Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates

Guidelines: succinct statement by Member seeking leave, no debate permitted; leave not granted - other opportunities available

April 20, 1989

Debates, pp. 711-2

On April 20, 1989, the Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa) rose pursuant to Standing Order 52 to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss the proposed changes in regulations affecting post-secondary education programs for aboriginal Canadians.^[1] The Speaker ruled against granting leave for the debate. In response to a request that the Speaker seek the unanimous consent of the House to debate the issue later in the day, the Speaker addressed some remarks on the general practices surrounding this Standing Order. In response to the indication from another Member that he would also support a call for a request for unanimous consent, the Speaker addressed some further remarks on the process which Members should follow. The Speaker's decision and supplementary remarks are reproduced below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I should say to honourable Members and to the public that I am quite sure there is great concern about this issue. As is appropriate, some time ago I received notice of the application that has just been heard. I have given it some very careful consideration. It is also important to understand that the Speaker must exercise some care in the granting of an emergency debate, that the issue is not whether the matter is important, but whether it can be pursued in this House in another way.

I say to the honourable Member for Oshawa, who has eloquently spoken on this issue, as have other Members, that the Speaker views this matter as one of very great concern and importance. It is not very often that the Speaker will indicate to honourable Members what I am about to say but, I think on this issue, I will. As the Member for Vancouver South and as someone very concerned with this matter, I have also as a Member of Parliament been involved and am involved in ongoing discussions concerning this issue. I say that to indicate that I have some very great concerns, as have other Members.

It is, however, my duty to rule procedurally on this issue. I have to say that at least under the circumstances at the moment, it is not appropriate to proceed with an emergency debate. However, for all of us who are deeply concerned about the issue and who feel great concern for some of the young people involved, the fact that I cannot rule for an emergency debate does not mean that it is not unimportant. It is a very difficult issue for all of us in this House....

The honourable Member I know rises with concern and sincerity, which concern is shared by honourable Members on all sides of the House, but we are confined in applications for Emergency Debates to a statement by the Member who is applying. The reason we are so confined is that the reform committee, which did such useful work in the last few years, made it very clear that in applications for Emergency Debates, it is for the most part not appropriate for even the Speaker to give reasons why the Speaker approves or disapproves or allows or does not allow an emergency debate.

Furthermore, the rules are very clear that only the Member who is applying for the emergency debate is permitted to speak on it, and there are certain restraints on what the Member can say. The difficulty with this is that the honourable Member who has just risen—and I understand and sympathize with his concern and sincerity—is starting to argue a case. The difficulty is that under the rules we are moving into debate.

As was pointed out by the honourable Minister of Justice (Hon. Doug Lewis) some days ago, this creates a situation in which the other side of this question cannot be heard. In other words, I cannot recognize a Minister of the Crown to argue in reply the merits of the issue being raised. I am in a position, as honourable Members know, in which I will have to come before this House very soon with some statements in connection with what is and what is not appropriate in an application for an emergency debate.

I reiterate that I think all honourable Members in this Chamber believe that this is a very serious matter. I have indicated that I would not do this very often, but as I am involved in this as well as other honourable Members, I do not think it is appropriate for the Chair to entertain any further argument on it. There are other places, and there will be other places today, where the issue can be raised, and I am quite sure honourable Members will do so.

I hope the honourable Member will accept that I do not dismiss the matter lightly but I am bound, as you would have me bound, by the rules of this place. I want honourable Members and the public to understand that....

This is exactly why we have the rule. The honourable Member indicates he would give unanimous consent to debate this issue. That may well be, but the appropriate way is for the House Leaders of all three Parties and one of the Members of this House who is not in any of those three Parties to be approached and if there can be agreement, of course, the Chair will co-operate, but it is not appropriate to be debating that as a consequence of an application for an emergency debate. There is another way to do it and I would ask honourable Members to co-operate in that way.

I recognize full well that the honourable Member by giving his indication that he would give consent is again responding to a matter which is causing great concern to all Members of this House on both sides, as has been clearly indicated by exchanges in the House over the last number of days.

F0814-e

34-2

1989-04-20