Motions Without Notice Proposed Under Standing Order 43 / Application of the Rule

Question of privilege

Journals p. 895

Debates p. 9107

Background

On October 27, Mr. Downey (Battle River) sought unanimous consent to move a motion of urgent importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The motion reprimanded the conduct of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to payments to prairie grain producers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The Member was called to order several times for making a speech. The Speaker then expressed doubts as to the motion's acceptability but reserved a decision until the following day.

Issue

Is debate allowed when a Member seeks unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43? Can this Standing Order be used to propose a motion questioning the conduct of a Member or Minister?

Decision

No. It is not permissible to engage in debate when proposing a motion under Standing Order 43, nor may the Standing Order be used to question the conduct of a Member or Minister.

Reasons given by the Speaker

When a motion is proposed under Standing Order 43, the urgency of the matter must be indicated and the motion proposed. Members should restrict their comments to the necessity or desirability of suspending the notice provision for the motion; the purpose of Standing Order 43 is not to give Members an opportunity for unimpeded debate. To alter this course would lead to great difficulty, as the same Standing Order could be used from both sides of the House for the purpose of questioning the conduct of any or every Member. "... the House has developed well-established and recognized procedures for the purpose of discussing the conduct of Ministers and of Members." Under the circumstances, the Chair cannot ask the House whether there is unanimous consent to propose the motion.

Sources cited

Standing Order 43.

References

Debates, October 27, 1971, pp. 9075-6.