Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted

Debate not urgent; limit of one debate per session

Debates pp. 11048-9

Background

Mr. Starr (Ontario) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, in order to discuss "the threatened strike by the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association as a result of the refusal of the Government to accept the recommendations of Judge John Robinson, the conciliator appointed by the Government". Mr. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport) opposed the proposal because the strike vote was still in progress and because discussions were planned for the next day. Consequently, a debate at this time would be based on surmises and hypotheses instead of on facts. After further discussion on the acceptability of the request, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Does the application meet the requirements of Standing Order 26?

Decision

No. The application is not accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The question is whether or not, in view of planned negotiations, there is an urgency for debate. As "there can be only one debate on a specific matter under Standing Order 26 during a session", Members might want to move with some caution in regard to the question of whether there should be a debate on this urgent matter this afternoon or tomorrow.

Sources cited

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

May, 17th ed., p. 363.

References

Debates, December 13, 1966, pp. 11043-8; December 14, 1966, pp. 11125-32.