Motions without Notice Proposed under Standing Order 43 / Application of the Rule

Application of the rule

Debates, pp. 3164-6

Background

On October 26, 1978, Mr. Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon—Biggar) rose on a point of order and asked for clarification of the rules regarding the operation of Standing Order 43. In particular, Mr. Hnatyshyn made the point that, the motions proposed under Standing Order 43 are debated, such debate should not be suspended on account of the Question Period. He claimed that since the House was debating a motion prior to reaching Orders of the Day, the motion could only be suspended by adjourning the House or by moving a superseding motion. Other points were raised during the discussion and the Speaker undertook to examine the situation and report back to the House.

Issue

How should the provisions of Standing Order 43 be interpreted and applied?

Decision

Based upon the discussion, the Speaker believed that there was a consensus as to how motions under Standing Order 43 should be treated. The Chair will intervene to reject applications which contain inflammatory preambles, lack urgency or are frivolous. As to the conflict with the scheduled beginning of Question Period, the language of Standing Order 15(2) is very clear in protecting the hours of Question Period each day. To apply the Standing Order in any other way would not be acceptable and would give motions under Standing Order 43 a priority over all other business, including motions of privilege. Standing Order 45(2) is also clear in requiring the transfer of any interrupted or adjourned debate to government orders.

Other issues concerning proceedings under Standing Order 43 were also considered by the Chair. One was that a Member who withholds his consent should be allowed to explain why he is doing so; another raised the need for a more adequate grievance procedure than exists under current practices. While these suggestions have the support of the Speaker in principle, "these changes ought not to come from the Chair. They have to be as a result of consensus in the House carefully distilled through committee proceedings which will examine all of the consequences and make recommendations to the House."

References

Debates, October 26, 1978, pp. 489-99.