Precedence and Sequence / Substantive Motion

Notice required

Debates pp. 2698-700

Background

During continuation of debate on a previous question of privilege in connection with the Munsinger case, Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) rose to protest that the executive, in establishing a judicial inquiry by Order in Council the previous day, had arrogated "the authority to refer to another body not subject to the determination and control of this House a question involving the privileges of the Members of this House". In arguing that only Parliament may dispose of questions affecting its Members, he moved that the terms of reference of the Order in Council be referred to a special committee to report to the House for its decision two days hence. After hearing debate on the motion, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Can the proposed motion arising from debate be put before the House?

Decision

No. The motion is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The motion is similar to three previous motions on privilege ruled out of order last week. The motion before the House is not one of privilege: it proposes the establishment of a special committee, which must be done by substantive motion requiring notice. As the motion does not fulfil the requirement for notice, it cannot, other than by unanimous consent, be put to the House at this time.

Sources cited

Standing Order 41.

Journals, March 10, 1966, pp. 268-71; March 11, 1966, pp. 279-83.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 102, c. 113; p. 167, c. 199.

May, 17th ed., p. 134.

References

Debates, March 15, 1966, pp. 2686-98.