capacity to be the world's walk-in clinic?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that there are pressures in the Canadian economy and in Canadian society because of, among other factors, ensuring that we have a sustainable immigration system. That is exactly what the government is doing.

In a few weeks' time, as the member knows because she is the critic for the Conservative party on immigration, there is a level of plan that will be presented. It will be sustainable. It will ensure that talent attraction is at the heart of the strategy.

I implore my colleagues, instead of politicizing questions of immigration, to put serious ideas on the floor that are, and I emphasize this, constitutional.

Automotive Industry

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the auto sector is being hit hard by unjustified U.S. tariffs.

In my riding of Oakville West, Ford's Oakville assembly complex is the backbone of our local economy, employing over 4,000 skilled workers who continue retooling to keep production here at home in these challenging times. Last week, auto workers in Brampton, the GTA and across Canada were racked by the news that Stellantis is moving production of the Jeep Compass to the U.S. to avoid these tariffs.

Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry update the House on how we are fighting for our workers and our auto sector?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Oakville West for her consistent advocacy for auto workers in her community, especially at the Ford plant.

Let us be clear: The Stellantis decision to move production out of Brampton is unacceptable. Stellantis has made important commitments to Canada and to our workers, and we expect it to hold up its end of the deal. We expect it to hold up its commitments. That is exactly what the Minister of Industry wrote in her letter to the president of Stellantis, through which she summoned him as well as the Minister of Economic Development for Ontario and the head of Unifor. We have also announced that we will be limiting the number of vehicles Stellantis can import tariff-free.

We are holding Stellantis to account, and we will fight for our workers every single day.

The Economy

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister lectured a room full of students that they will have to make sacrifices, but they already have. They have sacrificed their dream of owning a home, watched food prices soar and are struggling to find work. Statistics Canada says one in four barely make ends meet. After 10 years of Liberal failures, Canadians are working harder but falling further behind.

Will the Liberals finally rein in their reckless spending so people can afford to live, eat and own a home again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me show the contrast of a caring government and what a caring government does. The Prime Minister, just a week ago, made an announcement about the national school food program, saying it is going to become a permanent program. Children in every region of the country will benefit from that program. We can contrast that to the Conservative response. As late as yesterday, we had a member disgracefully stand in the chamber to say that the program “is garbage”.

That is not caring for Canadians, and that is not caring for children, but the Liberals will continue to do so into the future.

Employment

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the news came as a shock wave this morning: President Trump calls off trade negotiations with Canada. It is a blatant failure of this Prime Minister. After being elected as a master negotiator, he leaves us high and dry. He did everything to pander to Trump: border security, military spending, opening the Keystone XL pipeline and dropping the tax on web giants. He was practically on his knees in the Oval Office, as job losses mounted.

When will he stand up and come up with a real strategy to protect workers?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. For months, we have been emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between what we can control and what we cannot control, including U.S. trade policy. We remain ready to resume negotiations with them.

However, we can take action here at home by launching national construction projects, by growing the Canadian economy by getting rid of internal barriers and diversifying our trade through the creation of new—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Winnipeg-Centre.

Public Safety

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, or NAN, has declared a state of emergency amid rising violence, trafficking and gang crime, yet the federal government has not paid its share to ensure adequate policing. Liberals rush to exploit the Ring of Fire in NAN territory for so-called national interest but stay silent as its communities face danger.

Is the safety of indigenous people not of national interest? If the government truly cares about public safety, when will it address NAN's state of emergency?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and to feel safe, including our indigenous communities. We will ensure that they have the police services, resources and tools they need to deal with this crisis. We will fight crime and fight inequality in this regard. That is why Canadians elected us. That is why indigenous communities have confidence in us. We will be there. We are monitoring the situation. We will ensure that the crisis is resolved as quickly as possible.

Presence in Gallery

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Mirjana Spoljaric Egger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Charitable Organizations

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I table a petition from residents of my riding concerning charitable status. The petitioners are concerned about the finance committee's proposal to remove charitable status from churches and other religious organizations, a proposal supported by the Liberal MPs on the committee.

Petitioners note that the work done by these faith-based charities supports seniors and vulnerable people in communities right across Canada. They also note that removing their charitable status may cause many churches, especially in rural communities, to close their doors and abandon their support for marginalized and vulnerable Canadians. For this reason, petitioners are asking the federal government to reject this diabolical proposal and save charitable status for churches and religious groups, which is something I certainly support.

Thermal Coal

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place, as always, representing the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands from the traditional territory of the W_SÁNEC nation. Hych’ka Siam.

