Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted

Related to question of privilege

Journals p. 848

Debates pp. 8583-4

Background

Mr. Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, in order to discuss "the charge that the Minister of National Defence has breached the privileges of this House by tampering with a brief submitted by a witness. . . Since these charges go to the very essence of our parliamentary system, and our system of responsible government, there can be no more urgent business for the House to consider." The Speaker then asked Members to explain 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

"It is only in extreme circumstances that an adjournment is granted ... It may well be that this is a type of business on which there should be an adjournment", but there is before the Chair a motion which relates to privilege. The Chair cannot grant an adjournment to consider a matter of privilege. Perhaps the Member should consider the possibility of submitting this motion to the Chair, which would then be placed on the Order Paper. Another consideration for the Chair is the length of time available for the debate if the motion were accepted. Debate would be allowed until 5:00 p.m. because, according to the Standing Orders, an adjournment debate at this time does not dispense with the private Members' hour. A debate of 15 minutes, however, would be "just a bit out of place and improper".

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 91, c. 100(9).

References

Debates, October 12, 1966, pp. 8569-83.