Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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
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.
March 26, 1973
It is not the business of the Chair to rule on points of constitutional law or to claim that the Government must resign. The issue of government resignation is not a point of order. As to the...
The Speaker denied a point of order on government resignation, affirming the Chair does not rule on constitutional matters.
February 7, 1973
Although the form of the notices is not the main issue, Members should present them in the form of notices of opposition instead of motions or amendments as such. "... until now... notices have...
The Speaker clarifies that notices of opposition to Supply can be dealt with before the final 'guillotine' and explains the procedural similarities for considering Supply on government versus opposition days.
June 29, 1971
The proposed motion is out of order because it asks the House to proceed to the point it has already reached. Furthermore, a motion that the Orders of the Day be read is obsolete as a substantive...
The Speaker ruled a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day out of order as it was redundant and procedurally obsolete as a substantive motion.
December 11, 1970
"... there are very few precedents in modern times of the House having adjourned its business for the purpose of considering a petition." In the only recent precedent, it is recorded that "by...
A Speaker's ruling clarifies that while the House rarely adjourns to consider a petition, it can be referred to a committee with unanimous consent.
October 20, 1970
Since the Chair did not have the opportunity to examine each bill in detail, it is suggested that the House follow the procedure agreed upon in several recent sessions: by unanimous consent, all...
The Speaker outlines a process to grant private Members' bills first reading by consent while deferring scrutiny of procedural defects until before second reading.
June 8, 1970
Since government business has already been set aside to discuss a supply motion, it would be difficult to pre-empt consideration of the supply motion in favour of a motion for an emergency debate...
The Speaker denied a request for an emergency debate, ruling that it could not preempt a scheduled supply day and was substantively a non-confidence motion.
January 19, 1970
Rules of Debate / Repetition January 19, 1970 Debates p. 2547 Background During Private Members' Business (Notices of Motions), Mr. Orlikow (Winnipeg North) proposed a motion to create a special...
The provided text is too short to be analyzed as a Speaker's Ruling.
July 3, 1969
Arguments raised against the Government's motion are founded largely on the rule of anticipation. Unfortunately, Canadian precedents concerning this rule are not sufficiently clear and British...
The Speaker ruled that the rule of anticipation applies to the debate of a matter, not its placement on the Order Paper, thus allowing a government motion to proceed.