Mr. Speaker, I rise on an important question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48(1). I very much appreciate that members are keen to return to their constituencies and families. However, I think this question of privilege will be of interest to some members.

Recently, of course, you will well know that the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel stood in this place to defend his previous absences from Parliament, and you gave us a ruling earlier this week.

We were looking over the member's comments, which were at times passing strange. However, importantly, in the midst of those comments, he likely misled Parliament. If the member were found to be in a prima facie breach of privilege, it would lead to the very serious charge of contempt of Parliament if the members of the procedure and House affairs committee were indeed to find it so.

In response to the question of his long absence from Parliament, the member gave a speech in which he, in defending his behaviour, declared something. He said, “I am not collecting a salary from the House of Commons.” He repeated this assertion many times in his speech. You referred to it, actually, in your own ruling.

Just by circumstance, a fellow colleague, another member of Parliament, had written to your office about the possibilities of such a procedure when a member of Parliament who is still occupying a seat foregoes salary, as the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel claims he has done. The good officials who work on behalf of all of us wrote her back and, in quoting the Parliament of Canada Act, said, “The Parliament of Canada Act is clear in our obligation to make payment until a member retires or resigns.”

Therefore, what the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel said as part of his justification in defending his eight-month absence from the House of Commons, that he has not been receiving a salary, is factually impossible, as you will now know.

One is either a member of Parliament or not. If one is a member of Parliament, one will receive a salary. If that is true, as the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel spoke in this place, I assume he is still a member of Parliament and has been for some months. He did not retire. He did not resign. He is still receiving a salary.

I am very happy to submit for your consideration the documentation I have in hand.

We also know that the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states:

Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and thus a prima facie breach of privilege.

Also, at page 141 of the 19th edition of Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, it states:

Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.

It is of some historical moment and some sense of irony that as this place begins to shut down, a Liberal member stood in this place and said what he did. There is much that divides us here, there are a few things that unite us, and one of the things that unite us is to try our level best, regardless of partisan interests, to maintain the respect and dignity of this place. When members come before us, when members take their place, and knowingly mislead the House, it is the obligation of all members to call that member of Parliament to account.

We listened very carefully to the words of the member from Montreal, who told us last spring he was resigning, then did not. He then returned the same day of your ruling to give an impassioned, and sometimes somewhat coherent speech, as to why he could not have been here, that other work took him away, and yet he still received his pay. He still received the benefits of being a member of Parliament, despite the fact he never showed up for a day of work.

Most Canadians who were watching that were offended. They will be further offended if they find out that in the argument for and justification of that absence, the member then misled the House by suggesting that he had not received his pay, and yet we found from the House of Commons administration itself that that is not a possibility. He is entitled to his own opinions and his own so-called work ethic, but he is not entitled to his own facts. The facts of this matter are clear.

We present this to you humbly, on the last day this House convenes, so that you may in fact find a prima facie case, in which case we will move the privilege motion, accordingly, with great enthusiasm.

Nathan Cullen

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)