Precedence and Sequence / Substantive Motion

Notice required

Journals p. 282

Debates p. 2573

Background

During debate related to privilege and to charges and counter charges raised among Members concerning the Munsinger case and the statements made by Mr. Cardin (Minister of Justice) alleging misconduct by some Ministers in the former Diefenbaker Government, Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) proposed a motion. The object of the motion was to demand from the Minister of Justice that he specify and substantiate his charges or, in lieu of that, offer an apology for his allegations and resign from the House. In defending the propriety of his motion, Mr. Lambert stated that it was specific in that it preferred a charge against a Minister and directed certain action. The Speaker ruled immediately.

Issue

ls it acceptable to propose a substantive motion without notice during the course of an exchange among Members on a subject related to privilege?

Decision

No, the motion is out of order and cannot be put.

Reasons given by the Speaker

In 100 years of parliamentary history, a motion of this character has never been accepted. This is a substantive motion which requires notice and could be moved in other circumstances as a private Member's motion. Since notice has not been given, it cannot be put.

References

Debates, March 11, 1966, pp. 2572-3.