Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
November 30, 2023
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised on November 27 by the member for Yorkton—Melville concerning language used in question period that day. According to the member, the...
The Speaker ruled on a point of order regarding unparliamentary language, warning all members to avoid associating colleagues with oppressive regimes to maintain decorum.
April 4, 2019
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on March 19, 2019, by the honourable member for Wellington—Halton Hills, concerning the tabling of the budget 2019 documents by...
The Speaker denied a point of order regarding the premature tabling of budget documents, ruling that while convention was broken, the action adhered to Standing Order 32(2) and was procedurally valid.
April 1, 2019
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on February 28, 2019, by the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill concerning events that occurred at meetings of the Standing...
The Speaker denied a point of order concerning a committee chair's adjournment due to lack of quorum, ruling that Standing Order 116(2) was not violated because the debate was not permanently terminated.
October 22, 2018
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 3, 2018, by the hon. member for Bruce—Grey— Owen Sound regarding unparliamentary language. I would like to thank the...
The Speaker ruled that the Prime Minister's use of 'ambulance chaser' was technically parliamentary because it was used generically, but cautioned members against testing the limits of acceptable language.
June 21, 2005
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. Opposition House Leader concerning the notice period for Government Business No. 17. I would like to...
The Speaker ruled that the 48-hour notice requirement is met by publication on the Notice Paper one day and transfer to the Order Paper the next, not by 48 literal hours.
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.
April 9, 1991
The Speaker: On Tuesday, March 26, 1991, when Government Motion No. 30 to amend the Standing Orders was first before the House, the honourable Member for Kamloops rose on a point of order to ask...
The Speaker denied a Point of Order challenging a proposed Standing Order that allowed ministerial routine motions to proceed despite denied unanimous consent unless 25 members objected, asserting that the House must retain the privilege to debate and establish its own rules.
April 9, 1991
Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, March 26, 1991, when Government Motion No. 30 to amend the Standing Orders was first before the House, the honourable Member for Kamloops rose on a point of order to ask...
The Speaker denied a Point of Order challenging amendments to Standing Orders regarding Supply days, ruling that the Chair lacks jurisdiction to interpret constitutional or statutory limits and affirming the House's fundamental privilege to regulate its own procedure.
March 20, 1991
Mr. Speaker: On Friday, March 8,1991, the honourable Member for Ontario rose on a point of order to object to the inclusion of items in the Supplementary and Main Estimates which would authorize...
The Speaker sustained a point of order, ruling that items in the Estimates cannot be used to create new legislative authority for senators' allowances or authorize multi-year spending.
March 8, 1990
Mr. Speaker: On Monday, March 5, 1990, the honourable Member for Kamloops rose on a point of order to suggest that the debate on the budget be suspended and that the Chair review the Government...
The Speaker rules that the sub judice convention does not apply to bills, thereby allowing debate on government legislation to proceed despite a related matter being before the courts.