House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

15. Special Debates

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[101]: Standing Order 52(9). See, for example, Journals, February 18, 1992, p. 1037. Prior to 1968, if an application for an emergency debate was approved, the business of the House was immediately put aside and the Member who requested the debate was given leave to move the adjournment of the House. In 1968, the Standing Orders were amended to stipulate that emergency debates would begin at 8:00 p.m. if proceeded with the same day, 3:00 p.m. on Friday. No time limit for these debates was provided in the Standing Orders and Members often seized the opportunity to extend the debates, in one instance for more than 35 hours (see Journals, May 4-5, 1982, pp. 4796-800; May 6, 1982, pp. 4802-4).
[102]: See, for example, Journals, January 21, 1991, p. 2588; March 18, 1999, p. 1636. The House has unanimously agreed on occasion to hold an emergency debate from 6:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (see, for example, Journals, May 29, 1995, pp. 1509-10; November 30, 1998, pp. 1325-6).
[103]: A time allocation order on a certain bill had also been invoked that same day. The Speaker set the time for the emergency debate at 10:00 p.m. with the vote on the bill under consideration scheduled for 9:45 p.m. Unanimous consent was subsequently granted to extend the debate past midnight (Journals, June 22, 1992, pp. 1823, 1825-6; Debates, pp. 12527-8).
[104]: Standing Order 52(10). Another Member may move the motion in place of the Member who requested the debate (see, for example, Debates, November 18, 1991, p. 4946).
[105]: See, for example, Journals, May 5, 1992, p. 1397; March 18, 1999, p. 1637.
[106]: See, for example, Journals, January 21, 1991, p. 2589; Debates, p. 17523.
[107]: Standing Order 52(15). This situation could occur if an emergency debate were to take place on the same day as the consideration of the Business of Supply on the last allotted day in a Supply period. The Speaker would have to resolve the conflicts between Standing Orders 52 and 81.
[108]: Standing Order 52(11).
[109]: Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1020.
[110]: Journals, December 15, 1989, p. 1022; November 27, 1998, p. 1323. The last emergency debate held on a Friday occurred in June 1986 (see Journals, June 13, 1986, pp. 2317-9).
[111]: Standing Order 52(13). Members may split their speaking time (see Debates, November 30, 1998, p. 10648).
[112]: Debates, November 30, 1998, p. 10683.
[113]: See, for example, Journals, November 5, 1973, p. 619; April 9, 1974, p. 109; October 31, 1974, p. 98; April 4, 1989, p. 23; June 22, 1992, p. 1825.
[114]: See Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[115]: Debates, July 16, 1942, p. 4283.
[116]: Standing Order 52(14).
[117]: Debates, April 20, 1983, p. 24685.
[118]: These motions have been disposed of in a variety of ways since 1906. Until 1917, motions were generally negatived after a short debate and the House would continue with other business; by 1918, these motions were being withdrawn at the conclusion of debate and the House would move on to other business. In 1927, when the House agreed to adjourn evening sittings no later than 11:00 p.m., adjournment motions for emergency debates were either withdrawn if debate concluded before 11:00 p.m., or the House would adjourn without question put at the ordinary adjournment hour. Motions were negatived by recorded vote in 1916, 1942 and 1957 (Journals, May 5, 1916, pp. 334-5; July 16, 1942, pp. 544-5; February 25, 1957, pp. 181-2) and “negatived on division” in 1961 and 1967 (Journals, June 14, 1961, pp. 668-9; November 24, 1967, pp. 534-5). Since January 1969, at the conclusion of debate, all such adjournment motions have been declared “carried” by the Speaker.
[119]: Standing Order 52(12).
[120]: Standing Order 52(12).
[121]: See Journals, January 28, 1987, p. 413; April 28-29, 1987, p. 796; February 19, 1992, pp. 1043-4. In one instance, an emergency debate was extended for more than 20 hours. At the next sitting, the debate continued for an additional 14 hours after the House unanimously agreed to resume the debate (Journals, April 28-29, 1987, pp. 796-7; April 30, 1987, pp. 800-2). Since 1987, only one emergency debate has concluded at midnight (see Debates, November 18, 1991, p. 4986).
[122]: See Journals, April 27, 1987, p. 785; June 1, 1988, p. 2773; April 4, 1989, p. 23; June 5, 1989, p. 315; December 18, 1989, p. 1034; January 21, 1991, pp. 2589-90; May 5, 1992, p. 1398; June 22, 1992, p. 1825.