The petitioners are concerned about the export of thermal coal from Canadian ports. This coal generally comes up from the United States, is shipped to the port of Vancouver and leaves from our port. Colleagues might ask why it does not leave from the U.S. ports. It is because the export of thermal coal down the west coast to the United States has been halted due to the concern of those governments over the climate crisis.

The Liberals promised to end the export of thermal coal in the 2021 election. There were measures that were about to be passed in Bill C-33, which died on the Order Paper.

The concerned citizens who have signed this petition are calling on the government to immediately put thermal coal on the priority substances list of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and, as soon as possible, regulate it to ensure that it is not exported from Canadian ports.

Brain Cancer

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition with respect to brain cancer research and treatments. The petitioners note that an estimated 27 Canadians are diagnosed with a brain tumour each day. Canada is years behind the U.S. in approving new drugs and treatments, and even when new brain cancer therapies are approved, there continues to be a shortage of brain cancer drugs in Canada, with some medications even being discontinued.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to increase funding for brain cancer research and work with the provinces and territories to ensure that drugs, medical services and new therapies are accessible and to remove unnecessary red tape so that brain cancer drugs can be approved more quickly.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to table a petition on behalf of Canadians who are deeply concerned about the worsening mental health and substance use crisis across our country, a crisis that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Petitioners note that too many Canadians are unable to access timely mental health or substance use supports. They point out that when care is not available in the community, people are left to rely on overcrowded hospital emergency rooms or primary care providers, while untreated or inadequately treated mental illness carries enormous social and economic costs.

The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to take urgent action by legislating parity between physical and mental health in Canada's universal public health care system; ensuring timely access to evidence-based, culturally appropriate and publicly funded mental health and substance use services beyond hospital and physician settings; and, lastly, establishing the Canada mental health transfer to sustainably fund these services.

The petitioners are clear: Canadians deserve a health care system where mental health is treated with the same urgency, priority and respect as physical health.

Charitable Organizations

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the petition I am presenting today concerns recommendations 429 and 430 of the Standing Committee on Finance. These meetings happened a long time ago as pre-budget hearings, but because of the delay in the budget until the week after next, they are highly relevant. These recommendations were supported by the Liberal members of the finance committee but not, I note, by Conservative members of the committee.

The recommendations would single out a specific subgroup within the charitable sector, penalizing organizations that are based on moral stances different from those of the governing party in the country and effectively taking away their charitable status.

A fact pointed out by the petitioners is that faith-based charities represent the majority of charitable spending and community activity in Canada. These include such things as community services and ministries, food banks, soup kitchens, refugee resettlement, climate and social justice initiatives, day cares, schools, hospitals, pregnancy care, long-term homes and palliative care centres. Replacing these would require many billions of dollars and would be enormously socially disruptive. It is based, frankly, on anti-religious bigotry.

They oppose these measures and so do I.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a petition today on behalf of concerned residents of Regina and southern Saskatchewan. The signatories of the petition are concerned about a recent finance committee recommendation to revoke the charitable status of religious organizations. They feel that faith-based charities do good work in our communities, as secular charities do, and oppose the revocation of charitable status in the Liberal government's upcoming budget or at any other time in the future.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this petition here today in the House of Commons.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the Speaker notice this morning about a question of privilege that I take no pleasure in raising today. It has come to my attention that an officer of Parliament, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, appears to have exceeded the authority vested in him by the House.

Yesterday afternoon, I had occasion to browse the website for the commissioner’s office, something that I do periodically as the official opposition shadow minister for ethics and accountable government. In doing so, I was looking at the forms that members of the House are expected and required to use. Specifically, I was looking at the one to report gifts or benefits. I noticed at the bottom that the form was dated October 2025. That struck me as odd, so I did some additional digging. From there, one could find that the form concerning members’ sponsored travel was also, suspiciously, dated October 2025.

One may be wondering why that date would raise any suspicion. It is, of course, October 2025. It is because the House has laid down a very specific procedure to be followed in the proposal, consideration and approval of forms used to administer the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Part of that procedure involves the House approving the forms. That is done on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and I certainly do not recall the House voting this month on any proposals by the Ethics Commissioner.

In case it might have been some sort of stylistic formatting change, I obtained copies of what the House last approved and what it had actually approved. The two forms I cited were approved by the House on March 7, 2016. That was when it concurred in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which had been presented the same day.

The differences between the forms as published on the commissioner’s website and what was approved by the House are not stylistic or cosmetic; they are, in fact, substantial. This is, of course, troubling, especially since the problem does not stop there. There is at least one more form, the “​Disclosure Statement for Members and their Family Members”, on the commissioner’s website, which appears to be substantially different from what the House approved on January 27, 2009, when it concurred in the second report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which was tabled that same day.

