Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
March 2, 1981
The advertisement reflects on the honour of Members and thus could be said to involve contempt of Parliament.
The Speaker rules that an advertisement portraying influence peddling could be a contempt of Parliament as it reflects on the honour of Members.
January 30, 1981
Parliamentary privilege is very limited, and is essentially restricted to freedom of speech, access to the Parliamentary Buildings, immunity against arrest or molestation, and exemption from...
The Speaker ruled that a Minister changing a commitment is a political grievance, not a breach of parliamentary privilege.
October 29, 1980
To amount to contempt, statements relating to proceedings of the House or the participation of Members should not only be erroneous, but rather they should be deliberately incorrect and improper...
A ruling clarifying that for a statement about House proceedings to be considered contempt, it must be deliberately false and deceitful, not just incorrect.
November 9, 1978
The complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity. The letter from the Solicitor General to Mr. Lawrence can be considered a proceeding in Parliament for the purpose of privilege. A contempt...
The Speaker found a prima facie case of contempt, ruling that a minister's letter is a proceeding in Parliament and the sub judice convention does not apply to a Royal Commission.
June 8, 1978
The Speaker said that the comments of the judge could be interpreted two ways; either that he was speaking in defence of his court or that he was intending to intimidate the Member. If he had...
The Speaker ruled that a judge's comments did not constitute intimidation of a Member as no threat of contempt of court was made.
March 21, 1978
While there are no previous precedents in any of the earlier practices of this House or of Westminster, and although this case involves an incident which took place beyond the precincts of...
The Speaker rules that electronic surveillance of a Member, even off-precinct, could constitute a contempt of the House by way of intimidation or obstruction.
February 3, 1971
While a supposed contempt of Parliament may be an element of a breach of privilege, it is not by itself a question of privilege. The complaint raised by the Member may be classified as (i) wilful...
The Speaker rules that a complaint of being misled or contempt is not a prima facie question of privilege and must be pursued through other procedural avenues.