Adjournment Motion Proposed under Standing Order 30 / Application not Accepted

Not administrative responsibility of Government; debate not urgent; other opportunities for debate

Debates p. 1157

Background

Mr. Skelly (Comox—Powell River) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 30, in order to discuss the seizure of West Coast fishing vessels by the chartered banks. Mr. Skelly stated that the banks had threatened foreclosure to clients who made the situation public, or involved anyone else in the matter. He maintained that the situation constituted an emergency because the fishermen's civil rights were being violated and that action should be taken by the Ministers responsible. The Speaker ruled immediately.

Issue

Does the application meet the requirements of Standing Order 30?

Decision

No. The application is not accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

There is some doubt as to whether a matter of this nature comes within the administrative responsibilities of the Government or within the scope of ministerial action. The true urgency of the situation is also questionable, in that the problem is an ongoing one. Furthermore, there have been recently, and will be in the near future, numerous other opportunities for debate and discussion on this subject.

Sources cited

Standing Order 30(5).

Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 92, cc. 286, 287.

References

Debates, February 7, 1984, pp. 1156-7.