Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
October 23, 1968
The rules and precedents indicate that Government Orders may be called only as the Government sees fit, and this is done by the Government House Leader.
A procedural statement confirming that only the Government House Leader can call Government Orders for debate.
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.
April 25, 1966
There is no question whatsoever that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance, but it is necessary to consider the question of urgency of debate. There are other opportunities to...
The Speaker denied a request for an emergency debate, ruling that the matter was not a sudden occurrence as required by the rules.
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 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.
December 10, 1912
Based upon a number of precedents, there are two possible remedies; either to obtain another recommendation amending the preceding resolution or to delete the inconsistent provisions of the bill....
The Speaker denied a point of order, ruling that a formal discrepancy between a bill and its Ways and Means resolution did not require the bill to be withdrawn.