[123]: Journals, January 12, 1970, pp. 291-3.
[124]: Journals, September 12, 1983, pp. 6134-5, 6140.
[125]: Journals, June 5, 1989, pp. 314-5.
[126]: Standing Order 53(1).
[127]: On March 15, 1995, the Hon. Marcel Massé, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister Responsible for Public Service Renewal, proposed a motion concerning the notice period for the introduction of legislation dealing with a work stoppage in west coast ports and other hours of sitting for that day. The Speaker put the question immediately without debate and the motion was adopted as fewer than 10 Members rose to object. This led to a point of order because no debate had been allowed. The Speaker indicated that as he had seen no Member seeking the floor for debate, he did not call for debate (see Debates, March 15, 1995, pp. 10524-6).
[128]: Standing Order 53(2). On one occasion, debate had already begun on the motion when a Member informed the Chair that the Minister had not stated the reason for its urgency. The motion was ruled out of order and debate resumed on the Orders of the Day (Debates, December 11, 1992, pp. 15131-3).
[129]: See, for example, Debates, August 9, 1977, p. 8177; September 16, 1991, p. 2179; June 1, 1992, p. 11172; March 20, 1995, p. 10697.
[130]: Journals, September 16, 1991, pp. 270-1.
[131]: Journals, June 1, 1992, pp. 1560-1. The government asserted that it was urgent for the House to pass this legislation as quickly as possible in order to allow Elections Canada time to prepare for these referendums.
[132]: Journals, March 15, 1995, p. 1219.
[133]: Journals, March 20, 1995, p. 1240.
[134]: Journals, June 10, 1999, p. 2097.
[135]: Standing Order 53(3)(a).
[136]: Standing Order 53(3)(c). On one occasion, the Speaker allowed each party 10 minutes to speak (see Debates, June 10, 1999, pp. 16227, 16230).
[137]: Standing Order 53(3)(b). No amendments have been moved in the debates held to date.
[138]: Standing Order 53(4).
[139]: Standing Order 53(4). See, for example, Journals, September 16, 1991, p. 271.
[140]: Standing Order 53(4). See, for example, Journals, June 1, 1992, p. 1561.
[141]: Standing Order 53(5).
[142]: Debates, January 25, 1994, pp. 261-2. A similar practice exists in the British House of Commons. There a Minister may move the motion “That this House do now adjourn” in order to initiate a general debate on a topic which does not require a decision by the House. At the conclusion of debate, the motion is normally withdrawn with the leave of the House. See May, 22^nd ed., pp. 275-6.
[143]: See Journals, September 21, 1994, p. 714; March 29, 1995, p. 1310; February 28, 1996, p. 10; April 28, 1998, pp. 717-8; February 17, 1999, p. 1519.
[144]: See Journals, November 28, 1994, p. 943; December 9, 1996, p. 977; December 10, 1997, p. 384; December 11, 1997, pp. 393-4, 395.
[145]: See Journals, January 26, 1994, p. 67 (cruise missile testing); October 6, 1994, p. 774 (social security programs); December 6, 1994, p. 983 (violence against women); March 11, 1996, p. 75 (NORAD); April 12, 1999, p. 1688 (Kosovo).
[146]: See Journals, April 21, 1994, pp. 381-2; November 24, 1994, 927-8; March 29, 1995, p. 1308; February 28, 1996, p. 9; April 24, 1998, pp. 701-2; October 7, 1998, p. 1132; February 16, 1999, pp. 1514-5.
[147]: See Journals, April 21, 1994, pp. 381-2; March 29, 1995, p. 1308; February 28, 1996, p. 9; December 6, 1996, p. 973; April 24, 1998, pp. 701-2; October 7, 1998, p. 1132; February 16, 1999, pp. 1514-5.
[148]: See Journals, April 21, 1994, pp. 381-2; March 29, 1995, p. 1308; February 28, 1996, p. 9; December 6, 1996, p. 973; April 24, 1998, pp. 701-2; October 7, 1998, p. 1132; February 16, 1999, pp. 1514-5; April 12, 1999, p. 1687.
[149]: See Debates, April 12, 1999, pp. 13581-2, 13593-4.
[150]: See Journals, January 25, 1994, p. 62; February 1, 1994, p. 89; May 6, 1994, p. 435; September 20, 1994, pp. 708-9; October 5, 1994, p. 769; December 4, 1995, p. 2203.