When former Chrétien-era cabinet minister David Dingwall uttered the now-infamous phrase “I’m entitled to my entitlements” at a House committee appearance in 2005 probing his expenses as head of the Royal Canadian Mint, he couldn’t have known it was going to be used to tar members of his party for decades to follow. "These guys were trying to deny me—and most important, my wife—of a pension. There are certain legal rights that you have as an individual, and when they're trying to take those things away… that's why I said what I said,” Mr. Dingwall told the CBC in a 2015 interview. "It was an arrow which was going straight through to the prime minister of the day, to the clerk of the Privy Council of the day, opposition parties, anyone that wanted to listen… that I was going to get what I was entitled to. Should I have said it differently? Perhaps. But I said it." And since he did say it, opposition MPs have used the phrase ad nauseam to categorize what’s seen as a belief of inherent privilege particular to Grits. Sure, it may be a wholly undeserved stereotype—since people are people and there’s going to be self-absorbed narcissists of all political affiliations—but as they say, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Right now, those two right times have shown up in the form of the Liberal Members of Parliament for Brampton East, Ont., and Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel, Que. Nicola Di Iorio announced back in April that he was resigning, citing family reasons, saying that he was going back to practising law. Raj Grewal announced on Nov. 22 that personal and medical reasons were prompting him to give up his Ontario seat—reasons that later were revealed to be a gambling addiction through which he has wracked up significant debt. Mr. Grewal said he has since repaid his debts. Since making their respective announcements, neither MP has shown up for work in the House of Commons, which could rightly lead one to believe they had indeed given up the job. Unlike other MPs who’ve left before the dissolution of the current Parliament, like former York–Simcoe Conservative MP Peter Van Loan or former Liberal cabinet mister Judy Foote, “resignation” hasn’t exactly lived up to the generally understood bar of “leaving the job and no longer receiving a paycheque.” Since questions were rightly being asked, Mr. Di Iorio finally came forward to say he was still working on something, but that he would be giving back his paycheque until he finally does vacate his Quebec seat in January. Chief Government Whip Mark Holland said Mr. Grewal’s resignation was “effective immediately,” but more than a week went by with no sign that he had actually followed any of necessary procedures to leave his job and was still a member of the Liberal caucus. On Dec. 1, Mr. Holland confirmed that Mr. Grewal was no longer among the Liberal group after Mr. Grewal said he was rethinking the whole resignation thing altogether. There’s no mechanism to recall MPs and make them leave their seats, but it’s definitely within the purview of leadership and each caucus to apply the necessary pressure to cut loose those who are less than expedient. And party leaders can refuse to sign nomination papers for those they don't want to run under their banner in the next election. For whatever reason, and whatever challenges someone may have for saying they’re going to leave their federal seat, they shouldn’t be dragging their feet and prolonging their time on the public dime.