Rule of Debate / Order and Decorum

Sub judice convention; debate on an opposition motion

April 5, 2019

Debates, p. 26728

On April 5, 2019, during the debate on an opposition motion respecting alleged political interference in the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order to argue that remarks made by Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar) referred to matters awaiting judicial decisions and were in possible contravention of the sub judice convention. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Carol Hughes) stated that the debate was in order.^[1]

Later in the same debate, Mr. Lamoureux rose on another point of order to raise similar concerns with respect to remarks made by Erin O’Toole (Durham).^[2]

Resolution

The Assistant Deputy Speaker ruled immediately, stating that the imposition of the sub judice convention should be done with discretion. The Chair reminded the House that the motion under consideration was in order and ruled that the debate had not violated the convention.

Decision of the Chair

The Assistant Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to remind the member again that the motion is in order and that there is some flexibility within this realm of debate. I still have not seen any portion of the debate that has touched on the concerns the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has raised.

I want to go back to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which states, at page 99:

The practice has evolved so that it is the Speaker who decides what jurisdiction the Chair has over matters sub judice. In 1977, the First Report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members recommended that the imposition of the convention should be done with discretion and, when there was any doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention. Since the presentation of the report, Speakers have followed these guidelines while using discretion.

I will go on to say that in a 2013 ruling, Speaker Scheer addressed these issues. He stated:

As Speaker, I must endeavour to find a balance between the right of the House to debate a matter and the effect that this debate might have. This is particularly important given that the purpose of the sub judice convention is to ensure that judicial decisions can be made free of undue influence.

I would suggest that the parliamentary secretary maybe review that portion of the House procedures.

I will allow the debate to continue.