Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
June 23, 1977
The premature publication of this document interferes with the work of the Members in their committee because it "prejudices the secure identity of witnesses and people who co-operated with the...
The Speaker rules that the systemic issue of premature publication of committee documents should be studied by a special committee rather than being treated as an absolute question of privilege in every instance.
June 23, 1977
In these situations, the practice of resorting to a question of privilege has become customary. It permits a Member to make what is essentially a personal statement under the umbrella of privilege...
The Speaker rules that personal attacks do not meet the threshold for a question of privilege unless they obstruct a Member's parliamentary duties.
June 23, 1977
Under the umbrella of privilege, a Member has raised a matter of grievance and expressed a personal statement. This is a practice which is allowed under certain circumstances even though it does...
The Speaker ruled that a Minister acting through a solicitor to address critical material does not constitute a breach of privilege but is a matter for debate.
June 9, 1977
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading June 9, 1977 Journals pp. 1108-9 Debates p. 6460 Background During the third reading debate on Bill C-23, an Act to facilitate the...
The provided text 'Third reading' is a procedural stage, not a Speaker's Ruling, and lacks the content required for analysis.
May 13, 1977
Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Amendment Beyond Scope of Motion May 13, 1977 Journals pp. 794-6 Debates pp. 5650-1 Background During debate on a Supply Day motion proposed by Mr....
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was not relevant to and went beyond the scope of the original motion.
May 11, 1977
The practice in respect of dividing substantive motions has never been extended to bills. The Speaker agrees that a Member ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate...
The Speaker rules that bills cannot be divided for voting, but Members can use a motion to delete under S.O. 75(5) to achieve separate votes on specific clauses.
January 24, 1977
"If the motion is amended and adopted by the House, it leaves the matter of implementation open, and that is inconsistent with the initial proposition. It is... a new proposition." Because of the...
A ruling that an amendment is inadmissible if it removes the implementation details of a motion, thereby creating a new and inconsistent proposition.
November 23, 1976
It is clear that parliamentary privilege does not extend, and never has extended, to compelling a Minister or a Prime Minister to make a statement in the House under any circumstances, regardless...
The Speaker ruled that parliamentary privilege does not grant the House the power to compel a Minister or Prime Minister to make a statement.
July 9, 1976
They are out of order because they are consequential to an issue which is no longer part of the bill. Thus, they have become irrelevant to the specific legislative measure presently before the House.
The Speaker ruled amendments out of order as they were consequential to a part of the bill that had been removed, making them irrelevant.
June 29, 1976
"In the final analysis the question reduces itself to whether, when the House pronounced itself upon second reading of the bill, it pronounced itself on a question of principle, and if so, what...
The Speaker ruled that amendments proposed after second reading cannot contradict the fundamental principle of a bill, which in this case was the abolition of capital punishment.