I recognize that it might seem odd to be upset or rising today about the forms the commissioner draws up to administer the conflict of interest code, but the fact of the matter is that the House has laid down a very specific and precise procedure in this regard. Section 30 of the code specifies:

(1) The commissioner shall submit any proposed procedural and interpretative guidelines and all forms relating to the code to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for approval....

(2) Any guidelines and forms approved by the committee shall be reported to the House and shall come into effect when the report is concurred in by the House....

(3) Until the guidelines and forms are reported to the House, they shall remain confidential.

This was a deliberate policy choice made by the House. This is worth underlining. The procedure and House affairs committee explained this in June 2007, at paragraphs 29 and 30 of its 54th report:

29. Section 30 of the Code requires the Commissioner to submit “any proposed rules for the administration of this Code” to the Committee. Following approval by the Committee and the House, the rules may come into effect. It has never been entirely clear what documents were intended to be covered by this provision. The Committee recommends amending the section to refer to “procedural and interpretative guidelines and all forms relating to the Code.” It is intended that this change will provide more guidance to the Commissioner, as well as codifying the current expectation that forms should be approved.

30. The Committee also recommends adding a provision requiring guidelines and forms to remain confidential until reported to the House.

The House concurred in these recommendations and others on June 11, 2007, and that has been the rule of the House ever since. Our Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons is, formally, appendix 1 to the Standing Orders of the House. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition explains, at page 226, “The establishment of the Code is a manifestation of the House's right to regulate its internal affairs and to discipline its Members for misconduct.” That is, of course, an extension of the House’s collective privileges.

In publishing these new forms outside the procedures laid down by the House, the commissioner has, I respectfully submit, disobeyed the lawful orders of the House and defied its authority. These actions, as Bosc and Gagnon observe at pages 81 and 82, are considered to be contempts of Parliament. As the United Kingdom’s leading procedural authority, Erskine May, in the 25th edition, points out, at paragraph 15.7, “Contempts can be committed by disobedience to general rules”.

Questions of privilege concerning officers of Parliament, even the Ethics Commissioner, are not unprecedented. For example, on October 6, 2005, Mr. Speaker Milliken found, as stated at page 8473 of the Debates, a prima facie case of privilege in relation to the then ethics commissioner’s media interviews disclosing an investigation he was undertaking about a member, in apparent disregard of the Code’s requirements to provide the subject of an investigation with reasonable written notice and to conduct an investigation in private.

In the procedure and House affairs committee’s subsequent assessment of the case, in the committee's 51st report, tabled in November 2005, we might read, at paragraph 14:

...members of the Committee are very disturbed at what was heard about the operation of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner, and, in particular, the handling of complaints and investigations. We are concerned about an apparent absence of rigour in the Office in the development of proper processes. This has resulted in the lack of attention to detail and the requirements of due process in this case. It appears to us that the Office of the Ethics Commissioner is not sufficiently familiar with the provisions of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, nor is the Office meticulous in ensuring that these provisions are observed in both their letter and their spirit. Within the Office, there appears to be an unacceptable confusion or blurring of the distinctions between the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, which...[was the predecessor of the current Conflict of Interest Act] and the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

These observations were made, I should note, 20 years ago next month. In any event, the Committee went on to conclude, at paragraph 38, “The Committee wishes to place on the record its concern that the procedures and processes under the Code need to be much more...scrupulously followed to ensure this kind of experience is not repeated. The risks to Members, and the very integrity of the Code, demand nothing less.”

The concern today is about forms, and I appreciate that this might superficially seem to be a minor matter. The fact is that when the House adopts its rules and orders, it reasonably expects compliance. In a ruling delivered on April 19, 1993, Mr. Speaker Fraser, at page 18105 of the Debates, endorsed the opinion that “the disregard of that legislative command, even if unintentional, is an affront to the authority and dignity of Parliament as a whole and of this House in particular.”

The Chair then added, for his own part:

The statutory laws which have been agreed to by Members of this House do serve a purpose and are meant to be respected....

The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected.

Sir John Bourinot put it more pointedly in Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, at page 203: “Each house is bound by every consideration of self-interest and justice to observe strictly its rules and standing orders, and to rebuke every attempt to evade or infringe them.”

We have seen a troubling pattern in recent years: The government, including the public service, feels at liberty to defy the authority of the House of Commons, especially when it comes to document production orders, but this pattern of disrespect has been spreading. It is a contagion, and it has gone beyond the executive in recent years.

