Adjournment Motion Proposed Under Standing Order 26 / Application Not Accepted

Other opportunities for debate

Debates pp. 2544-6

Background

Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, in order to discuss if "Canada should remain a single country or ... be partitioned to please the destructive elements that want to destroy the basis of national unity, and also to establish clearly the definition of one nation or two nations in Canada". Before ruling, the Speaker reminded Mr. Caouette that similar requests had been turned down recently and that it was necessary to convince the Chair why the debate was urgent before the motion could be accepted.

Issue

Does the application meet the requirements of Standing Order 26?

Decision

No. The application is not accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The House would not be well served if its business were put off in order to allow this sort of debate. A motion was moved yesterday under Standing Order 26 and it was agreed to discuss that motion today the subject-matter of this new motion should be postponed to another day. "To proceed otherwise would be illogical." Standing Order 26 is not intended to be used to introduce motions of such wide scope. "It is almost sure that very shortly the House will be asked to consider a supply motion and the Budget, and within the scope of these two subjects" the debate on this motion could take place.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 91, c. 100(8).

References

Debates, September 26, 1967, pp. 2475-9; September 27, 1967, p. 2543.