Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates

Guidelines: no argument or discussion allowed in the presentation of the application for leave

May 9, 1989

Debates, pp. 1501-2

On April 6, 1989, following an application for leave to adjourn the House pursuant to Standing Order 52 made by Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona), the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Hon. Doug Lewis) rose on a point of order to seek the Speaker's interpretation of Standing Order 52(3) and specifically concerning guidelines existing for the statement which is made in support of applications for Emergency Debates.^[1] The Speaker's remarks on this matter are reproduced below in their entirety.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding to Orders of the Day, I wish to give a ruling as a consequence of argument of Thursday, April 6, by way of an application for an emergency debate under Standing Order 52. At that time, the honourable Minister of Justice raised a point of order concerning guidelines that exist for the statement which can be made in support of such an application. For the benefit of honourable Members, I will read Standing Orders 52(2) and 52(3). Standing Order 52(2) reads:

A Member wishing to move, "That this House do now adjourn"-

Because that is what is moved when one wants an emergency debate.

-under the provisions of this Standing Order shall give to the Speaker, at least one hour prior to raising it in the House, a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed.

Standing Order 52(3) reads:

When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the Member shall rise in his or her place and present without argument the statement referred to in section (2) of this Standing Order.

A strict interpretation of these two subsections could lead one to suppose that the written application was to be read to the House by the Member requesting leave for an emergency debate and that the Member would not be allowed to deviate from this prepared text. This interpretation is in general the correct one, as I said on September 30, 1987 in response to a very similar point of order raised by the then honourable Minister of Justice. That point of order and my response to it may be found on page 9498 of the Debates. It is also interesting to note that this interpretation is supported by the Annotated Standing Orders at page 175.

However, on occasion there may be mitigating circumstances which I feel, as your Speaker, I should take into account in order to respect the spirit of this Standing Order as well as its most literal interpretation.

In my ruling of September 30, 1987, I said:

The Chair has allowed and may well continue to allow sufficient comment when the application is made so that the position of the Member is clear.

Some written applications do not provide enough detail for the Speaker to know precisely what the Member wants to raise and why. Others are too long and detailed and the Member, rather than reading, should give only a concise summary.

As Speaker, I feel it is important to reiterate that no argument or discussion is allowed in presenting the statement.

I can certainly understand that honourable Members care deeply about these requests and may from time to time stray beyond what the rules envision. In the interests of fairness, particularly since the Government does not have an opportunity to present any counter arguments during an application for an emergency debate, I will, of course, use this opportunity to again remind Members of the rule and will be vigilant in ensuring that Members do not stray from these guidelines.

I thank the honourable Minister of Justice for raising this matter and thereby allowing me to bring this issue to the attention of Members. I hope that I can count upon the support of all honourable Members in this matter

F0816-e

34-2

1989-05-09