Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will not take too much of the House's time. I simply want to add to the question of privilege I raised earlier with respect to a member of Parliament. My friend from Yukon asked what aspect of the question of privilege I was raising. I thought some clarification for the Speaker's office and for you, Madam Speaker, would be helpful in the decision we believe is forthcoming.

This pertains to the member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. This is the member of Parliament who got up in this place last spring, in April, and said he was resigning his seat. We all clapped, I suppose, and congratulated him and assumed that was the end of it. We then found out in the subsequent month that he had in fact not resigned his seat. He continued to occupy the seat but did not show up to work. He continued to receive his pay and benefits as a member of Parliament, but did not show up. He could not make the two-hour train trip from Montreal. Some of us in this place make a great deal longer trip to be here.

What I wish to clarify is that the breach of privilege I am speaking of is not any personal infringement of my privileges. I am not unable to do my job as a member of Parliament as a result, but I refer instead to a category of privilege that affects this entire place. On page 148 of Bosc and Gagnon, 3rd edition, it states that a question of privilege can concern a matter which either infringes upon a member's ability to do their job, or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament. That is specifically what we are talking about here, the second category, the dignity of this place, which suffers often from political scandal, misappropriation of funds or just bad behaviour by some members of Parliament. We seek to protect the reputation of this place, and when a member of Parliament conducts themself in a way that infringes upon that reputation, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to seek some remedy.

The remedy is that we appeal to the Speaker's office to find a prima facie case of a breach of privilege that then passes to the procedure and House affairs committee, which can then bring forward whatever witnesses it deems necessary—certainly, the MP for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, as well as others who might have some information. It concerns the reputation of this place and the respect for the principle of representation that operates at the very heart of our democracy. As Canadians lose faith with and a favourable view of the House of Commons in general, it makes all that we do more difficult to do.

The only place that can eventually find contempt and seek some remedy, either a suspension or expulsion from the House, is the House of Commons itself. We rely on the procedure and House affairs committee, where all recognized parties are represented, to bring forward the evidence and make its recommendation back to us. That is our process. However, I sincerely believe this goes beyond any partisanship. This is simply about our doing our jobs as members of Parliament, because we pass across the stage but for a moment, and it is up to us to make sure that we leave the place a little better than we found it, and when bad behaviour is not considered and goes unpunished, that reflects badly on all of us.

I wanted very much to clarify that particular point, the reputation of Parliament, of the House of Commons, which is the privilege we believe has been breached. That is what we are appealing to the Speaker.

I know a colleague from the Conservatives spoke in favour of, and many colleagues from the Liberals at least applauded, the effort we were making to address this issue, which I personally have not seen.

The House is very compassionate, and has shown itself to be so when members of Parliament fall ill, or a near and dear relative, like a spouse or a child, falls ill and a member cannot be here. We also understand that members of Parliament are away from time to time doing parliamentary business. That is also fine, of course, because that is the duty. Therefore, I would say that while we are not lenient, we are compassionate when dealing with this. What few arguments we have heard from this member in particular, in his speech in April of this past year, seven months ago, was that he was quitting, and that was it. We have heard nothing since. Now, we have seen from some media commentary, from posts he has made in the media, that maybe he is quitting in January or February. That will be nine months at least in which he said he was no longer doing the work, or has not done the work, that we are aware of, and certainly has not been here, and yet has been compensated as a member of Parliament. For working Canadians, that is not an experience they are familiar with. If they go to their boss and say they are quitting and say goodbye, that is usually the end of it. They do not continue to receive a salary for not showing up to work.

Members of Parliament, of course, have some latitude because of the complexities sometimes of our jobs and lives, but only so much latitude. If we do not act on this behaviour, we are simply condoning it by our inaction. That is not to anyone's benefit, regardless of their political persuasion.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this time today. I know that we will resume debate, and I appreciate being able to add to this discussion.

Nathan Cullen

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)