Yesterday when the hon. member for Battle River proposed a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 the Chair declined to put the motion as proposed and undertook to study the circumstances and make a ruling. After careful consideration it seems to me that very little can be added to my comments as recorded at pages 9073 and 9074 of yesterday's debates.
I suggest to the House that the purpose of Standing Order 43 was never intended to permit an hon. member to launch a unilateral debate. It is my view that it is not in accord with the practices and proprieties of this House to use the Standing Order for such purposes when in effect it is intended only to suspend the notice requirement for a motion. It is my judgment that a member, when proposing a motion under Standing Order 43, should restrict his comments to the necessity or desirability of suspending the notice provision for a motion. It seems to me that any enlargement of that prior condition would end inevitably in great difficulty as the same Standing Order could be used from both sides of the House for the purpose of questioning the conduct of any or every member of the House.
As hon. members know, the House has developed well established and recognized procedures for the purpose of discussing the conduct of ministers and of members of the House. It is a prime duty of the Chair to safeguard the interests of all hon. members. Under the circumstances I cannot ask the House whether the hon. member for Battle River has the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion to which he alluded yesterday.
Subtopic: REQUEST FOR CONSENT BY MEMBER FOR BATTLE RIVER TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43-RULING BY MR. SPEAKER