Skip to content
Ruling June 9, 1998

Motions: unanimous consent refused, same motion moved under Standing Order 56.1

Hon. Gilbert Parent

Hon. Gilbert Parent

Speaker of the House

Ruling Text

The Speaker: The House leader for the Conservative Party makes a very interesting point as does the opposition House leader. I point out to the House that it would be one thing to go with the strict wording of this rule. However a motion was put on February 19, 1998, which perhaps went beyond the scope of the wording and it went through the House. [3] On December 1, 1997, a motion pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1) was put and it went through the House. [4] My interpretation of both of those motions is that we cannot pick and choose on the way through. Those two motions went through before and they seemed to go somewhat beyond the scope of the wording, and at that time no one raised a voice of objection. I am loath to interfere at any time like this. I would rule that because of these other two motions that went through as precedents, I will allow this one to go through. I would strongly urge the Committee on Procedure to perhaps take this up again and to give direction more clearly to the House and the Speaker. I am going to allow this Standing Order 56.1 to stand. Postscript The Speaker then put the motion to the House. More than 25 members having risen, the motion revoking the order of June 8 was deemed withdrawn, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3). [5] On June 12, 1998, during Routine Proceedings, by unanimous consent, the House adopted Government Business No. 15 which, among other provisions, rescinded the order of the House of June 8, 1998 concerning Standing Orders 57 and 78(3 ). [6] P0305-e 36-1 1998-06-09
Edit Metadata

AI Summary

The Speaker allowed a motion under S.O. 56.1 to proceed, despite it potentially exceeding the rule's scope, by citing recent, unopposed precedents for similar motions.

AI Analysis

Holding
"A motion under Standing Order 56.1 will be allowed to proceed, despite potentially exceeding the strict scope of the rule, because recent precedents of similar unopposed motions have been established."
Outcome
Denied
Tone
Conciliatory
Procedural Stage
Routine Proceedings
Significance
Low High

Cited Authorities

Tags & Keywords