Library of Parliament
The matter at issue must however relate to “a genuine emergency” that the Speaker deems worthy of debate at an early opportunity.
Having heard an application for an emergency debate, the Speaker decides without debate whether or not the matter is specific and important enough to warrant urgent consideration by the House.
During his term, Speaker Parent received only a limited number of requests for an emergency debate, and few of these were approved.
Such debates, the result of interparty agreement, enabled the House to react rapidly to a number of potentially serious events, and served, in some measure, as an alternative to emergency debates.
Emergency Debates
is an acceptable topic for an emergency debate is occasionally taken out of the hands of the Chair.
The Speaker then determines when any other business that has been superseded by an emergency debate should be considered or disposed of. 130 Rules of Debate During an emergency debate, speeches are limited to 20 minutes per Member and may be followed by a 10-minute questions and comments period.
See, for example, Debates, March 29, 2010, p. 1061 (when an emergency debate was allowed on the Aboriginal Healing Foundation) or Debates, March 9, 2012, pp. 6037–8 (when the Chair allowed an emergency debate on drug shortages). 110.
On this occasion, the Speaker approved two applications for emergency debates in the same day.
In one instance, an emergency debate lasted for more than 20 hours.
The matter must relate to a genuine emergency and, if the request for a debate is granted, the House is permitted to forgo the usual 48-hour notice period.
In the year after Speaker Fraser was elected to the Chair, the rules governing Emergency Debates changed in a key respect.
Prior to June1987, after the Speaker decided whether the matter could be debated, the House still had the authority to refuse to grant leave for the emergency debate.
This Speakership is a period rich in requests for Emergency Debates: the Speaker had to decide on 149 specific cases.
Selected Decisions of Speaker John Bosley 1984 - 1986 Adjournment Motions for Emergency Debates Introduction The purpose of this type of adjournment motion is to allow an emergency debate on a "specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration".
The Speaker must then decide, based in part on the criteria set out in the Standing Orders, whether the subject matter of the proposed debate is such that it should be brought before the House.
The Speaker is not, however, required to give any reasons for accepting or rejecting a Member's application for an emergency debate.
If the House does consent, the Speaker usually defers the start of the debate until 8:00p.m. the same day, or 3:00 p.m. on a Friday. [*] Following amendments to the Standing Orders adopted on June 27, 1985, and February 13, 1986, the relevant Standing Order was changed from number 30 to 31, then to 29, as indicated in the different rulings in this chapter.
Adjournment Motions for Emergency Debates
Selected Decisions of Speaker John Fraser 1986 - 1994 Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates Application not accepted; debate not urgent; not genuine emergency January 22, 1987 Debates, p. 2577 Context On January 22, 1987, Mr.
Speaker: I should bring to the attention of honourable Members that an application was made this morning by the honourable Member for Sudbury for an emergency debate.
I am now ready to rule on the application of the honourable Member who applied under Standing Order 29(1) for an emergency debate.
In the circumstances the Chair cannot find, despite the importance of this matter, that a genuine emergency exists or that the criterion of "urgency of debate" is met by this application.
Application not accepted; debate not urgent; not genuine emergency
Selected Decisions of Speaker John Fraser 1986 - 1994 Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates Interpretation of Standing Order relating to Emergency Debates; effect of motion to proceed to Orders of the Day on applications for Emergency Debates; reiteration of need for notice of application to be submitted on each occasion leave requested March 6, 1990 Debates, pp. 8844-6 Context On January 23, 1990, Mr.
At issue was the disposition of a number of applications for Emergency Debates of which notice had been given for the previous day, Monday, January 22, 1990.
These Emergency Debates as they are known are held only when a number of hurdles as spelled out in Standing Order 52 have been crossed.
As to whether notices of intention to request an emergency debate should be held over and called at the first opportunity, I have severe reservations in this regard.
Interpretation of Standing Order relating to Emergency Debates; effect of motion to proceed to Orders of the Day on applications for Emergency Debates; reiteration of need for notice of application to be submitted on each occasion leave requested
Selected Decisions of Speaker Geoff Regan 2015 - 2019 Special Debates / Emergency Debates Leave granted: emergency debate requested by three members of Parliament November 26, 2018 Debates, p. 23925 Context On November 26, 2018, Erin O’Toole (Durham), Scott Duvall (Hamilton Mountain) and Bryan May (Cambridge) successively rose in the House to request that an emergency debate be held, pursuant to Standing Order 52, on the closure of the General Motors Plant in Oshawa, Ontario. [1] Resolution The Speaker ruled immediately and granted leave for the emergency debate, to be held later that day.
