Ruling
April 4, 1989
Multiple applications on same sitting day; leave granted - relates to genuine emergency; leave not granted - other opportunities for debate, including Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne
Hon. John Fraser
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
Mr. Speaker:
I advised the House that I will return with respect to the matters raised this morning which received very careful attention indeed...
I received applications for Emergency Debates under Standing Order 52 relating to three separate items: the matter of aviation safety, the removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, the oil spill outside the Port of Valdez.
Let us deal first with the question raised by the Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and the Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan on air safety.
First, I should like to quote from page 18 of Hansard for February 18, 1972 when Mr. Speaker Lamoureux stated:
I believe honourable Members will recognize that it would not be easy to justify adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 at the very moment when we have before us the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne...
The reason for this caution on the part of Speaker Lamoureux, and indeed other Speakers in the past, is that during the Throne Speech debate it is an easy matter for Members to debate subjects over a wide area and it is difficult, therefore, to meet the criteria required for an emergency debate under Standing Order 52(5) which states:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration[...]the Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time, by other means.
If I may repeat the last sentence, I must have regard, and I quote:
to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time, by other means.
In the case of air safety, and also the case of removal of oats from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, where the matter may be brought before the House by other means, I do not find that the criteria of Standing Order 52 have been met, and I will not therefore allow an emergency debate at least at this time.
However, in relation to the matter raised by the honourable Member for Skeena, I do find the criteria of Standing Order 52 have been met. The matter proposed for discussion does relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.
I therefore set the matter of the oil spill outside the Port of Valdez down for debate at 8 p.m. this evening.
F0806-e 34-2 1989-04-04.
[1]
Debates, April 4, 1989, pp. 12-3.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"Two of the three applications for an emergency debate were denied because the matters could be raised during the Address in Reply debate, but the third, concerning an oil spill, was granted as it constituted a genuine emergency."
AI Summary
The Speaker denied two emergency debate requests due to other available debate opportunities (Throne Speech) but granted one concerning an oil spill, deeming it a genuine emergency.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Other
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne
- Significance
Low
High