Motions Without Notice Proposed Under Standing Order 43 / Application of the Rule

Question of privilege

Debates p. 5579

Background

On July 12, Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo) requested the unanimous consent of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion instructing the Government to initiate a judicial inquiry into the rental of office space by the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Speaker expressed reservations as to the acceptability of the motion because it appeared to imply a charge, and took the matter under advisement. The matter was clarified later during Oral Questions when Mr. Beatty addressed a question to Mr. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council). The following day the Speaker decided to request the unanimous consent of the House to put the motion.

Issue

Can a motion moved under Standing Order 43 contain or imply certain charges?

Decision

Normally such a motion is unacceptable. In this case, however, the issue having been clarified by a subsequent question, unanimous consent may be requested.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Motions proposed to the House under Standing Order 43 are subject to the rules that apply generally to motions, and cannot be drafted in such a way as to imply a charge by innuendo. The use of Standing Order 43 ought to be considered very carefully by Members because unanimous consent is asked for immediately, thereby denying the Government the opportunity to reply to charges, statements and declarations made under this order.

Sources cited

Standing Order 43.

References

Debates, July 12, 1973, pp. 5442, 5534.