Adjournment Motion / Proposed under Standing Order 26 - Application not Accepted

Debate not urgent; other opportunities for debate

Debates pp.2711-2

Background

Mr. Waddell (Vancouver—Kingsway) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, in order to discuss amendments to the Northern Pipeline Act proposed by the National Energy Board, which if approved would, in his view, result in a "massive, wasteful and shortsighted sell-out of a non-renewable energy resource", and would moreover "subvert the intentions of Parliament" as expressed in the said Northern Pipeline Act. The Speaker ruled immediately.

Issue

Does the application meet the requirements of Standing Order 26?

Decision

No. The application is not accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"Under almost no circumstances can a review of the law be regarded as an emergency provision rather than a continuing... concern of this House." In addition, since the matter was first raised there have been two opposition days dealing with energy policy, as well as meetings of the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines to which all reports and agreements mentioned in the Northern Pipeline Act are permanently referred. Furthermore, a precedent regarding Bell Canada and the Canadian Transport Commission indicates that asking for a review of the statutory powers of an entity to which Parliament has given certain powers may not be debated under Standing Order 26.

Sources cited

Standing Order 65(1)(t).

Debates, November 9, 1971, pp. 9467-8; April 30, 1975, p. 5340.

References

Debates, July 9, 1980, p. 2711.