Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: prolonged absence of a member from House sittings

December 11, 2018

Debates, pp. 24746–7

On November 26, 2018, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a question of privilege regarding the absence of Nicola Di Iorio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel) from the House of Commons since he had announced his intent to resign. Mr. Cullen alleged that his prolonged absence contravened Standing Order 15 and constituted a contempt because he kept his seat and continued to receive his salary, despite appearing in the House only once since June 2018. He added that these actions damaged the reputation of the House and the standing of members. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1] On November 27, 2018, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) contended that the question of privilege had not been raised at the first opportunity and that it is the Board of Internal Economy that has the legal authority to act on matters involving the presence of members in the House.^[2]

On December 11, 2018, Mr. Di Iorio explained that he had been fulfilling his parliamentary duties despite not being present in the House. He added that he did not collect his salary while he was absent. The Speaker once again took the matter under advisement.^[3]

Resolution

The Speaker delivered his ruling later that day. With regard to the need to raise the question of privilege at the earliest opportunity, the Speaker explained that he was satisfied that some latitude could be granted in the case at hand, given the evolving nature of the matter. He reminded members that the obligation to attend sittings in the House is largely a function of politics, not of procedure or law. Because members can be absent for valid reasons, he did not believe that the absence itself justified a finding of contempt. As a result, the Chair did not find that there was a prima facie question of privilege. However, he cautioned members that any latitude exercised by members in meeting their obligations should not automatically be considered an acceptable approach. With regard to the administrative aspect of the question, involving Mr. Di Iorio’s salary, the Speaker invited Mr. Cullen to address the Board of Internal Economy, which is mandated to oversee such matters.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: 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.

Postscript

On December 13, 2018, Mr. Cullen rose on a new question of privilege, this time regarding a statement made by Mr. Di Iorio in the House.^[4] According to Mr. Cullen, Mr. Di Iorio incorrectly stated, in response to the question of privilege raised on November 26, 2018, regarding his absence from the House, that he was not receiving his member’s salary. The Speaker concluded, in his decision of January 29, 2019, that it was not a prima facie question of privilege. (Editor’s Note: The ruling can be found on page 90.)