Decision of the Chair The Speaker: I thank the hon. members for Durham, Hamilton Mountain and Cambridge for their interventions in relation to this request, which I am prepared to grant, for an emergency debate to take place this evening.
[1] Debates, November 26, 2018, pp. 23923–5.
Leave granted: emergency debate requested by three members of Parliament
Selected Decisions of Speaker John Fraser 1986 - 1994 Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates Interpretation of Standing Order relating to Emergency Debates; Speaker's observations following discussion in the House February 6, 1992 Debates, pp. 6463-4 Context On February 4 and 5, 1992, [1] Mr.
Dingwall made the following points: that since the changes in the sitting hours of the House, Emergency Debates no longer pre-empted the business of the House; that the McGrath reform committee report had recommended holding more special debates; and that doing so would give all Members more opportunity to debate issues that mattered to them.
He asked the Speaker to consider these points when ruling on applications for Emergency Debates.
That is in the past because, as has been properly pointed out, an emergency debate would take place after Orders of the Day are concluded, except on a Friday.
Interpretation of Standing Order relating to Emergency Debates; Speaker's observations following discussion in the House
Selected Decisions of Speaker John Fraser 1986 - 1994 Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates Leave not granted; repetition of requests; Speaker's indication that circumstances could change; matter of importance, does not necessarily merit emergency debate September 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 1987 Debates, pp. 9266, 9346-7, 9368, 9421-2, 9498 October 1, 2, 1987 Debates, pp. 9522, 9608 Context On September 24, 1987, Mr.
Langdon's application. [1] Over the next six sitting days, [2] the two Members persisted in their attempts to be granted leave for an emergency debate on this matter, and they were joined in their efforts to obtain an emergency debate by the Members for Oshawa (Hon.
I have the honourable Member's point and I am again today not of a disposition to grant an emergency debate tonight.
As yet, however, it has not been the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate.
For today, however, it is not the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate for tonight.
Debate, Voting and Decorum Summary The House of Commons follows a structured process for debate and decision-making.
Debating the motion The Speaker will recognize members who wish to participate in debate.
Debate on the main motion is set aside and the amendment is debated until it has been decided, whereupon debate resumes on the main motion.
These may include: motions for which written notice is required; Orders of the Day, such as motions for the second and third reading of bills or supply motions; motions taken up during Routine Proceedings under the rubric Motions; and motions to adjourn the House for the purpose of initiating emergency debates.
Concluding Debate Debates normally continue until no member wishes to speak.
Selected Decisions of Speaker John Fraser 1986 - 1994 Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates Multiple applications on same sitting day; leave granted - relates to genuine emergency; leave not granted - other opportunities for debate, including Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne April 4, 1989 Debates, pp. 40-1 Context On April 4, 1989, on the second sitting day of the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament and thus the first day of debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Speaker received three written notices of the intention of Members to rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House.
Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell), sought an emergency debate on the issue of aviation safety in Canada.
Ralph Ferguson (Lambton—Middlesex) then sought an emergency debate on the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Jim Fulton (Skeena) who sought an emergency debate on the oil spill from the oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez, in Alaska. [1] The Speaker indicated he would consider each of the applications and return to the House later that day.
Multiple applications on same sitting day; leave granted - relates to genuine emergency; leave not granted - other opportunities for debate, including Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne
Chapter 15 Special Debates Statutory Debates Parliament has included provisions governing special statutory debates in certain statutes.
In this instance, the House adopted a Special Order that had the effect of terminating debate after only two hours. 216 The Emergencies Act is exceptional in that it imposes no time limit for debate on a motion for confirmation of a declaration, or continuation of a declaration, of an emergency or for debate on a motion to revoke or amend a regulation or order.
motions be received during the debate. 223 Interruption of Debate Many statutes that prescribe provisions for statutory debates also stipulate that the debate may not be interrupted.
See, for example, Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 (4th Supp), s 58(1). 200.
Emergencies Act, SC 1988, c 29, ss 58(6), 60(5) and 61(8). 218.
