Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates

Multiple applications on same sitting day; leave granted - relates to genuine emergency; leave not granted - other opportunities for debate, including Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

April 4, 1989

Debates, pp. 40-1

On April 4, 1989, on the second sitting day of the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament and thus the first day of debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Speaker received three written notices of the intention of Members to rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House. The Speaker recognized Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay­ Atikokan) first. Mr. Angus, supported by Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell), sought an emergency debate on the issue of aviation safety in Canada. The Speaker reserved his decision. The Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton—Middlesex) then sought an emergency debate on the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Speaker reserved his decision on this application as well. The Speaker then recognized Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) who sought an emergency debate on the oil spill from the oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez, in Alaska.^[1] The Speaker indicated he would consider each of the applications and return to the House later that day.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I advised the House that I will return with respect to the matters raised this morning which received very careful attention indeed...

I received applications for Emergency Debates under Standing Order 52 relating to three separate items: the matter of aviation safety, the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, the oil spill outside the Port of Valdez.

Let us deal first with the question raised by the Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and the Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan on air safety.

First, I should like to quote from page 18 of Hansard for February 18, 1972 when Mr. Speaker Lamoureux stated:

I believe honourable Members will recognize that it would not be easy to justify adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 at the very moment when we have before us the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne...

The reason for this caution on the part of Speaker Lamoureux, and indeed other Speakers in the past, is that during the Throne Speech debate it is an easy matter for Members to debate subjects over a wide area and it is difficult, therefore, to meet the criteria required for an emergency debate under Standing Order 52(5) which states:

In determining whether a matter should  have urgent consideration[…]the Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time, by other means .

If I may repeat the last sentence, I must have regard, and I quote:

to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time, by other means.

In the case of air safety, and also the case of removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, where the matter may be brought before the House by other means, I do not find that the criteria of Standing Order 52 have been met, and I will not therefore allow an emergency debate at least at this time.

However, in relation to the matter raised by the honourable Member for Skeena, I do find the criteria of Standing Order 52 have been met. The matter proposed for discussion does relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.

I therefore set the matter of the oil spill outside the Port of Valdez down for debate at 8 p.m. this evening.

F0806-e

34-2

1989-04-04