Mr. G. S. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave of the house to move, seconded by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the position in which some 500 veterans of the city of Montreal now find themselves after having used their gratuities and reestablishment credits for the purchase of motor cars to be used as taxicabs and in the formation of an association known as the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal, which was organized and directed by one Leopold Ferland, while an official of

[Mr. Archibald.!

the Montreal office of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in such a manner that the veteran members are in grave danger of losing both their gratuities and reestablishment credits and thereby their opportunity of becoming reestablished and rehabilitated into civilian life.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for being kind enough to send me a copy of his motion a few minutes before I entered the house. I have considered the motion of the hon. gentleman to adjourn the house in order to discuss the position in which 500 veterans of the city of Montreal now find themselves after having used their gratuities and reestablishment credits for the purchase of motor cars to be used as taxi cabs and in the formation of an association known as the veterans' taxi owners association of Montreal, which was organized and directed by one Leopold Ferland. I would remind hon. members that, according to standing order 31, when an hon. member asks for the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance the idea is to adjourn the house in order to give an opportunity to the house to debate the matter and find ways of relieving the situation. It is not so much the urgency of the question which should enter into consideration as the urgency of the debate on the question. The matter which the hon. member wants the house to discuss is actually before the courts of Montreal. The matter is sub judice, and all hon. members know that a matter which has been referred to the courts should not be discussed in the house. I am sorry, but I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

I

understand that Your Honour has ruled my motion out of order on the ground that the matter is before the courts?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. According to the rules, the Speaker may refuse a motion to adjourn the house if he believes that the matter to be considered is not urgent for debate. I do not rule it out of order but, as has been done in the past, I do not think there is any urgency for debate since it is before the courts.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

When Your Honour spoke a moment ago I understood you to say that the motion was out of order because the matter was before the courts. If the motion is ruled out of order on that ground, then I should like to rise to a' point of order.

Questions

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have already said to the hon. gentleman that in those cases where the Speaker decides that the matter is not urgent-

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

I

only want to be clear. Do I understand that my motion is ruled out on the ground that the matter is not urgent, or is it ruled out on the ground that it is before the courts?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member knows very well that the decision of the Speaker is not debatable. If it is the desire of hon. members to appeal from the decisions of former Speakers who have ruled that wThen the Speaker refuses a motion to adjourn the house because there is no urgency, there is no appeal, they are free to do so.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

I

do not know yet on. what, ground you have ruled it out.

Mr.. SPEAKER: I have tried to express myself clearly.

No.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have suggested that if hon. members believe that they should appeal my decision, they are free to do so.

Mr. GRAYDON:

May we have the reasons for your decision before the appeal is directed?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not see any reason for saying anything more. I said that the motion could not be accepted because I do not see any urgency, since the matter is before the courts. It is well known, especially to lawyers, that when a case has been referred to the courts it is sub judice and should not be discussed.

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):

On a point of order-

Order.