Chapter 15 Special Debates Take-Note Debates Since the early 1990s, a number of take-note motions have been debated in the House or in Committee of the Whole. 165 These debates solicit the views of Members on some aspect of government policy and allow Members to participate in policy development, making their views known before the government makes a decision. 166 Standing committees studying the idea of take-note debates in 1993 and 1994 saw them as an alternative to emergency debates, which could be authorized by the Speaker only after a series of criteria had been met. 167 As most of the House’s time was spent considering legislation, take-note debates were viewed as an opportunity for Members to address national issues in a detailed manner.
The debate ends after four hours of debate or when no Member rises to speak, whichever is earlier.
The first take-note debates occurred in 1992.
For further information on these criteria, see the section in this chapter entitled “Emergency Debates”. 168.
See also Debates, January 28, 2002, p. 8298. 176.
These “special debates” include the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne; the debate on the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees; emergency debates; debates to suspend certain Standing Orders in order to consider urgent matters; and take-note debates.
The decisions included in this chapter relate to two of these types of special debates: emergency debates and take-note debates.
Emergency debates are governed by specific provisions of the Standing Orders.
However, before refusing or granting leave to hold an emergency debate, the Speaker considers a number of factors.
Once a request for an emergency debate has been granted, the Speaker has the discretion to decide when the debate will take place.
Selected Decisions of Speaker Lucien Lamoureux 1966 – 1974 Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted Debate not urgent January 16, 1969 Debates pp. 4358-9 Background Mr.
Reasons given by the Speaker Among the conditions to be met in moving the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, both in its new and old forms, is that the subject-matter "must relate to a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration".
An element of suddenness is an essential aspect of the meaning of emergency.
Sources cited Debates, January 14, 1958, pp. 3288-9; March 23, 1959, pp. 2134-6; February 17, 1960, pp. 1149-53.
Debate not urgent
Selected Decisions of Speaker Lucien Lamoureux 1966 – 1974 Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted Other opportunities for debate May 15, 1973 Debates pp. 3752-3, 3779-80 Background Mr.
Although a motion to concur in the committee report had not yet been proposed, Members might consider having a debate under such a motion rather than an emergency debate.
Despite the inclination of the Chair in favour of an emergency debate, the Speaker suggested that this sort of problem should be resolved through consultations among the House Leaders, and reserved his decision until those consultations had taken place.
Reasons given by the Speaker The agreement among the House Leaders puts aside the request for a debate under Standing Order 26.
Other opportunities for debate
Selected Decisions of Speaker Lloyd Francis 1984 Adjournment Motion Proposed under Standing Order 30 / Application not Accepted Debate not urgent; other opportunities for debate; sub judice March 5, 1984 Debates p. 1766 Background Ms.
There have been and will be various opportunities to debate the matter without setting aside the normal business of the House.
The Government's intention to allow the cruise missile testing has been well-known for some time and therefore the issue does not constitute a sudden emergency.
The Supreme Court's pending decision on the application to suspend the testing leaves the matter sub judice and therefore excluded from those subjects which may be debated under Standing Order 30.
Debate not urgent; other opportunities for debate; sub judice
Selected Decisions of Speaker Lucien Lamoureux 1966 – 1974 Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Accepted Debate urgent September 13, 1973 Debates p. 6496 Background Mr.
Reasons given by the Speaker Despite some hesitation to put a motion founded primarily on the regular monthly reports of Statistics Canada, there are in this instance special circumstances to justify an emergency debate which would take into account the statistical report on which the Leader of the Opposition has based his motion.
This motion will be put on the understanding that the scope of the debate will encompass the subject-matter proposed by Mr.
Broadbent, thus giving him a "special position in this debate".
Debate urgent
Selected Decisions of Speaker Lucien Lamoureux 1966 – 1974 Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted Matter not urgent; other opportunities for debate December 2, 1970 Debates p. 1681 Background Mr.
Reasons given by the Speaker "The word 'emergency' used in relation to Standing Order 26 has always been interpreted to refer to a sudden occurrence, a newly arising situation."
There is also "the possibility that the matter might be debated in other circumstances".
References Debates, April 6, 1970, p. 5508; April 13, 1970, pp. 5755-6.
Matter not urgent; other opportunities for debate
They include the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the debate on the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and its committees, emergency debates, debates to suspend certain standing orders in order to consider urgent matters, and take-note debates.
This chapter focuses on emergency debates.
The Speaker is not obliged to indicate the reasons for refusing or granting a request for an emergency debate.