Emergency Debates / Motions to Adjourn – Emergency Debates

Interpretation of Standing Order relating to Emergency Debates; Speaker's observations following discussion in the House

February 6, 1992

Debates, pp. 6463-4

On February 4 and 5, 1992,^[1] Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) indicated to the Chair that he wished to rise on a point of order to put forward certain thoughts on the functioning of Standing Order 52, the standing order pertaining to Emergency Debates. The Chair agreed the point of order would be heard immediately following Routine Proceedings on February 6. During his remarks on February 6, Mr. Dingwall made the following points: that since the changes in the sitting hours of the House, Emergency Debates no longer pre-empted the business of the House; that the McGrath reform committee report had recommended holding more special debates; and that doing so would give all Members more opportunity to debate issues that mattered to them. He asked the Speaker to consider these points when ruling on applications for Emergency Debates. Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops) then rose and in his remarks contended that loosening the definition of an emergency would give Members a needed opportunity to speak on issues of relevance to them and to the public, and give the House a chance to respond to important issues of the day. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Albert Cooper) argued that working through the usual channels of inter-party discussion and negotiation continued to be effective in creating such opportunities for debate, and maintained it would be unwise to deviate from the usual channels and to charge the Speaker with re-interpreting Standing Order 52. Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) observed that although few opportunities existed for Members to debate public issues of urgent importance, this was essential if Parliament was to be relevant.^[2] The Speaker took the opportunity to respond to the issues raised, and his remarks are reproduced below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the matter raised by the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond, commented upon by the honourable Member for Kamloops and the honourable Member for Kingston and the Islands. I have listened also very carefully to the comments of the honourable Parliamentary Secretary who has in the past years been very much involved in attention to the orders of this place and also to some steps in the reform of the orders of this place.

First of all, I want to say to honourable Members that I do not take this intervention and this discussion in any way as a criticism of past Speakers, or past rulings, or myself. I want that clearly understood.

Also, it should be clearly understood by all honourable Members and the public who is watching that sometimes we are criticized for not proceeding in a civilized way. This has been an example this morning of proceeding in a very civilized way.

I am cognizant of the mention made on both sides of the Chamber of the special arrangements that were done, as the honourable Parliamentary Secretary says, "through usual channels", in order to have additional debating time for all honourable Members with respect to the serious matters of the Constitution. I certainly must say as your Speaker that the comments made in support of that on both sides of the House are proper and should be supported.

The difficulty that the Speaker is in under this order is that until perhaps a recommendation comes out of the Members management committee and is supported by Members of the House, until there is a more or a different interpretation of the word "emergency", the Speaker is still bound by that word.

Now, having said that, there are a number of things that go into a Speaker's mind when the Speaker is trying to determine whether there is clearly an emergency or whether circumstances are changing from day to day, either building toward an emergency or sometimes diminishing the emergency. The honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond commented upon that.

Comment has been made that there have been times in the past where, working through the usual channels that the honourable Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, what might not have been in the strictest and narrowest interpretation an emergency debate, was, nonetheless, acceded to by both sides of the House. This was out of a general feeling that it was in the public interest and the interest of this place that a debate take place.

I am also conscious of the fact, as the honourable Parliamentary Secretary and the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond and the honourable Member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out, that after the reform committee's recommendations were—not by the way completely accepted on this, but partially—accepted the old difficulty of a Speaker interfering with the Orders of the Day to have an emergency debate is gone. That is in the past because, as has been properly pointed out, an emergency debate would take place after Orders of the Day are concluded, except on a Friday.

Now the best approach I can take is to consider carefully what has been said. It is very difficult to ask a Speaker to unilaterally change the rules. But in determining what is an emergency, the Speaker, as has been pointed out, looks at a number of things. What may not have been an emergency at one point may become one. What might be building to an emergency might not be needed to be treated as an emergency for a number of reasons: one, because circumstances change, another might be because there is another opportunity to debate it, which is one of the things that a Speaker does have to take into account.

I want to say to all honourable Members on both sides that I take the exchange that has taken place this morning as a constructive one, and I hope that I will be able to deal with this rule as wisely as you would want a Speaker to.

Obviously, if the rule was changed, there would be other considerations. It might make it easier to rule a debate. That has to be balanced off against what the Parliamentary Secretary is properly putting up, and that is the process of usual channels, which is a very important aspect of how this place operates.

I will consider what has been said and it may very well be that we could have a further discussion on the matter.

I also want to say something else, and I know that the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond appreciates this. This is a bit unusual. It might be said that this is not a point of order in the usual manner. It may not be. It does not arise out of something that just happened on the floor of the House or out of Question Period, but it does address one of our orders, one of our rules, and the interpretation that ought or ought not to be given to it. I think that carried on briefly and with the civility which has been so manifest here this morning, it is probably a helpful thing.

F0818-e

34-3

1992-02-06