Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
April 1, 1966
Ample precedents support the view that "the Prime Minister can be asked whether a statement of policy made outside the House by a Cabinet Minister does in fact reflect the policy of the...
This ruling establishes that the Prime Minister is the appropriate person to question regarding whether a minister's statement made outside the House reflects official government policy.
March 31, 1966
Rules of Debate / Relevance March 31, 1966 Debates pp. 3676-7 Background During Private Members' Business, the House resumed the debate on a motion by Mr. Orlikow (Winnipeg North), moved on...
Analysis failed as the provided text is a procedural term, not a Speaker's Ruling.
March 29, 1966
Although the House may proceed from one item of business to another within the same type of order, Standing Orders do not allow a motion that the House move from an item in one type of order (in...
A motion to switch from Government Orders to Private Members' Business is out of order as it is a substantive motion requiring notice.
March 28, 1966
The Member's proposal "is under the form of an amendment to the main motion rather than a subamendment".
A ruling from March 28, 1966, clarifies that a proposal is out of order if it is framed as a subamendment but is substantively an amendment to the main motion.
March 23, 1966
"There is only one proposition before the House... and the other aspects of the question are rather of a secondary nature and could not, in the circumstances, be separated from the initial...
The Speaker denies a request to divide a complicated question, stating the resolution is a single proposition that cannot be separated by the Chair.
March 15, 1966
The motion is similar to three previous motions on privilege ruled out of order last week. The motion before the House is not one of privilege: it proposes the establishment of a special...
The Speaker denied a motion presented as a question of privilege, ruling it was a substantive motion requiring notice.
March 15, 1966
Rules and practices require that a committee be appointed by means of a substantive motion with notice. The Chair has no authority to waive such a rule nor can it alter the substance of a motion...
The Speaker ruled a motion to appoint a committee out of order because it was not a substantive motion with proper notice as required by procedure.
March 15, 1966
According to long-standing practice, "a motion has to follow a question of privilege. The House cannot carry on a debate unless there is [a] question before it and, in the case of a question of...
A ruling clarifying that a question of privilege requires a motion to be debatable and only one can be considered at a time.
March 11, 1966
In 100 years of parliamentary history, a motion of this character has never been accepted. This is a substantive motion which requires notice and could be moved in other circumstances as a private...
The Speaker ruled a substantive motion out of order because the required notice had not been given.
March 11, 1966
Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous March 11, 1966 Debates pp. 2589-90 Background During discussion of a question of privilege [Munsinger case] relating to the account in certain newspapers of...
A description of the procedural issue of reading from a newspaper, which is generally permissible as quoting but not as a substitute for a speech.