Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. I have carefully reviewed this motion with the view to ascertain the intent of the motion to determine if it is in order. Unfortunately, I must rule the motion out of order as contravening our long standing sub judice convention. In ruling this motion out of order, the Chair feels that due to the significant nature of this matter, I would like to explain the reasons for the ruling.

It has long been the principle that Legislatures will not comment on matters that are before the courts. While the House permitted debate on Tabled Document 37-13(6), the Report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, notwithstanding the application for judicial review, we did so because the essence of the report, the discipline of a Member was within the purview of this Legislature. There was also a strongly held view that it was essential to the public interest and to the governance of this territory that the matter of the Member's conduct be resolved. Therefore, in that debate, the sub judice convention did not apply so as to bar debate.

The same cannot be said to be true of this motion. This motion speaks of an issue that is directly before the courts and is, I understand, scheduled to be argued on Friday, December 11, 1998. The essence of the proceeding is whether the Courts will grant the Member for Tu Nedhe the opportunity to have a judicial review of the Commissioner's findings. To allow this motion to proceed would be a direct interference with the role of the Courts in deciding this very important issue. To illustrate my point, I quote from Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice 22nd edition, page 333:

"no matter awaiting or under adjudication by a court of law should be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise..."

Very clearly, this motion contravenes this principle and goes to the very heart of the reasons as to why we have a sub judice convention and rules, and, therefore, I must rule the motion out of order.

Motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. Mr. Todd.