Before we begin private members' hour, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 26, 2018, by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley regarding the attendance in the House of Commons of the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

I want to thank the member for having raised the matter in the House, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, and the members for Chilliwack—Hope, Yukon and Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for their observations.

The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley explained that, since announcing his resignation as a member of Parliament in April of this year, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has failed to fulfill the requirements of Standing Order 15 by not attending sittings in the House. All the while, he continues to receive his salary and benefits. Although acknowledging that valid exceptions to that rule exist, he believed that this prolonged and unexplained absence offends the reputation and dignity of the House and, thus, constitutes a contempt.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the question of privilege was not raised at the earliest opportunity, as is required, and that it is the Board of Internal Economy that has the necessary powers and authority to deal with this type of administrative matter.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel provided an explanation about how he has in fact been fulfilling certain parliamentary duties during his absence. Furthermore, he claimed in this statement to the House that he has not been receiving his salary as a member of Parliament during this time.

In terms of the issue of “first opportunity”, the Chair is satisfied that, in this case, a certain latitude is required to bring this matter forward given its evolving nature.

At the core of this matter is the obligation for members of Parliament to fulfill their parliamentary duties in part by attending sittings in the House. This seemingly simple statement carries with it enormous responsibility, from which even larger expectations emanate.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 218, states:

…the presence of Members in the Chamber is largely a function of politics, not procedure or law.

While it may be hard to deny this reality, procedure and law do play their part. In fact, as noted by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Standing Order 15 states:

Every Member, being cognizant of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act, is bound to attend the sittings of the House, unless otherwise occupied with parliamentary activities and functions or on public or official business.

This rule and the law on which it is based are straightforward, and they are sustained by valid expectations. They also come with a certain degree of latitude and, in cases of non-compliance, a need for understanding as to why. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley offered his interpretation of the current situation, one that, at least to some degree, was speculative. While it is true that the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel had not been present in the House for some months, the reasons for his absence remained unclear to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

In the past, when the House has had cause to question the right of members to continue to sit in the House, it has been for very different reasons, including allegations of violations to the Canada Elections Act and even accusations of sedition.

The charge of contempt against the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel is that he continued to receive his salary during an extended absence that remained unexplained. Even without knowing with some degree of certainty the reasons for a member's absence, it would be difficult to conclude that an absence is, in and of itself, sufficient justification for a finding of contempt, especially when this must be weighed against the accepted understanding that there are indeed valid absences.

In fact, during interventions on this matter, the House was asked to remember that there can be legitimate circumstances that require our understanding, even compassion, during a member’s lengthy absence. We were also called to remember that there is a necessary fluidity in the way we fulfill our responsibilities as members of Parliament.

The member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel provided the House with his reasons for his absence. While the Chair finds that there is no prima facie question of privilege, it needs to be clear that any latitude exercised by members in meeting their obligations should not be taken blindly as an acceptable approach. It cannot be used to hide behind the technicalities of our rules. To allow this would be a disservice to our fellow citizens whom we represent, as well as to other parliamentarians.

Finally, there is an administrative aspect of this matter, as has been suggested by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, one over which the Board of Internal Economy has authority, as derived from the Parliament of Canada Act. More specifically, the Board of Internal Economy is mandated to act on all financial and administrative matters respecting the members of the House of Commons, including their sessional allowances. This then makes it the proper forum to discuss such questions and for any relevant determinations to be made. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley remains free to bring important issues of this nature to the attention of the board, as required.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Geoff Regan

Transcript

Discussions (0)