Guidelines: succinct statement by Member seeking leave, no debate permitted, Speaker not bound to give reasons, but does in this case; leave not granted

Mr. Speaker: The rule is that an application for an emergency debate is to be a succinct statement by the honourable Member applying. It is not to be a debate on the issue, it has to be the argument for the case. The reason it must be a succinct statement is that otherwise, of course, it would be appropriate for the other side to respond. That is the rule and under the rules only the applicant can speak and the argument must be succinct. I know both honourable Members who are applying are experienced and I trust they will not take advantage of that rule. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would not have to rise on a point of order because of any infringement of that rule.... I have stretched the rules considerably to hear these applications because they arise over a matter of great importance to the country. I indicated that, at least on what I knew of them earlier, I was probably not too partial to ordering an emergency debate this afternoon. I have listened carefully to both honourable Members. They are very experienced, one being a former Minister and a senior critic in his Party, and the other of course being the Leader of the NDP. I understand fully the concern expressed by both honourable Members and others during Question Period. I also listened very carefully to Question Period and, without sitting in judgment, it seems to me, and I know I was admonished by the reform committee not to give reasons for turning down an application, this issue is so important it may be helpful if I say why I am not inclined to grant the debate at this time. First, as I said, I considered the matter very carefully when I received the first notice from the honourable Member for Winnipeg—Fort Garry. I considered it very carefully today. I considered very carefully the exchange in Question Period. There was a difference of opinion in Question Period on this matter. However, it is extremely difficult for the Chair to think that it amounts to an issue on which there must be an urgent debate. The Deputy Minister may or may not have said something. In any event there are differences of opinion as to what he said. Of course, there will be different conclusions drawn from what he may or may not have said. Even given the very great importance of this issue it is very difficult for the Chair to decide that this afternoon there ought to be an emergency debate. The honourable Member for Oshawa raises another matter, and this is certainly speculation and not something upon which I can comment, that this day will perhaps be the last day of this Parliament. No one can be certain about that but it seems to me that in itself does not give cause to extend the sitting beyond the agreed order into this afternoon. I want to say to both honourable Members as well as others that I listened very carefully because the country has been listening very carefully to the debate in this Chamber. I know there must be a very great temptation among other Members to get up and comment upon this issue. However, we have had Question Period. I of course have no more idea than anyone else what may happen in the ensuing days. There seems to be at the moment a very serious difference of opinion on what a senior official has said and the implications that flow from it but that is not sufficient at this time to order an emergency debate. I thank both honourable Members for the succinct way they presented the matter and I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary and others for their forbearance. F0813-e 33-2 1988-09-01. [1] Debates, August 31, 1988, p. 19117; Journals, August 31, 1988, p. 3496. [2] Debates, September 1, 1988, p. 19167.