Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
January 16, 1969
Among the conditions to be met in moving the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26, both in its new and old forms, is that the subject-matter "must relate to a genuine emergency calling...
The Speaker denied a request for an emergency debate on unemployment, ruling that the ongoing nature of the issue does not meet the 'suddenness' criterion required by Standing Order 26.
December 5, 1968
"If, according to Standing Orders, a Member cannot insist byway of a question of privilege upon an answer, it is obvious that a question of privilege cannot be raised when an answer has been...
The Speaker denies a request for an emergency debate due to a lack of urgency and clarifies that unsatisfactory answers are not grounds for a question of privilege.
November 1, 1968
It is a well-established rule that the House is bound to accept the word of a Member. It is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a Member as being contrary to fact,...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege, affirming that disputes over facts are matters for debate and the House must accept a member's word.
October 21, 1968
The proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill but merely postpones consideration of the bill until a certain condition is met. Further, there is a substantial difference between...
This ruling clarifies that an amendment is procedurally acceptable if it postpones a bill's consideration based on a condition, rather than opposing its core principle.
October 10, 1968
If the words of the proposed amendment do not enlarge the terms of the clause, then the amendment is redundant and superfluous. If they do enlarge the terms of the clause, they must be examined to...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the financial resolution authorizing the bill.
February 28, 1968
The motion states clearly that the vote of the House was not one of non-confidence in the Government. The amendment, however, seeks to add irrelevant conditions. It also raises a new proposition...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the main motion and introduced a new substantive question.
November 22, 1967
Amendments at this stage cannot attach conditions to the second reading, which this proposed amendment does, concerning the approval of the bill in principle. This case is distinguished from the...
The Speaker ruled that an amendment to a bill at second reading is inadmissible if it imposes a condition on the approval of the bill's principle.
November 6, 1967
The House may refer the subject-matter of a bill to committee at second reading, but the Chair is not disposed to change the established procedure in order to allow the amendment in its present...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because its condition to delay a bill's second reading until a committee reported was procedurally incorrect.
October 13, 1966
Although the amendment does not present a policy contrary to the bill, it fulfils other conditions of an acceptable reasoned amendment. Where relevance is concerned, the fact that the amendment...
The Speaker ruled a reasoned amendment acceptable by giving the benefit of the doubt on its relevance to the bill.
June 29, 1966
The amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Moreover, a reasoned amendment cannot attach a condition upon the second reading of a bill. The proposed amendment is also similar to one moved by...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to a bill out of order for being beyond scope, conditional, and reviving a past debate.