Special Debates / Emergency Debates
Leave refused: mandatory long form census; matter deemed not of sufficient urgency and another opportunity for debate available
Debates, p. 4132
Context
On September 20, 2010, Jack Layton (Toronto–Danforth) rose to request that an emergency debate be held, pursuant to Standing Order 52, on the long form census. Mr. Layton argued that the Government’s decision to dispense with the long form census had been decried by expert panels, academics, business leaders, statisticians, health care providers, social agencies and many other organizations. He contended that the House of Commons itself, as well as Government departments, rely on census data in order to discharge their responsibilities to Canadians, and that the Government’s decision had been unilateral. He concluded that failure to act immediately would cause irreversible damage to Canada’s vital statistical resources.
Resolution
The Speaker ruled immediately. He pointed out that he had received Mr. Layton’s letter on this matter some time earlier and that the amount of time that had passed since then would suggest that some of the urgency for an emergency debate had dissipated. He noted that there would be an opposition day in the near future and concluded that the request did not meet the exigencies of Standing Order 52 at that time. Accordingly, he declined the request.
Decision of the Chair
The Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Toronto–Danforth for raising this matter. His letter on this subject came in, as I recall, on August 16. While I might have had considerable sympathy at that time, had the House been sitting, given the length of time we have had without the House in session, I feel that some of the urgency has gone out of this issue, at least with respect to the need for an emergency debate in the House.
I note that there will be an opposition day within the next 10 days. When that happens, if Members feel it is an urgent priority, it could be moved as a subject matter for debate on that day or on a subsequent opposition day. That might be a more suitable forum for discussion on a topic that has been around for quite some time.
I do not underestimate the importance of the matter. I simply say that at this stage it is not something that meets the exigencies of the Standing Order relating to emergency debates. Accordingly I deny the request at this time.