Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a question of privilege raised by a member of the second opposition party who was wondering about my absence from the House.

First, I would like to set the record straight. It was not my decision to be away from the House. The circumstances that led to my absence were not of my choosing, nor were they the result of anything I did. At no time and under no circumstances was I taken to task, except by the NDP member in his complaint regarding my absence from the House. My conduct was, at all times, above reproach. I am not collecting a salary from the House of Commons. I belong to a caucus, and for me to remain a member, my freedom of speech is subject to certain restrictions.

Despite my absence from the House, I have, at all times, worked to represent the interests of my Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel constituents and other citizens and groups that have sought my assistance. The personal and family reasons that led me to announce my intention to resign are extremely serious.

Here is some context. Various events occurred and circumstances arose, some consecutively, others concurrently, and some simultaneously.

On April 24, I sent out a press release indicating that I intended to resign my seat. On June 12, I spoke in the House on this subject. I then toured my riding in order to be accountable to my constituents. I heard from them that they really wanted me to find a way to continue my mandate while being relieved from my obligations in the House.

My work on constituency matters continued to take up most of my time from late June until August, to the point where I had to cancel all of my holidays. On August 29, my commitment to continue representing my constituents was made public, even though the reasons for my announced departure were not. A solution was needed. As I will explain, other events occurred that made it unnecessary to search for such a solution.

August 31 marked the culmination of a series of events completely beyond my control, and on September 14, it was agreed, at the request of my party, that I keep my seat and that the party whip would let me know when I was needed in the House. At every moment, no matter the circumstances, I respected the direction of the whip.

At that time, I had one major reservation about the implementation of the Cannabis Act. It troubled me that it did not include sufficient measures to raise awareness about the dangers of cannabis use for road users.

The lack of awareness initiatives surprised me, given that manufacturers had shown more willingness to work on that aspect than I expected from any government. During discussions on this issue, it became clear that my decision to remain in office was problematic. Consequently, I was informed that my departure date would coincide with the entry into force of the Cannabis Act, but that in response to my efforts and those of other people, our government was going to announce a significant commitment regarding the prevention of drug-impaired driving.

I was then informed that a mistake had been made in setting my departure date. I would be contacted with a different date. I then began an internal conversation involving my caucus, which ended with me receiving another departure date. The decision I was given on September 14 was that I would leave the House for a few weeks to focus on the tasks I had been asked to do. I informed the people I was speaking to that I would not be keeping my MP's salary during this period, even though I would be doing the work that was asked of me, and would perform all my other MP duties during this time. I wanted to offer a concrete gesture with regard to the formal portion of my duties as an MP. Time spent in the House should, in principle, account for just a small portion of an MP's work. Nevertheless, I decided to offer this concrete gesture for the sake of a cause that is very inspiring and important to me.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley raised a question of privilege regarding my absence, but some of his facts were quite simply false. I did not make a statement in the House on April 24. I urge the member to re-read my news release. Contrary to his claims, I continued my work as an MP from the end of the spring through to the fall. I continue to do this work. Contrary to his claims, I am not collecting my salary. Furthermore, I am not the one who chose the planned departure date.

I have been a lawyer for a long time. I also teach, publish and give lectures. Since my nomination campaign, I indicated that I would continue to do all of this even after the election. I have been very clear about this throughout my mandate. I even stated this in the House. The cabinet shuffle changed nothing. I was and remain convinced that Canadians would be better served if members kept some kind of job, to anchor them to the real world.

During this time, I fought some tough battles to protect my constituents and my community. Furthermore, in recent months, I have undertaken and continued work on topics that I hold dear to my heart. Many of these topics have been keeping me busy these days, and I will share some examples. On June 10, 1940, our country's government interned Italian Canadians without reason, without charges and without trial. These people were detained throughout the war. I have known about this since I was a child, but it was only when I became an adult that I understood why people would whisper as they passed by, even though they had grown old.

Italian Canadians still carry the stigma of this collective trauma. I remind members that our government took over Casa d'Italia, the oldest cultural and ethnic centre in the country, which immigrants from the old country built with their bare hands, to house soldiers, who pillaged it before they left.

No appropriate reparation has ever been made. To date, the House has never issued an apology.

I will give an example of the kind of stigma I am talking about. Although there are 1.5 million Italian-Canadians, there is not a single one sitting in the Senate.

Furthermore, as I said, I have been practising labour law for 35 years as a professor, prosecutor and researcher. Here is another example. Our labour laws are based on ideas developed during the industrial revolution of the 19th century. It should come as no surprise that they need to be updated to catch up with the 21st century. I am putting all of my expertise to work for my government and my constituents, and I am working hard on this societal project.

In reference to the member who raised the question of privilege about me, I would like to ask him whether he was concerned about a member's presence in the chamber when his neighbour, the outgoing member for Outremont, was absent for nearly a year while still collecting a salary.

If necessary, I will complete my comments outside the House.

Nicola Di Iorio