Suspension of Standing Orders for Matter of Urgent Nature
When a situation arises that the government
considers urgent, a Minister may move that the House suspend certain Standing
Orders respecting notice requirements and the times of sitting in connection
with that
matter. [146]
For
example, motion can be used to waive notice for the introduction of a bill or
for any stage at which a notice is
required. [147]
In
moving the motion, the Minister gives reasons for the urgency of the situation
and, after the motion has been seconded, the Speaker immediately proposes the
question. [148]
In
doing so, the Speaker may allow up to one hour of uninterrupted
debate. [149]
Speeches
are limited to 10 minutes each and no amendment is allowed except by another
Minister. When putting the question, the Speaker is bound to ask those Members
opposed to rise. If fewer than 10 do so, the motion is automatically
adopted; [150]
if 10
or more do so, it is deemed to have been
withdrawn. [151]
The
resulting order, if the motion is adopted, applies only to the proceedings
specified in that order.
This Standing Order is relatively recent
and has been invoked infrequently since its adoption in 1968. The reasons for
its establishment go back to 1964, when Prime Minister Pearson moved a motion,
without notice, to send a Canadian peacekeeping force to Cyprus. Although the
motion appeared to have the overall support of the House, some Members objected
to the lack of notice. They argued that 48 hours’ advance warning was
required before such an important matter could be discussed. Stating that the
Prime Minister had obtained “leave”, the Deputy Speaker dismissed
the objections and allowed the House to proceed with the
motion. [152]
Then, in 1966, when the House was asked to
deal urgently with a strike by air traffic controllers, the Minister of Public
Works suggested a procedural mechanism for the government to deal with urgent
matters. As he explained, “ … a private member has a right to move the
adjournment of the house to consider a matter of urgent public importance… . It
is a curious anomaly that there is no corresponding provision enabling the
government to bring any proceedings relating to the same matter before the house
without
notice.” [153]
Although opposition Members felt action was required, in the end, the
Minister’s proposal was
withdrawn. [154]
When the present rule was agreed to two
years later in 1968, it was evident from its wording that the events of 1966 had
been taken into account. Indeed, the new rule was similar to the one proposed in
1966. In suggesting the addition of the rule, the Special Committee on Procedure
wrote: “ … it seems reasonable to expect that the normal requirement of a
notice of motion … might be dispensed with for the purpose of dealing with
matters of urgency when the overwhelming majority of the House recognizes that
it would be desirable to do so. It seems intolerable … that a single
dissenting voice should be permitted to frustrate the otherwise unanimous will
of the
House… .” [155]
The rule has not been altered except for minor gender reference changes in
1982.
While intended to be used to waive notice
requirements and set times of sitting, this Standing Order has been used to
outline terms of debate in a manner that resembles time
allocation. [156]