Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster has complied with the notice requirement for a matter of urgent public importance. Our provisional Rule 31(5)(f) states that “the discussion under the motion may not raise any question that, according to the Rules, may be debated only on a distinct motion under notice.” Beauchesne Citation 394(2) states that a motion for a matter of urgent importance should not essentially be a censure or no-confidence motion, and Citation 395 states that the conduct of a member ought not to be the subject of debate as a matter of urgent public importance. If a member's conduct is to be examined, it should be done on the basis of a substantive motion, of which notice is required, drawn in terms which clearly state a charge of wrongdoing.

Speaker Rocan ruled in a similar matter on June 11, 1992, that a matter of urgent public importance is not the correct procedural vehicle to debate the conduct of a member.

Therefore, I must rule the motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) out of order.