Mr. Speaker, our rules permit the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance requiring immediate consideration subject to the following conditions:
- The Member proposing the motion shall give written notice to the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker at least one hour before the sitting of the house;
- No more than one matter shall be discussed on the same motion;
- The motion must not raise a matter of privilege; and,
- The motion must not raise any matter which can be debated upon a motion with notice.
Mr. Speaker, you can be assured that the conditions pursuant to our rules have been met by this motion, but there are other tests that could be applied as the House considers this debate. For that, we can turn to a precedent in the House of Commons, in particular, the speakership of John Fraser from 1986 to 1996, who had to decide on 149 specific cases of motions calling for emergency debate. Although the House of Commons' practice is different than ours, there are commonalties that the House should consider when debating an extraordinary request for emergency debate.
On October 17th, 1986, Speaker Fraser wrote: In considering an application of this kind, the Chair must take three factors into account. In this case, I would say the House must take three factors into account. The issue raised must constitute a genuine emergency. The Chair used that word in the sense that it is something which is of such urgency, it calls for immediately for something to be done about it. It is not enough -- and I would ask the honourable Members to understand this -- that it be a matter of great importance. It is in the view of the Chair that the issue is of great importance, but the issue must call for immediate and urgent consideration. The Chair must also take into consideration whether or not there will be other opportunities to debate the matter and other opportunities within a reasonable period of time. End quote.
Mr. Speaker, it is without a doubt that the people of the Sahtu are in such dire straits with respect to the state of emergency that's been declared that immediate and urgent consideration is required. The community has reached the limit of their capacity to resolve the matter and is turning to territorial and, indeed, national authorities for help.
Mr. Speaker, in the House's consideration for this motion for debate, I ask us to consider the longstanding tradition in this House of government members treating motions as advice to government and; furthermore, responding in 120 days as grossly insufficient to provide an immediate and urgent disposition to the humanitarian crisis in the Sahtu. Yes, a Member might move such a motion within the time afforded by this sitting but the response from government would fail to meet the moment at hand. The people of the Sahtu are calling out for justice and relief at a time of great distress, and I submit that there are no other opportunities afforded by this sitting to adequately consider their needs and meaningfully respond but for an emergency debate.
Mr. Speaker, of the many examples in the House of Commons of emergency debate, most of -- or a select few have been about regional matters such as the cod fishery in Newfoundland or the takeover of Dome Petroleum by Amoco Corporation. These were all decisions handled by Speaker Fraser. These matters speak to urgent and immediate matters of public concern respecting regions of Canada that were then raised -- or deemed important enough to be raised to the national forefront in the House of Commons. The comparison to this motion at-hand with a region of the Northwest Territories hard hit by an issue of urgent and immediate concern should be viewed in the same light by this House. We cannot afford to wait a moment longer to leave this matter unresolved, and there is no other mechanism afforded to this House to adequately consider the emergency at-hand. I ask this House to give leave for this emergency debate and set aside the business of the day and to proceed without further delay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.