Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted

Debate not urgent

Debates pp. 8131-2

Background

Mr. Forrestall (Halifax) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, in order to discuss "... the Minister of National Defence... pursuing an improper course without statutory or parliamentary authority in dictatorially proceeding with and... in accelerating the unification of the armed forces despite strong objections". Before ruling, the Speaker asked Members for explanations as to why the debate was urgent.

Issue

Does the application meet the requirements of Standing Order 26?

Decision

No. The application is not accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

On balance it does not seem that the matter raised meets the requirements that there is such urgency to debate the subject "that the ordinary affairs of the House should be set aside". Nor does it seem that the subject-matter of the application is a sudden emergency, something completely new. Rather, "this is a matter of long standing, not a sudden occurrence".

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 89-92, c. 100.

References

Debates, September 7, 1966, pp. 8125-31.