Adjournment Motions for Emergency Debates / Application not Accepted

Application not accepted

Debates pp. 2210-1

Background

Mr. Kaplan (York Centre) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 30 to discuss possible interference by the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) with a criminal investigation of the Premier of New Brunswick (Mr. Hatfield). The Speaker ruled immediately.

Issue

Did the application meet the requirements of Standing Order 30?

Decision

No. The application was not accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The next day being an allotted day, there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter without resorting to an emergency debate. Also, by long-standing practice, an examination into the conduct of a Member of Parliament can only take place by means of a substantive motion of which notice has been given and which will result in a decision of the House on the matter.

Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Sources cited

Standing Order 30(16)(1).

Debates, June 19, 1959, pp. 4929-32.

Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 17, c. 40.

May, 20th ed., p. 378.