We all recall the scene at the bar last year when Mr. Kristian Firth was admonished for trifling with the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. When Parliament was prorogued this past January, the House was seized with the prima facie questions of privilege concerning the committee shenanigans of Steven Anderson and Lauren Chen. Members will also recall the now-famous scandal of the other Randy.

It is distressing that this has spread from the executive to the public service and now to members of the public. What I am worried about is that we might now be seeing it with officers of Parliament, officers of the House, joining the ranks of the people who failed to appreciate the authority of the House of Commons, which is the beating heart of Canada's democracy.

Should you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the question amounts to a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move a motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Rules are not suggestions, especially not in the ethics business. It may well be that this was an innocent misunderstanding, or maybe it was a deliberate thumbing of the nose at the authority of the House. We do not know. Since the commissioner cannot address the House, we should afford him the opportunity to speak to the issue at committee to account for himself and his office before judgment is pronounced.

We have to be vigilant in defending the rights of the House, and that is why, though some found it uncomfortable, we called the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar for defying an order of the House and why we called to the bar Mr. Firth for his unacceptable conduct before a standing committee of the House.

We have seen recently, though we are in early days in a new Parliament, that the Prime Minister's Office did not respond in good faith to the document production order passed by the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics by the deadline prescribed by the committee. We keep hearing that there is a new government, but it seems like a case of history repeating itself.

I mentioned that we are early in the current Parliament, so our effort at the committee was to extend to the Prime Minister and to his department, the PCO, the opportunity to come good on the document production order at committee by next week. However, the bottom line and the fact of the matter is that, like in the earlier case, should they not respect the authority and the privileges of the highest court in the land, they will find themselves in contempt.

This is an opportunity, with the motion that I am prepared to move, should you, Mr. Speaker, find that there is a prima facie case of privilege, to take the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the committee responsible for it, and the commissioner could explain how we found ourselves here today.

The bottom line is that no one should get a free pass.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this is the very first I have heard of anything of this nature. I will come back to the House with comments if it is deemed necessary.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes would be rising on this question of privilege, but it is a very important point he raises.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the problem the member is pointing out to the House is a long-standing one. It did not begin with the present commissioner; it goes back certainly to his predecessor, Mario Dion, who violated and acted in contempt of the code on a number of occasions.

Before I get to that, I will say that I have personal knowledge of a number of the things that have been referred to by the hon. member with relation to the history of the code. I served for 15 years on the procedure and House affairs committee, which I think is a record. I do not think anyone here has ever served that long on that, or any other, committee.

I was on the committee when we adopted the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, and I was there for various amendments. I chaired a subcommittee dealing with gifts and where that issue fits into the code. I also dealt with and was part of the writing of the report in which we concluded that Commissioner Shapiro was indeed guilty of contempt of Parliament in his actions. There were very serious consequences of the unauthorized investigatory activities he undertook, including devastating consequences for people who were not members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, you can read the report to learn more about that.

When I say that this is part of a pattern that goes back to Commissioner Dion, what I am referring to is the use of unauthorized forms, which includes other forms that the House has never seen. I will give an example. I do not know how many of the forms exist, but one form that Commissioner Dion put out is a non-disclosure agreement.

When the Commissioner Dion would conduct an inquiry into a member of Parliament, his office would submit a non-disclosure form, which he told them they were required to sign, because we are all required, under section 27(8) of the code, which states: “Members shall cooperate with the commissioner with respect to any inquiry.” If the commissioner started investigating someone, they would be required to co-operate.

Part of this co-operation, in the commissioner's mind, was signing a form, a non-disclosure agreement, about the way in which he conducted an investigation. This ensured that if he engaged in any abuses of his investigatory power, a person had no recourse and would not be able to speak out against what he had done.

I think this is an absolutely outrageous abuse. It is part of a pattern of administrative justice in this country, in which all the normal protections that exist under the criminal law or civil law are stripped away when it is an administrative matter. This is a fundamental problem we see not just with this commissioner or the previous one, but also with the integrity commissioners, for example, running Ontario's municipalities, where there is widespread abuse, to the point that the integrity commissioners have, frankly, less integrity than the people they are investigating.

The non-disclosure form would then be used to silence the member, who would be unable to say how the investigation had been conducted or whether the commissioner had gone too far.

I was never the subject of an inquiry from the commissioner, but I did have the experience of, again, the commissioner's acting in contempt of Parliament, in sending me a letter in 2020, at the height of the pandemic. I cannot remember the exact date I got the letter, but I believe it was in September 2020. The letter effectively said, “I was approached by a member of the public who tells me that you may have used your office for the benefit of a family member. You have a limited amount of time to convince me otherwise. If you don't satisfy me, I will launch an inquiry.”

