Privilege / Miscellaneous

Miscellaneous; absence of a Member

Journals p. 367

Debates pp. 2795-6

Background

On October 3, Mr. Choquette (Lotbinière) rose on a point of order regarding the prolonged absence from the House of Mr. Nielsen (Yukon). The Chair indicated that the complaint did not constitute a point of order, but should instead be brought before the House as a question of privilege. The following day Mr. Choquette, having given notice to the Chair, rose on a question of privilege to draw attention to the prolonged and unauthorized absence of Mr. Nielsen, which in Mr. Choquette's view was contrary to the Standing Orders. He demanded that Mr. Nielsen apologize. After hearing Members' comments, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Can the prolonged absence of a Member from the House be the subject of a question of privilege?

Decision

No. There is no basis for a question of privilege.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Standing Order under which the allegation was made has long since fallen into disuse. One authority indicates that this particular Standing Order has not been enforced since 1877. Although never abolished, it has been replaced by the provisions contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, which provides for penalties to be imposed in cases of unjustified and repeated absences by Members.

Sources cited

Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 249.

Standing Order 5.

Dawson, W. F., Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, (Toronto, 1962), p. 89.

References

Debates, October 3, 1967, pp. 2755-6; October 4, 1967, pp. 2793-5.