Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
October 19, 2006
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 3, 2006, by the hon. Member for Windsor–Tecumseh concerning funding cuts to the Law Commission of Canada. I...
The Speaker ruled that the government's defunding of the Law Commission of Canada was an exercise of its executive financial prerogative and not a breach of parliamentary privilege.
February 15, 2005
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 17 by the hon. Opposition House Leader concerning remarks made by the Hon. Minister of International Trade in...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege, ruling that a Minister's statement to proceed with a departmental reorganization despite a defeated bill was not contempt because the government was acting under separate, pre-existing statutory authority.
November 18, 2004
Skip to main content Parliament of Canada Visit Parliament Visit Français FR Share Email Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Menu Parliamentary Business Parliamentary Business - Home The House Sitting...
The Speaker clarifies that Private Members' Bills requiring a royal recommendation cannot be included in the Order of Precedence until the recommendation is provided.
April 1, 2004
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. Opposition House Leader earlier today concerning proceedings in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I would...
The Speaker ruled that he cannot intervene in a committee's decision-making process, including the release of in camera testimony, as committees are masters of their own proceedings until they report to the House.
November 12, 2003
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the questions of privilege raised by the hon. Government House Leader on May 12, 2003, and on May 16, 2003, arising from a decision of the British...
The Speaker ruled that courts cannot compel Members of Parliament to testify, affirming that Parliament alone defines the scope of its own privileges.
November 28, 2002
The Deputy Speaker: I would now like to deal with the point of order raised on November 25 by the hon. Leader of the Opposition relating to Government Motion No. 9, standing in the name of the...
The Speaker ruled that a government motion supporting the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is procedurally in order, as treaty ratification is an executive act not requiring prior enabling legislation from Parliament.
March 29, 2001
The Speaker: Ten motions in amendment are listed in the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-2. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 cannot be proposed to the House because they are not...
The Speaker rules several amendments to Bill C-2 out of order for lacking a Royal Recommendation and establishes a new procedural standard to limit amendments at report stage.
March 15, 2001
The Speaker: Order, please. I am ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, March 1, by the hon. Member for Richmond–Arthabaska. The hon. Member's concerns stem from the adoption by...
The Speaker denies a request to suspend a new rule referencing UK parliamentary practice, ruling that while source documents may be unilingual, his interpretation and application of them will be bilingual.
March 1, 2001
The Deputy Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Opposition House Leader, the hon. Member for Fraser Valley, on February 13, 2001. Subsequent to the adoption...
The Speaker ruled that the Chair has no discretion to block a procedurally correct government motion for time allocation, as the Speaker must enforce the rules as written by the House.
September 25, 2000
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has given a ruling in respect of the admissibility of the amendments. Of the 3,100 or so that were submitted, I am told 156 have been rejected as not in order and...
The Speaker denied a point of order requesting the Chair to rule a large number of amendments inadmissible, affirming that the Chair is bound by precedent and procedural changes must come from committee.