Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates

Leave not granted; repetition of requests; Speaker's indication that circumstances could change; matter of importance, does not necessarily merit emergency debate

September 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 1987

Debates, pp. 9266, 9346-7, 9368, 9421-2, 9498

October 1, 2, 1987

Debates, pp. 9522, 9608

On September 24, 1987, Mr. Steven Langdon (Essex—Windsor) rose pursuant to Standing Order 29 to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the suspension of the Canada-U.S. free trade negotiations. The Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg—Fort Garry), having given notice of intention to rise on the same matter himself, spoke in support of Mr. Langdon's application.^[1] Over the next six sitting days,^[2] the two Members persisted in their attempts to be granted leave for an emergency debate on this matter, and they were joined in their efforts to obtain an emergency debate by the Members for Oshawa (Hon. Edward Broadbent) and Ottawa-limier (Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier). On each occasion, the Speaker listened carefully to the arguments presented and considered them in light of what were ever-changing circumstances. The series of decisions on this matter are reproduced in part below.

DECISIONS OF THE CHAIR

On Thursday, September 24:

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank both the honourable Member for Essex—Windsor and the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry for bringing the matter to the Chair's attention yesterday and for their comments this morning.

As honourable Members know, the reform committee insisted that it was inappropriate for Speakers to give reasons for their decisions on these applications. I might say to honourable Members that that does not mean that within the head of the Speaker there are no reasons. Naturally, these decisions are not made on a whimsical basis.

I have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I agree with both honourable Members that the issue is of extreme importance. At the moment it is not my disposition to order an emergency debate for today, but that does not mean it might not be ordered at some other time. I think it is fair to say that I might be in better position to consider the matter again after today's proceedings.

On Friday, September 25:

Mr. Speaker: I want to express my appreciation to the honourable Member for Oshawa and to the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry in raising again today an important matter. I do not think there is any question but that it is considered important, not only by honourable Members in this place and the Government but, of course, by the public.

Yesterday I said, and I quote:

I have given this matter a great deal of consideration and I agree with both honourable Members that the issue is of extreme importance. At the moment it is not my disposition to order an emergency debate for today, but that does not mean it might not be ordered at some other time. I think it is fair to say that I might be in a better position to consider the matter again after today 's proceedings.

Later, in response to a point of order raised by the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry who was seeking some elucidation of my earlier comments, I said:

The representations of the honourable Member are, of course, important. I said earlier that as of 11 o'clock this morning it was not the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate to take place today. I think I made it clear to representatives of both Opposition parties that that does not close the door to other applications at another time. If the honourable Member or other honourable Members wish to make other applications, the Chair will, of course, consider them.

I have again given serious consideration to the applications which have come in from both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, and I must remain of the same view as I was yesterday, that I am not at the present time disposed to order an emergency debate.

This is an ongoing matter and, as I indicated yesterday, events may change and I may be disposed at another time to take a different position.

I hope all honourable Members and the public that is watching and listening to this will realize that a matter can be of very great importance, but it may not necessarily be deemed appropriate by the Chair for it to be debated in an emergency debate.

I see that the Deputy Prime Minister (Hon. Don Mazankowski) is here, as are the Leader of the New Democratic Party and very senior representatives of the Official Opposition. I would say to all of them that there are other means by which this matter might be debated. I would suggest that they might have certain consultations among themselves in that regard.

Again, my disposition today should not be taken as saying that this particular subject might not at some later time be the subject of an emergency debate.

On Monday, September 28:

Mr. Speaker: As the honourable Member has pointed out, this is the third day in a row that applications have been brought to the Chair for an emergency debate on the trade talks. I should make it very clear that last week both Opposition Parties applied. This morning the application came from the Official Opposition only, but I think it can be taken that members of the New Democratic Party continue with their position that if I were to rule in favour of an emergency debate it would be appropriate and it would be welcomed by them.

However, as I said last week, while the matter is of very great importance, something with which all honourable Members, no matter what their views on the issue, would agree, it is not the disposition of the Chair at this time to put this matter in the category of one necessitating an emergency debate.

On Friday I invited the Deputy Prime Minister and the House Leaders to discuss this matter among themselves on an early occasion with a view to making arrangements for a debate to take place in this Chamber on another basis. I repeat that invitation because, as I say, the matter is important.

