---

Legislative Process

On discretion, the Order of the House regarding sub judice restricts Mr. Speaker’s discretion to a case that"““concerns issues of national importance such as the economy, public order or the essential services””." In the recommendations of my right hon. Friend’s Committee, it is simply said that the phrase ““national importance”” in the resolution should be interpreted reasonably. Why, in view of the other things that he has said and the submissions that I and others made to the predecessor Committee, did he not recommend that that part of the resolution should be amended so that the definition encompasses only the facts in dispute in the court case, rather than all the peripheral issues, which currently get banned?