Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
September 20, 1973
In interpreting the rule of anticipation, the Chair "should have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time... [T]he probability of resuming...
The Chair rules that the rule of anticipation does not apply to an interrupted Government Order because its potential return for debate is controlled by the government and thus remains probable.
September 14, 1973
"It is long-established practice, going back at least 100 years, that there can be more than one motion on the same subject appearing on the Order Paper." When the House takes a decision on or...
The Speaker clarifies the long-standing practice allowing multiple similar motions on the Order Paper, governed by the rule of anticipation and House consent.
July 13, 1973
Motions proposed to the House under Standing Order 43 are subject to the rules that apply generally to motions, and cannot be drafted in such a way as to imply a charge by innuendo. The use of...
The Speaker rules that motions under Standing Order 43 cannot use innuendo to make charges due to the immediate unanimous consent requirement.
June 28, 1973
Under the Standing Orders, a Minister's statement on any government action or policy should be made under "Motions" and not tabled. In this case, however, the document is of an informative nature,...
The Speaker ruled that a Minister's informative document could be tabled rather than delivered as a formal statement, which is reserved for policy announcements.
June 11, 1973
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage June 11, 1973 Journals pp. 397-8 Debates pp. 4647-8 Background During debate on a motion in amendment of Mr. Woolliams (Calgary North) at the...
Analysis could not be completed as the provided text is a procedural heading, not a Speaker's Ruling.
May 31, 1973
The practice concerning motions moved under Standing Order 43 is clear: unanimous consent is required to move the motion; a single nay indicates that unanimous consent has not been given.
A statement clarifying that motions under Standing Order 43 require unanimous consent, which is denied by a single 'nay'.
May 15, 1973
The agreement among the House Leaders puts aside the request for a debate under Standing Order 26. "In view of the fact that there is to be a debate on this question this evening", there is no...
The Speaker denied a request for an emergency debate because a separate debate on the same topic was already scheduled by the House Leaders.
April 2, 1973
A request under this Standing Order provides for "an open-ended debate with no motion before the House except the motion to adjourn". In view of the importance and interest in this matter it would...
The Speaker grants a borderline request for an emergency debate, giving the Member the benefit of the doubt due to the topic's importance.
March 27, 1973
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage March 27, 1973 Journals pp. 218-9 Debates pp. 2663-4 Background As the House was about to begin report stage consideration of Bill C-147, an Act...
A ruling on a point of order regarding an amendment's relevance and its potential infringement on the Crown's financial initiative.
March 27, 1973
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading March 27, 1973 Journals p. 219 Debates p. 2679 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-147, an Act to amend...
A motion to recommit a bill is procedurally out of order if its instructions propose amendments that are beyond the bill's original scope.