Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
June 17, 2024
The Speaker: I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 6, by the member for Winnipeg Centre, concerning editorial changes to the Debates of June 4. In raising this matter, the...
A Speaker's ruling denied a question of privilege concerning an editorial change to the Hansard, finding the change was made in good faith to correct an admitted error.
February 17, 2022
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised yesterday by the House leader of the official opposition concerning today's statutory debate being held pursuant to the Emergencies...
The Speaker ruled that the Emergencies Act debate's 'without interruption' clause means it has priority, not that it overrides the House's normal daily schedule and adjournment times.
October 2, 2014
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on June 5 by the hon. Member for Avalon, and again today by the hon. Member for Beauséjour, regarding the right of the...
The Speaker ruled a prima facie question of privilege existed regarding Members' right to sit and vote during a dispute over their election returns, referring the procedural gap to a committee for study.
June 12, 2014
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 16, 2014, by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding the use of Standing Order 56.1. [9] I would like to...
The Speaker ruled that Standing Order 56.1 is for routine motions and cannot be used to issue substantive instructions to a committee, but declined to act on the specific instance as the objection was not raised in a timely manner.
March 27, 2013
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 6, 2013 by the Member for Winnipeg Centre regarding the Minister of Justice's statutory obligation to examine...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege regarding the Minister of Justice's statutory duties, ruling that the Chair cannot interpret legal obligations as that is a matter for the courts.
November 4, 2011
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Windsor—Tecumseh concerning ways and means proceedings on Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act...
The Speaker ruled that a Private Member's Bill removing a tax exemption for labour organizations was out of order because it was not preceded by a required Ways and Means motion.
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.
May 3, 2007
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Scarborough–Rouge River on April 17, 2007, concerning the procedural admissibility of Bill C-52, An Act...
The Speaker denied a point of order against a budget bill, ruling it was properly based on a Ways and Means motion and that concerns about delegated legislation were matters of substance for debate, not procedure.
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.
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.