Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates

Guidelines: Speaker not bound to give reasons for his decision; leave not granted - other opportunities for debate

October 1, 1990

Debates, pp. 13633-4

On October 1, 1990, Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton—Melville) rose pursuant to Standing Order 52 to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the events surrounding the nomination of eight additional persons to the Senate of Canada. The Speaker interrupted the Member to note that applications for Emergency Debates must be brief, concise and to the point.^[1] After Mr. Nystrom completed his remarks, the Speaker delivered his ruling which included observations on a reform committee's recommendations that Speakers not give reasons for denying any requests, and further comments on the elements a Speaker must consider when ruling on applications for Emergency Debates.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I have been considering for some hours the application of the honourable Member. I assure the honourable Member that I have given it a great deal of consideration.

The point I am making at this moment is that applications for emergency debate should be brief, concise, and to the point. There is a reason for that. If the discussion strides into debate, under the Standing Orders, no other Member in the Chamber can rise. That creates a situation in which one person has the floor, gets into debate, and there may be very grave differences of opinion as to what is being debated, but no other Member can rise on the matter.

That is why we have the order and I know that the honourable Member for Yorkton—Melville understands that. I would ask him to complete his remarks very briefly.

[…]

Honourable Members will remember that when the reform committee was dealing with the rules of this place, one of the recommendations was that a Speaker not give reasons when an application for an emergency debate was turned down. I have tried to follow that admonition most of the time. However, sometimes it is important that the public which is watching and listening understand something about what goes on in the Speaker's mind when trying to assess whether or not it is appropriate to adjourn all other business of the House and go into an emergency debate. One of the things that guides the Speaker is if there are any other avenues open to raise the issues which would be debated if there was an emergency debate.

The honourable Member knows that the matter he raises has been the subject of comment in this House and in Question Period, and there will be further opportunities in the next number of days to raise the matter.

If an emergency debate is turned down, it does not mean that the matter is not an important matter. Many matters here are important but they do not all, under the circumstances at any particular time, warrant adjourning the other business of the House to debate that matter.

I would ask the honourable Member to understand that it would not be appropriate at this time to go ahead with the application. The honourable Member does know that there are other avenues open to him to bring that matter to the House and, of course, to the Government.

I thank the honourable Member for giving me advance warning and especially the detail with which his letter dealt with the matter. It gave me a great deal of assistance and helped me to make the decision.

F0809-e

34-2

1990-10-01