Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
March 13, 1995
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, on February 27 the honourable member for Yorkton—Melville sought to move an amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-68, An Act respecting firearms and...
The Speaker ruled a reasoned amendment admissible, clarifying that such amendments can express opinions on a bill's provisions and do not need to be strictly opposed to its core principles.
November 24, 1994
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Roberval on November 16, 1994, concerning the format of the report of the Special Joint Committee...
The Speaker ruled that a committee report with dissenting opinions in a separate volume would be accepted as tabled but must be reprinted in a single volume to comply with the Standing Orders.
March 24, 1993
Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could return to the matter that engaged us for a moment or two during Question Period. I asked the honourable Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to remain in the Chamber...
The Speaker named and expelled the Member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for refusing to withdraw unparliamentary language and disregarding the authority of the Chair, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining reasonable order for free speech.
March 23, 1993
The Speaker: This is, of course, a rather difficult situation, not only for the Speaker and the honourable Member, but also for the House. I listened carefully to what was said by the honourable...
The Speaker found a prima facie case of breach of privilege against the Member for Rosemont for attacking the integrity of a Presiding Officer and referred the matter to the Standing Committee on House Management.
March 9, 1993
The Speaker: Yesterday the honourable House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition rose on a question of privilege claiming that the Deputy Speaker, the honourable Member for...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege claiming the Deputy Speaker was in contempt for co-chairing a political convention, affirming that Canadian practice permits Deputy Speakers greater political activity than the Speaker.
June 11, 1992
The Speaker: Before proceeding to the daily routine of business, I want to give my ruling on a matter raised by the honourable Member for Calgary Northeast a few days ago. As all honourable...
The Speaker ruled that broken pairing agreements are private matters beyond the intervention of the Chair or the House because current Standing Orders provide no mechanism for penalty or correction.
March 26, 1992
Mr. Speaker: As honourable Members know, shortly after Question Period there was a further extension of a point of order which had been brought this morning relating to the amendment by the...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to an allotted day motion out of order because it improperly expanded the scope of debate, citing Erskine May and Beauchesne on the restrictive nature of amendments.
October 10, 1991
Rules of Debate / Decorum October 10, 1991 Debates, pp. 3562-4 Context During Routine Proceedings on October 10, 1991, Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona) rose on a point of order concerning the...
The Speaker took under advisement a Point of Order concerning the inadequacy of traditional remedies for sexist and racist remarks directed at groups, promising to assist the House in improving decorum standards.
June 19, 1991
The Speaker: Perhaps I can help the honourable Member. First of all, I am not revealing a great secret when I say that of course there is a list. The honourable Member has often been on that list....
The Speaker confirmed the existence of a non-binding recognition list for Question Period and affirmed the Chair's absolute discretion to recognize independent Members for supplementary questions.
April 10, 1991
The Speaker: On Monday, April 8, 1991, the honourable Member for Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing rose on a point of order concerning Government Motion No. 30, the motion dealing with the proposed...
The Speaker ruled on a Point of Order concerning dividing a complex motion to amend Standing Orders, deciding against separate debates but implementing a compromise to divide the subsequent vote into three subject-matter groupings after consulting party leaders.