Adjournment Motion Proposed under Standing Order 26 / Application Accepted

Urgent issue; sub judice convention not applicable

Journals p. 62

Debates pp. 433-4

Background

Mr. Clark (Leader of the Opposition) sought leave to move the adjournment of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 26, in order to discuss revelations by Mr. Fox (Solicitor General) concerning actions committed by the national security forces. On Friday, October 28, the Solicitor General had announced to the House that he had referred certain incidents involving the RCMP to the McDonald Royal Commission and to the Attorney General of Quebec. Mr. Clark's notice to the Speaker that he would move such a motion was followed by another from Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa—Whitby).

Issue

Does the application satisfy the provisions of Standing Order 26? Does the sub judice convention apply in this case?

Decision

The application is accepted. There is no conflict with the sub judice convention. With the consent of the House, the Speaker acknowledged Mr. Broadbent as the seconder of the motion.

Reasons given by the Speaker

A key concept in considering a motion moved under Standing Order 26 is that of emergency which can apply to a sudden occurrence or an unexpected event. It can apply also to "the sudden and unexpected revelation of events which have taken place in the past, in that they might precipitate a course of conduct which, if allowed to continue unchecked, would certainly classify itself as an emergency and a matter of urgent consideration." This is according to a reasonable interpretation of Standing Order 26. To apply the rule too strictly would make it meaningless.

The sub judice convention has no application here because the body carrying out the inquiry is not a judicial body but an investigatory one, and because no decision of the Commission could in any way be prejudiced by a debate of the House.

References

Debates, October 28, 1977, pp. 393-5.