I have no criticism at all of the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry or other honourable Members who have brought the matter to the attention of the Chair. It is important, but it is not the disposition of the Chair to say that it crosses that sometimes difficult line between what is very important and what requires an emergency debate.

Again, I say to the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry that that is my disposition today. That does not mean that something might not happen to change my mind....

On Tuesday, September 29:

Mr. Speaker: In the interest of all honourable Members and also in the interest of the public that is watching and listening, I emphasize again that while a matter may be of very great importance it may not, in the opinion of the Chair, be a matter which on any given day is appropriate for an emergency debate.

The public should know that there has been a series of applications by both the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party each day asking for an emergency debate. The Chair has declined each day to order an emergency debate but, on each day, has stressed that the matter is of great importance.

There is generally an admonishment to the Speaker not to give reasons for decisions and I have refrained from doing that, although honourable Members will know that what goes on in the Speaker's head probably has something to do with what the Speaker says. I would like to be able to say that of all honourable Members.

The suggestion this morning is that I might defer both of these applications until later on this afternoon to see what may happen later today. I think the better practice would be for me, with great politeness and courtesy, to reject the applications at this time. As I have said repeatedly, that fact, of course, does not prevent anyone from making another application at another time.

I want to say one thing which I think may be helpful. The suggestion has been made that the Speaker has very generously agreed to review the Speaker's rulings on the emergency debate each day. For the record it should be noted that the Speaker is not reviewing past rulings. The Speaker is taking each application as it is made on each given day. I think that is proper procedure.

I point out again that although a matter may be very important it may not be appropriate, in the Speaker's view, to order an emergency debate. I want to make it very clear that the Speaker certainly views the matter as important. We will see what transpires.

Members will note that last week I suggested there might be some conversations among the Government, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party with regard to another way of having a debate. It is not for me to direct anyone in this House as to what they might do in speaking with each other. However, that may be something which could be considered.

In any event, that is the ruling for this morning. I thank honourable Members for bringing the matter to my attention. I also want to thank both Opposition representatives for their patience in accepting with good grace the Speaker's rulings in these matters.

On Wednesday, September 30:

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can do something which I felt I had to do many months ago, that is, dispel any honourable Members from thinking that just by the numbers of people rising they are necessarily going to persuade the Chair that it is an emergency....

The honourable Member does know that the application that he brings with respect to an emergency debate on the trade talks is a matter that is viewed with great seriousness by the Chair, and I am sure by all honourable Members in this place. The application has to be made directly. The honourable Member will realize, for the reasons I set out, that under the rules the Government is not given any permission or right to reply, the honourable Member will make his statement very briefly and not in an argumentative fashion. I can assure the honourable Member that the Chair understands his position very well....

.... I have the honourable Member's point and I am again today not of a disposition to grant an emergency debate tonight.

I say again that that does not mean that the honourable Member and other honourable Members are precluded from bringing applications another time. For now, for the reasons, as I mentioned yesterday, which I have in my head and do not always allow out of my head, today there will be no emergency debate. However, that does not mean that there might not be one at some further time.

On Thursday, October 1:

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier for bringing this matter to the Chair's attention. As I have said repeatedly for some days now, the Chair views it as an extremely important matter. As yet, however, it has not been the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate.

I say again to the honourable Member that that does not preclude the Chair from having a different view at a different time. For today, however, it is not the disposition of the Chair to order an emergency debate for tonight. I repeat that the Chair knows that it is an important matter.

On Friday, October 2:

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier for his comments. As I said on previous days, this is of course a very important subject but, considering the present circumstances, the Chair is reluctant to agree that a debate is urgently needed this afternoon.

I know the honourable Member will understand that the Chair's decision does not in any way overlook the importance of the issue, but perhaps Monday or some other day, there will be another opportunity when a debate would be appropriate. Today, however, the Chair does not feel that is the case.

On Monday, October 5, 1987, the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, rose under "Statements by Ministers" under Routine Proceedings to inform the House that an agreement in principle had been concluded for a comprehensive trade agreement between Canada and the United States, and to table a document containing the elements of the agreement.^[3] Later that day, Mr. Broadbent and Mr. Axworthy rose again to seek an emergency debate on the agreement in principle, but that application was denied as well.

F0811-e

33-2

1987-09-24

1987-09-25

1987-09-28

1987-09-29

1987-09-30

1987-10-01