Rules of Debate / Sub judice

Sub judice; royal commission

Journals pp. 493-5

Debates pp. 4589-90

Background

During debate on a motion by Mr. Sharp (Minister of Finance) that the House go into Committee of Supply, Mr. Fairweather (Royal) proposed an amendment condemning the Government for having asked the RCMP to provide it with information on the past conduct of all Members in general. Mr. MacEachen (Minister of Health and Welfare) rose on a point of order alleging that an amendment based on evidence given before a royal commission could not be discussed. The Speaker ruled after hearing Members' comments.

Issue

Is an amendment in order if its subject-matter is based on evidence given before a royal commission?

Decision

Yes. During debate, reference may be made to evidence that does not involve the essence of the issue referred to a royal commission.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"... the principle by which we should be guided is that Parliament is supreme: that it is only in extreme cases where ... debates are limited in some way, [for example, because] certain questions have been referred to a royal commission." There is a very narrow limitation to the general rule that no reference should be made in the course of debate to evidence given in any proceeding before a royal commission or inquiry. However, the issue raised in the amendment "is collateral to the main issue. It does not refer to the essence of the evidence but rather to knowledge acquired from evidence of what is considered to be a collateral issue, namely, the manner in which certain information was given by, or obtained from, the RCMP."

Sources cited

Journals, May 2, 1966, pp. 491-3.

Debates, May 2, 1966, pp. 4583-4.

References

Debates, May 2, 1966, pp. 4584-9.