Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
March 10, 2020
The Speaker: I am ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on February 25 by the member for Fundy Royal and on February 27 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government...
The Speaker found a prima facie breach of privilege due to the deliberate premature disclosure of a government bill to the media before its introduction in the House.
February 3, 2020
The Speaker: I am ready to make a statement regarding the question of privilege raised on January 29, 2020, by the member for Chilliwack—Hope concerning the statement that the member for Vimy made...
The Speaker ruled that a member's misleading statement about her presence for a vote was an unintentional error, and her sincere apology resolved the question of privilege.
May 29, 2017
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 10, 2017, by the hon. member for Victoria concerning the government's advertisement of job opportunities at the...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege alleging government contempt for advertising jobs for the proposed Canada Infrastructure Bank (Bill C-44) before Royal Assent, finding no prima facie evidence of obstruction or disrespect of Parliament's authority.
April 29, 2015
The Speaker: Before we continue with routine proceedings, I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 2, by the hon. Member for St. John's East about alleged misleading...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege, ruling that a minister providing inaccurate information did not constitute a breach as there was no evidence of intent to mislead.
April 23, 2013
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 26 by the Member for Langley regarding the presentation of a Member's statement pursuant to Standing Order 31....
The Speaker ruled that a party removing a Member from a speaking list for an S.O. 31 statement does not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege, while affirming the Speaker's ultimate and indisputable authority to recognize any Member who seeks the floor.
September 28, 2011
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 19, 2011, by the Member for Malpeque concerning a notice of proposed procurement in respect of the Canadian...
The Speaker ruled that a government procurement notice regarding the Canadian Wheat Board was a hypothetical planning document and not a contempt of Parliament for anticipating a legislative decision.
October 5, 2010
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on September 22, 2010, by the hon. Member for Portage–Lisgar concerning an e-mailed media release issued by the Press...
The Speaker ruled that a media release critical of a Member did not breach privilege as the comments were made outside the House and did not impede her parliamentary duties.
March 5, 2010
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 18, 2010, by the hon. Member for Scarborough–Rouge River, the hon. Member for St. John's East and the hon....
Speaker rules the government's refusal to provide uncensored documents on Afghan detainees as ordered by the House is a prima facie question of privilege, affirming Parliament's absolute power to demand information.
October 6, 2005
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on Monday, September 26 by the hon. Member for Calgary East concerning the work of the Ethics Commissioner. I would like...
The Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege concerning the Ethics Commissioner's conduct under the new Conflict of Interest Code, referring the matter to a committee for review.
March 22, 2005
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 8, 2005 by the hon. Opposition House Leader concerning the alleged failure of the Prime Minister to allow...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege alleging government contempt for failing to hold a vote on ballistic missile defense, ruling the dispute was over the interpretation of an ambiguous and conditional amendment to the Address in Reply.