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

Content of motion; privilege

Journals p. 299

Debates p. 2289

Background

On May 15, Mr. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) proposed a motion under Standing Order 43, that certain public statements made by Mr. Lewis (York South) which, in Mr. Diefenbaker's opinion, disparaged "the integrity and independence of the bench", be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The Speaker expressed reservations about the acceptability of such a motion. Although there appeared to be unanimous consent to proceed with the debate, the Chair reserved a decision until the next day.

Issue

Can a motion implying charges against a Member be moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43?

Decision

No. Such a motion cannot be proposed through that rule.

Reasons given by the Speaker

A motion implying a charge against a Member cannot be made by means of a motion under Standing Order 43, which refers only to the setting aside of the notice requirement, not the ordinary rules applicable to the form and content of motions. The motion could be proposed in other terms or, if it is the unanimous wish of the House, be debated in some other form, perhaps under the provisions of another Standing Order or procedure.

Sources cited

Standing Orders 42, 43 and 51.

References

Debates, May 15, 1972, pp. 2243-4.