Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
June 20, 1983
The problem of a complicated question refers to motions not bills; there is no procedural reason to divide the bill. Although some occupants of the Chair have expressed concern about the practice...
The Speaker ruled that an omnibus bill cannot be divided on the grounds of being a 'complicated question' as that principle applies only to motions.
June 7, 1983
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage June 7, 1983 Debates p. 26118 Background During consideration, at report stage of Bill C‑85, An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex,...
The provided text is a topic heading about the grouping of amendments and the scope of debate, not a full Speaker's Ruling, and cannot be analyzed.
March 4, 1981
The Chair does not have the duty to uphold the principle of cabinet secrecy, nor does it sit in judgment upon the manner in which Ministers fulfil their responsibilities, including the prevention...
The Speaker ruled that a leak of government estimates is a matter of ministerial responsibility, not a breach of parliamentary privilege for the Chair to adjudicate.
November 6, 1980
Although it is legitimate for Members in this House to insist that Ministers answer their questions, Ministers are not bound to do so. "Minister may decline to answer a question without stating...
This ruling confirms the established principle that Ministers cannot be compelled to answer questions in the House.
October 17, 1980
The Member has the right to express his disagreement following the Minister's decision, and this very important question of principle certainly deserves to be debated. However, there is no...
The Speaker ruled that a Minister's non-disclosure of public opinion polls did not constitute a prima facie breach of privilege.
February 13, 1979
Motions without Notice Proposed under Standing Order 43 / Application of the Rule February 13, 1979 Debates, pp. 3164-6 Background On October 26, 1978, Mr. Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon—Biggar) rose on a...
The provided text 'Application of the rule' is too short and incomplete to be analyzed as a Speaker's Ruling.
May 11, 1977
The practice in respect of dividing substantive motions has never been extended to bills. The Speaker agrees that a Member ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate...
The Speaker rules that bills cannot be divided for voting, but Members can use a motion to delete under S.O. 75(5) to achieve separate votes on specific clauses.
June 29, 1976
"In the final analysis the question reduces itself to whether, when the House pronounced itself upon second reading of the bill, it pronounced itself on a question of principle, and if so, what...
The Speaker ruled that amendments proposed after second reading cannot contradict the fundamental principle of a bill, which in this case was the abolition of capital punishment.
June 22, 1976
The legislative authority which allows the government to establish a corporation such as Loto Canada already exists and is separate from the item in the estimates. Consequently, the government is...
The Speaker ruled that using the estimates to fund a corporation is procedurally acceptable if the legislative authority already exists, even if a bill is preferable for matters of principle.
May 10, 1976
Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Amendment Beyond Scope of Motion May 10, 1976 Journals p. 1278 Debates p. 13359 Background When, during private Members' hour on February 3, the House was...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it introduced a new principle beyond the scope of the original motion.