Special Debates / Emergency Debates

Leave granted: Devils Lake diversion project; timing of the debate determined by unanimous consent

June 21, 2005

Debates, p. 7544

On June 21, 2005, Joy Smith (Kildonan–St. Paul) rose in the House to request that an emergency debate be held, pursuant to Standing Order 52, on North Dakota’s decision to proceed with the Devils Lake diversion project.^[1] She spoke of widespread concern that the diversion would have significant adverse environmental effects on water in Lake Winnipeg. The Acting Speaker (Jean Augustine) took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Later that day, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He advised the House that he had decided to grant Mrs. Smith’s request. He added that he was, however, faced with a difficulty in the wording of the Standing Orders as they did not specify what to do when the House was already sitting until midnight as it had been doing pursuant to an Order adopted on June 13, 2005, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 27(1).^[3] It was agreed by unanimous consent to start the debate after scheduled votes had been taken and to continue it until midnight.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: This morning the hon. Member for Kildonan–St. Paul requested an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 for the purpose of discussing North Dakota’s intention to proceed with the Devils Lake diversion. I have considered the hon. Member’s request and decided to grant it.

The difficulty the Chair is facing at the moment is the wording of the Standing Orders in respect of this because they do not contemplate what we do when we are sitting until midnight.

(Editor’s Note: Following the Speaker’s decision, the House adopted a motion regarding the proceedings and divisions on a Government bill then before the House. Jay Hill (House Leader of the Official Opposition) then rose to address the Chair.)

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, would it be your intent then to immediately follow the vote with the emergency debate which would then be between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. approximately?

The Speaker: If that is the agreement of the House, certainly it would make it possible because if we consider that the House then reaches its adjournment hour the emergency debate would proceed until 12 o’clock, which is what the Standing Orders provide for.

If this motion is agreeable, I would be quite delighted if the emergency debate could be held then rather than after midnight which I think would be highly inconvenient.

Let me put it to Members this way. It is understood that if this motion is agreed to, we would start the emergency debate after the votes have been taken and that would go until midnight as provided in the Standing Orders. Is that agreeable?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Speaker: Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent to move the motion on the understanding I have outlined?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.