Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: member alleged to have deliberately misled the House

January 29, 2019

Debates, pp. 2955–6

On December 13, 2018, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a question of privilege regarding a statement made by Nicola Di Iorio (Saint-Léonard—St-Michel) in the House in response to a question of privilege Mr. Cullen had raised about him.^[1] Mr. Cullen argued that Mr. Di Iorio had deliberately misled the House on December 11, 2018, by stating on several occasions that he was not collecting his member’s salary during his prolonged absence from Parliament.^[2] In his view, this statement was quite simply false, because the House of Commons administration, under the Parliament of Canada Act, has an obligation to pay a salary to all members until they are no longer members. As a result, Mr. Cullen argued that Mr. Di Iorio’s statement was in contempt of the House. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

On January 29, 2019, Mr. Di Iorio rose to respond to Mr. Cullen’s remarks, saying he had been absent from the House but had been continuing his work as a member and working on a cause that was important to him. He said he had chosen not to collect his member’s salary since the beginning of his absence.^[3]

Resolution

The Speaker delivered his ruling on January 29, 2019. He emphasized the seriousness of accusing a member of misleading the House. The Speaker acknowledged that the words used by Mr. Di Iorio during his speech on December 11, 2018, indicating he was not collecting a salary, seemed to contradict the established fact that the House Administration has a legal obligation to pay him one.

The Speaker reminded the House that his role is not to interpret what members mean when they speak in the chamber; the Chair’s role is strictly procedural in nature. To that end, a careful review of the precedents and the present case did not allow him to find a prima facie case of privilege. The Speaker concluded by inviting members to pay close attention to the words they use to avoid any confusion that could lead to a misunderstanding.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on December 13, 2018, by the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley concerning an allegedly misleading statement made in the House by the former member for Saint-[Léonard]—Saint-Michel.

I want to thank the member for having raised the question, as well as the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie for their interventions.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley stated that, on December 11, 2018, in response to another question of privilege, the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel had misled the House when he said he was not collecting his salary as a member of Parliament. He concluded that that statement had to have been incorrect given that, pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, the House of Commons administration has an obligation to pay a salary to all sitting members and that the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel was still a member when he made that statement.

Earlier today, the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel reaffirmed that he had no intention of ever “pocketing” his salary and, in fact, had donated it to a cause of his choosing. He also explained that his statement was made in French but the English translation, used by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley as a basis for the current question of privilege, did not accurately represent his views and led to a misinterpretation of his remarks.

I have carefully reviewed the statement made on December 11, 2018, by the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel in which he stated, indeed several times, that he was not “collecting” a salary. The words spoken at the time, or at least what one could easily understand them to mean, appeared to contradict the established facts, specifically the House of Commons administration’s legal obligation to pay a salary to all members until such time as they are no longer members of Parliament. Today’s statement clarifies what the former member intended to say.

The charge of misleading the House is always regarded by the Chair as a most serious one for it touches not only on the technical aspects of the charge but also the integrity of the member. The Chair, of course, is bound to respect the established conventions accepted by the House on such matters; this does not include assuming a role in the interpretation of what members intended to say. As Speaker Parent reminds us at page 9247 of the Debates on October 19, 2000:

What I am required to rule on is a more narrow procedural issue: whether a wilful attempt has been made to mislead the House. … Only on the strongest and clearest evidence can the House or the Speaker take steps to deal with cases of attempts to mislead members.

After a careful review of the precedents and the current case before the House, the Chair cannot find that there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie question of privilege.

Before I conclude, I would once again encourage members to be more mindful of the need to choose their words carefully to help minimize any confusion, however inadvertent, that could lead to a serious misunderstanding. Of course, this is even more important when the ambiguous statement cannot be readily clarified as happened in this case. At the same time, I would urge members to be cautious in considering a charge against a fellow member.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.

Postscript

Later in the sitting, the Speaker announced to the House that Mr. Di Iorio was resigning and that he had addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of a writ for an election to fill the vacancy.^[4]