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

On January 23, 1990, Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) rose on a point of order to discuss events of the previous day^[1] which had prevented consideration of applications to adjourn the House for an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52. Specifically, he noted that because a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day had been moved and adopted while the House was still considering Routine Proceedings, the opportunity to consider such applications had not occurred. In addition, Mr. Gauthier argued that there was no need to refile those notices in order to have them considered at a subsequent time. Without prejudice or precedent being created, the Speaker indicated, if the House agreed, he would deem the applications in front of him and rule on them later that afternoon.^[2] As agreed to by the House, he subsequently ruled on the applications, and then indicated he would return to the House at a later day to rule on the strictly procedural matter raised by Mr. Gauthier.^[3] His decision on Mr. Gauthier's point of order is reproduced below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, January 23, 1990, the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier rose on a point of order to express concerns about the operation of certain aspects of Standing Order 52, which is, of course, the Standing Order pertaining to Emergency Debates. In the ensuing procedural discussion, the Chair heard comment from the honourable Member from Kamloops (Mr. Nelson Riis), from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Albert Cooper) and from the honourable Member from (Mr. Don Boudria).

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. Members had been precluded from proceeding with these applications on that Monday because the House adopted a motion to move to Orders of the Day.

In the spirit of co-operation which sometimes prevails in this place it was agreed that those applications would be deemed to be before the House the following day. They were dealt with on Tuesday, January 23, on that basis. That agreement was made subject to the express proviso that it not constitute a precedent.

The Chair undertook to reflect upon the interpretation to be accorded to this aspect of Standing Order 52 and to deal with the intricacies of the procedural matter at another time. The Chair is now prepared to share with the House the results of that consideration.

Honourable Members are all familiar with the provisions of Standing Order 52, by which a Member may seek permission to move the adjournment of the House in order to debate a "specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration". 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. In particular, Standing Order 52(2) provides that any Member wishing to move the adjournment of the House under the terms of this Standing Order must give to the Speaker, at least one hour before raising it in the House, a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed.

The items of concern addressed in the procedural exchange on this issue may be conveniently and fairly, I believe, summarized as follows.

First, concern was expressed that when a motion to move to Orders of the Day pre-empts reaching that point in Routine Proceedings at which leave to seek an emergency debate may be sought, the system is then short-circuited and the opportunity to present an application is not protected.

Second, it was contended that any notices to the Speaker requesting an emergency debate which are precluded from being presented on a given day should be held over and called on the next day when applications pursuant to Standing Order 52 would normally be reached.

In response to the first point I think it should be emphasized that the decision to move to Orders of the Day is one which is made by the House usually on the basis of a recorded division, presumably with full knowledge of the consequences, whatever they may be, of doing so. That being so I do not think it incumbent upon the Chair to second guess the decision of the House and its ramifications, and I would decline any invitation to do so.

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.

The specific and important matters requiring urgent consideration, according to Standing Order 52(1), call by definition for immediate action or decision or attention. If that immediate attention is not accorded, it stands to reason that the nature of the matter may change. A delay of even 24 hours may serve either to diffuse or escalate the situation so that it is no longer an emergency or, conversely, it is even more critical. For this reason the Chair is reluctant to institute what would be a new practice of holding over such notices.

This reluctance is enforced by the consciousness that were notices to be held over, some honourable Members may for a variety of valid reasons not be prepared to proceed with them on a subsequent occasion.

Furthermore, the Chair is sensitive to the fact that honourable Members may wish to retain for themselves the prerogative of resubmitting notices, because in framing each successive application they have the opportunity to capture with precision the changing elements which give rise to the request for an emergency debate and which may bear heavily on the ultimate success of the application.

I would ask honourable Members to remember that on a number of occasions when applications have come to the Chair and I have decided not to proceed with an adjournment of House business for an emergency debate, I have often remarked that it would not be appropriate to do so, and I use the words "at this time". The reason for that, of course, is that circumstances can change very rapidly, especially in an area where there is concern with respect to the necessity to have an emergency debate.

The Chair is pleased to have had this opportunity to relate to the House the considerations which have informed its decision to continue the existing practice with regard to notices submitted pursuant to Standing Order 52.

I thank honourable Members for their assistance in this matter.

F0817-f

34-2

1990-03-06