The nature of the evidence he then cited justifying his course of action included a number of documents I had written. One of them was an email I had sent to members of the council of a rural township where my wife was involved in a zoning dispute. I had sent an email to them asking them to conduct themselves in a certain way regarding the zoning.

It was addressed to a limited number of individuals. Only those people, our lawyer, my wife and I had seen this letter, so I knew he was taking this from an opposed party in an ongoing legal dispute and decided to weigh in on a private legal dispute on one side based on an anonymous denunciation. To this day, I still do not know who the anonymous denouncer might have been, although, as I pointed out to the commissioner, it was clearly one of a limited number of people: the members of the council, their senior staff or their lawyer. I could list off the names. One of them was formerly a staffer to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands who had engaged in a similar action against her when he worked for her. I have a suspicion it is that individual, a man named Rob Rainer, but I do not know for sure.

Initiating an inquiry on his own initiative or on the basis of an anonymous denunciation is not permitted under the Standing Orders, under the conflict of interest code. Here is how the commissioner may engage in an inquiry. Subsection 27(1) says:

A member who has reasonable grounds to believe that another member has not complied with his or her obligations under this code may request that the commissioner conduct an inquiry into the matter.

Alternatively, subsection 27(3) says:

The House may, by way of resolution, direct the commissioner to conduct an inquiry to determine whether a member has complied with his or her obligations under this code.

There is no other mechanism for initiating investigations. Anonymous denunciations are not listed as one of the bases for doing this.

I could have pointed that out to the commissioner, but he was in the process of beginning an investigation that, to me, could have resulted in the destruction of my career, so I was not in a position to fight back on technicalities. We went out and collected all of the evidence required, including going through our financial records and numerous legal documents, and in the end, he concluded that my wife had no financial interest in the matter and that I was therefore not guilty of misusing my office. By the way, the way I had misused my office, to be clear, was that I had sent an email from the email address [e-mail], and he concluded that this represented a misuse of my office because it implied that I was a member of Parliament. That implication and the authority of Parliament somehow represented a misuse.

To say the mere mention that a member is an MP represents a misuse of their office is a ludicrous interpretation, which he previously used in the investigation of the member for Ottawa West—Nepean. He found her guilty of acknowledging that she was an MP when she was campaigning for her husband, who was running for Ottawa city council. It was a crazy interpretation of the code to say that people knowing she was a member of Parliament while her husband ran for public office represented an abuse of the code. The fact that her husband was going from a higher-paying job to a lower-paying one as an Ottawa city councillor, thereby making it a negative financial interest, was of no concern to the commissioner, who was simply looking for a way to find her guilty of something to justify himself and his salary.

It was an outrageous pattern of behaviour that he repeated again when he went after the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Members can read both his report and my views on his report on my website. It was a vindictive attack on the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore just because he did not like the way the member was behaving. This kind of personal, petty vindictiveness creeping into an officer of Parliament so they can take advantage of the fact that there are no procedural protections for members of Parliament and abuse their authority is an outrage and should be dealt with.

In the event that one member asks the commissioner to investigate another member, it can happen that the commissioner looks into it and says ultimately that it was frivolous, that the member's name was dragged through the mud for nothing. When I was on the procedure and House affairs committee, we changed the code to say that when an investigation is undertaken, both the commissioner and the member who made the accusation have to stay quiet so they cannot damage a person by launching an investigation right before an election, for example. This was put into the code in subsection 27(6):

If the commissioner is of the opinion that a request for an inquiry was frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith, the commissioner shall so state in dismissing the request in a report under section 28(6) and may recommend that further action be considered against the member who made the request.

That was done, by the way, when Charlie Angus launched a frivolous accusation against another member.

This is great if an MP does it, but I did not get that right, because some anonymous person anonymously denounced me to a commissioner who kept protecting their identity after the fact, after finding out the whole thing was frivolous. I apologize for revealing a confidential conversation, but when I spoke to the member for Ottawa West—Nepean, I talked to her about how much it cost me in legal bills to fight this. I said that I am very fortunate; I have extraordinarily fortunate financial circumstances. The $40,000 in legal fees it cost me to fight this was something I could sustain. She said she had to pay a whole bunch too.

The commissioner gets a salary for doing this stuff. She and I, and I assume the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, had to pay out of our own pockets for this. If a member is not independently wealthy, the investigation itself can ruin them, even if it is completely vexatious.

This is an outrage that exists throughout the administrative justice system in Canada, federal and provincial. It exist right here, and it is time to cut out this cancer.