Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
July 16, 1981
According to one authority, there are three essential and clearly defined stages in obtaining a decision of the House: first, the moving of a motion; then, the proposing of a question by the...
This ruling affirms the practice of allowing a Member to interrupt the voting process on a motion to raise a point of order or ask a question, protecting their right to speak.
October 14, 1980
Because the House has already voted on this piece of legislation, the Member may not propose a motion reaffirming approval of the legislation but disagreeing with one of its provisions.
A motion is ruled out of order because it seeks to revisit a question already decided by the House.
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.
March 24, 1976
A notice of objection to an item in the estimates is not a motion; it only notifies the House that a Member insists on a separate vote on that particular item. The only way to deal with the matter...
The ruling clarifies that a notice of objection to the estimates is not a motion but a trigger for a separate vote.
April 8, 1975
Content of Bills / Infringing on Financial Initiative of the Crown April 8, 1975 Journals pp. 420-1 Debates p. 4615 Background Prior to allowing debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-234,...
The Speaker ruled a private Member's bill out of order for infringing on the financial initiative of the Crown by proposing an expenditure without a royal recommendation.
April 24, 1974
Four possibilities are available according to the Standing Order on the notice of motions for the production of papers. When called, the motion can be adopted by the House, dropped, voted upon or,...
The Speaker outlines the procedural options available for a motion for the production of papers when a Minister refuses to table the requested documents.
March 26, 1974
"Parliament cannot legislate by Estimates", but this particular vote in the Estimates does not seek to amend an act or "to establish a legislative principle". It is difficult to see how this is...
A ruling confirms an item in the Estimates is procedurally valid as it does not improperly attempt to legislate by amending an act or establishing a legislative principle.
December 10, 1973
If a vote on the non-confidence motion is taken before 9:45 p.m., the House would then have the opportunity to look at the procedural difficulties mentioned in connection with the notices of...
The Speaker ruled that motions for concurrence in committee reports must be deferred to a future supply day and cannot be considered on a day with a non-confidence vote.
June 26, 1973
Questions Related to Content of Bills / Discrepancy June 26, 1973 Journals pp. 436-7 Debates pp. 5094-5 Background On the last allotted day of the supply period ending on June 30, Mr. Nielsen...
Analysis of the procedural concept of a Royal Recommendation, which is required for any bill involving the expenditure of public funds.
June 26, 1973
Specific items in the Estimates may be debated as proposed in the motion of Mr. Nielsen. However, because the votable supply day motions have already been exhausted, there would be no vote on the...
The Speaker clarifies that on an allotted supply day where votable motions are exhausted, debate on the Estimates can occur but will expire without a vote.