November 15, 1951 (21st Parliament, 5th Session)


Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)


Mr. Speaker:

Order. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. Under this standing order it is provided:
The member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter.
The hon. member has done that. The motion must be made after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon. Accordingly, the motion has been made at the correct time. The rule goes on to say:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out . . .

Labour Conditions
And so on. It is my duty to determine whether or not this matter is of urgent public importance in accordance with the rules of this house. May I say that according to Beauchesne, third edition, paragraph 174:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate," when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
It is also provided in Beauchesne, in paragraph 173, that the matter raised must not be one that has already been discussed during the current session. It seems to me that this matter has been discussed from time to time this session during the debate on the speech from the throne. That may or may not be correct, but it occurs to me that it has already been discussed.
It is also provided in Beauchesne, in paragraph 176, that the matter must be of recent occurrence. This unemployment situation, according to the motion, has apparently been in existence for some time but is now authentically reported to be worse than it was even before the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. The recent occurrence would be with regard to the fact that it is authentically reported to be worse. My difficulty, however, in allowing the motion would be because the debate on the speech from the throne is still in progress; it will be resumed on Monday of the coming week and, if it is not concluded then, it will continue on Wednesday. I would remind the house that at the present time there are two amendments before the house. It is true that a number of members have spoken on one of the amendments hut on the other amendment I believe only one or two members have spoken. It therefore occurs to me that there will be opportunities in the near future for the hon. member and others to discuss the question stated in this motion. I feel sure that it would not be in accordance with the rules of the house for me to put the motion at this time.

Full View