Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
February 16, 2012
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 8, 2012, by the hon. Member for Ahuntsic regarding Members bringing their infant children into the Chamber. I...
The Speaker ruled that bringing an infant into the Chamber is not a breach of privilege, continuing the practice of allowing it so long as no disturbance to the House occurs.
June 8, 2005
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 and on Thursday, June 2, 2005 by the hon. Member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell concerning the...
Speaker rules that mass faxes and cybersquatting targeting MPs are serious grievances but not a prima facie breach of privilege as they do not prevent Members from performing their duties.
March 25, 2004
The Speaker: I am also prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Members for Haliburton–Victoria–Brock and Scarborough–Rouge River on March 11, concerning the recording,...
The Speaker finds a prima facie breach of privilege in the media's publication of a secretly recorded confidential caucus meeting.
March 28, 2000
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for London North Centre on Friday, March 17, 2000. I would like to thank the member for having...
The Speaker found a prima facie breach of privilege against a member who prematurely disclosed a draft committee report, affirming that all reports are confidential until tabled in the House.
April 11, 1991
The Speaker:
The Speaker addressed a Question of Privilege concerning the unauthorized movement of a Member's office, ruling that such interference with facilities impedes parliamentary duties.
March 10, 1972
Any accusation made against a senior public official is a breach of order. [In this case, the official is the Auditor General who, in failing to submit his annual report to the House as stipulated...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege, ruling that accusations against the Auditor General are matters of order or administration to be addressed by a substantive motion.