Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates

Application accepted; leave of House granted; guidelines - Speaker not bound to give reasons

April 28, 1987

Debates, p. 5302

On April 28, 1987, Mr. Stan Hovdebo (Prince Albert) rose pursuant to Standing Order 29 to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing the situation facing Canadian grain farmers with particular reference to recent decisions by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Farm Credit Corporation. The Speaker ruled on the application immediately, then noted that although the Chair had granted leave, the House had not yet done so. He then agreed to hear some remarks from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Doug Lewis). Mr. Lewis pointed out that the Members of the House look to decisions of the Chair as to what truly constitutes an emergency and thus how requests for Emergency Debates were to be prepared in the future, and mentioned that notice to the Minister concerned would have been helpful.^[1] He also indicated he personally disagreed with the decision. The Speaker's decision and comments are reproduced below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I have, of course, received notice of the application of the honourable Member for Prince Albert and I find that it meets the requirements of the Standing Order. Does the honourable Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?

The Chair may be in some difficulty here. The Chair has granted leave, the House has not. This is not a debatable matter, but I will hear the Parliamentary Secretary.

Under the Standing Orders this is not a debatable matter. Honourable Members will remember that when this Order was changed there was considerable thought put into it, resulting in the order as it now stands. It is not debatable because the honourable Members of this place who worked this Order out felt that that was not appropriate. Also the intention was expressed at the time that the Chair not give reasons for why it decided to accept an Order. The reason for that was that it was believed by honourable Members that a body of jurisprudence, which would undoubtedly build up on these matters, would lead to a tendency for debate. As a consequence, the Order is as it is.

Having considered the matter and accepted the application the Chair is in the hands of the House. That is why, under the Orders, the Chair, having accepted it, then puts the question to the House.

The honourable Parliamentary Secretary raises another matter, which is not a matter of slight importance at all, that is whether or not the appropriate Minister may be able to be in the House. However, with the greatest of respect, I believe that is a matter which Members will have to work out for themselves.

I think I am bound, as Speaker, to put the question. Does the honourable Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 29 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter?

Some honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: The proposed motion shall stand over until 8 p.m. this day.

Following amendments to the Standing Orders adopted in June 1987, the leave of the House was no longer required in order for an emergency debate to take place.

F0805-e

33-2

1987-04-28