Rules of Debate - Order and Decorum / Sub Judice Convention

Sub judice convention

Debates p. 10194

Background

On January 23, 1986, Mr. Gray (Windsor West) rose on a point of order regarding a possible breach of the sub judice convention by the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty). On January 22, 1986, Mr. Nunziata (York South—Weston) and Ms. Copps (Hamilton East) had written a letter to the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission requesting that an investigation be undertaken into charges of sexism within the RCMP. Mr. Gray contended that remarks made regarding the case by the Solicitor General during Question Period were inappropriate.

Issue

Do remarks made in the House regarding a case submitted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission for investigation constitute a breach of the sub judice convention?

Decision

No. Since the Commission may or may not proceed with an inquiry, it would be premature to rule the matter sub judice at this time.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Speaker reminded the House of the guidelines established in 1977 by a committee of the House. The committee stated that a Member calling for the suppression of a matter because it is sub judice should demonstrate to the Chair reasonable grounds for fearing that prejudice might result, and that the Chair should only exercise its discretion in exceptional cases where to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals.

Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Sources cited

Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, First Report, April 29, 1977, p. 1:12.

References

Debates, January 23, 1986, pp. 10092-3, 10099.