House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page
[51] 
Standing Order 52(1).
[52] 
Standing Order 52(6)(a).
[53] 
Journals, July 10, 1906, p. 580. The first emergency debate held in accordance with the new rules occurred on Febrary 25, 1907, when the topic of discussion was the Trent Valley Canal (see Debates, cols. 3627-8).
[54] 
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-79, in particular p. 555.
[55] 
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
[56] 
Debates, February 22, 1978, p. 3128.
[57]
Between 1984 and 1988, for example, there were 21 requests for emergency debates on the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement; none was granted.
[58] 
Ministers have been granted leave to move the adjournment of the House on two occasions: October 14, 1971 (Debates, p. 8688) and November 18, 1991 (Debates, p. 4920). On April 2, 1924, the motion to adjourn was moved by the Prime Minister (Debates, p. 945).
[59] 
Standing Order 52(2).
[60] 
Standing Order 52(1). The original purpose for delaying the hearing of applications of emergency debates until the conclusion of Routine Proceedings was “to make sure that all business of the House which was not of a controversial nature would be duly attended to” (Journals, April 5, 1951, p. 247; see also Debates, January 11, 1956, p. 20).
[61] 
In 1988, the Leader of the New Democratic Party filed notice of an application for an emergency debate on minority language rights. Following Routine Proceedings, the NDP House Leader presented the application. In response to a point of order raised as a result of this, the Speaker ruled that while the person giving notice and the person speaking to it should be the same, he had allowed the House Leader to present the application given its subject matter (Debates, April 11, 1988, p. 14309).
[62] 
See, for example, Debates, December 11, 1987, pp. 11726-7.
[63] 
Standing Order 52(3).
[64] 
Debates, September 24, 1990, p. 13229.
[65] 
See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1989, pp. 1501-2.
[66] 
See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1998, pp. 5829-30.
[67] 
See, for example, Debates, January 23, 1990, pp. 7363-5.
[68] 
See, for example, Debates, January 29, 1990, p. 7559.
[69] 
See, for example, Debates, February 4, 1992, p. 6337.
[70] 
Debates, March 6, 1990, p. 8845.
[71] 
See Debates, September 24, 1990, pp. 13229-32.
[72] 
Standing Order 52(4). Between 1906 and 1927, the rules stipulated that the Speaker had to decide on whether the matter was in order rather than urgent and this resulted in most requests being accepted. In 1927, the Standing Orders were amended to clarify that the Speaker also had to rule on the urgency of the matter raised. This new power, however, did not prevent Members from challenging the Chair’s decision and only when the Standing Orders were amended in 1965 to prohibit appeals to the House of the decisions of the Chair did this practice cease. This change substituted the right of appeal for a process whereby, if the Chair questioned the urgency of a request, Members would first debate the merits of it, which resulted in the loss of valuable House time. In 1968, amendments to the Standing Orders eliminated this stage in the process, but the Member presenting the application was still required to obtain the leave of the House to move the adjournment motion if it had been accepted by the Speaker. This procedure by which the House granted leave was eliminated altogether in 1987.
[73] 
Standing Order 52(7). Between 1927 and 1968, a number of conditions, based on previous rulings, had to be met before the Speaker would grant a request for an emergency debate. In 1968, the Standing Orders were modified so that the Speaker would no longer be obliged to base a decision on these previous rulings, although some precedent-based conditions were incorporated into the Standing Orders (see Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-79, in particular pp. 554-6).
[74] 
In 1985, a special committee recommended the adoption of the practice of not giving reasons, and the government in its response to the committee report supported the recommendation (see p. 45 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, June 1985, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839); Journals, October 9, 1985, p. 1082). See also Debates, September 22, 1987, p. 9172.
[75] 
A number of Speakers have refused applications for emergency debates during consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne because the Address debate allows for discussion on a wide range of topics (see, for example, Debates, February 18, 1972, p. 18; April 4, 1989, p. 41; September 25, 1997, p. 60). Similarly, a request for an emergency debate on the alleged premature disclosure of the Budget was disallowed because Members would have ample opportunity to discuss the issue during debate on the Budget motion (see Debates, April 20, 1983, p. 24685).
[76] 
See, for example, Debates, January 23, 1985, p. 1599.
[77] 
Standing Order 52(5).
[78] 
Standing Order 52(6)(b).
[79] 
Standing Order 52(6)(d). See, for example, Debates, January 23, 1990, pp. 7390-1.
[80] 
Standing Order 52(6)(e).
[81] 
Standing Order 52(6)(f). See, for example, Debates, April 20, 1983, p. 24685; February 11, 1985, pp. 2210-1.
[82] 
See, for example, Debates, February 13, 1978, pp. 2785-7; December 18, 1984, p. 1351; December 19, 1984, pp. 1366-7; February 6, 1985, p. 2064; February 3, 1986, p. 10381; February 14, 1986, p. 10830; June 11, 1987, p. 6974; June 22, 1987, p. 7418.
[83] 
See, for example, Debates, March 27, 1974, p. 906.
[84] 
See, for example, Debates, December 13, 1989, pp. 6875-6.
[85] 
See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1990, pp. 13485-6; February 6, 1992, pp. 6464, 6505.
[86] 
See, for example, Debates, October 5, 1990, pp. 13871-2.
[87] 
See, for example, Debates, March 5, 1981, p. 7928; November 20, 1989, p. 5834.
[88] 
See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1971, p. 5425; June 29, 1971, pp. 7434-5; June 12, 1973, p. 4658.
[89] 
Debates, April 16, 1974, pp. 1454-5.
[90] 
Debates, December 13, 1971, p. 10393.
[91] 
Debates, April 30, 1975, p. 5340. See also Debates, July 9, 1980, p. 2711; May 4, 1984, p. 3419.
[92] 
This referred to revelations made by the Solicitor General in the House on October 28, 1977, concerning illegal actions committed by the national security forces of the RCMP in 1973. This matter was referred to the McDonald Royal Commission and to the Attorney General of Quebec. See Debates, October 28, 1977, pp. 393-6; October 31, 1977, pp. 433-4.
[93] 
See, for example, Debates, June 1, 1988, p. 15993.
[94] 
See, for example, Journals, April 9, 1974, pp. 108-9; Debates, December 18, 1980, pp. 5888-9.
[95] 
See, for example, Journals, October 14, 1971, p. 870; October 27, 1983, p. 6356; January 21, 1991, p. 2588; May 5, 1992, p. 1391; February 2, 1998, p. 402.
[96] 
Debates, January 19, 1987, pp. 2346-7, 2370.
[97] 
Standing Order 52(8). See, for example, Debates, March 18, 1999, pp. 13049, 13079.
[98] 
Debates, January 30, 1990, pp. 7589-90; January 31, 1990, p. 7658.
[99] 
Standing Order 52(6)(c).
[100] 
See, for example, Debates, June 5, 1989, pp. 2523-4, 2591.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page