Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
October 21, 1968
The proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill but merely postpones consideration of the bill until a certain condition is met. Further, there is a substantial difference between...
This ruling clarifies that an amendment is procedurally acceptable if it postpones a bill's consideration based on a condition, rather than opposing its core principle.
October 16, 1968
Questions must be addressed to a Minister in relation to his or her administrative responsibility. This applies, as well, to Ministers who have acting ministerial responsibility, and this has been...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege regarding ministerial attendance, ruling it was not raised in a timely manner and was a substantive matter requiring notice.
March 20, 1968
This is a point of order rather than a question of privilege. A report by the Special Committee on Procedure, concurred in by the House on July 12, 1955, states that a motion to adjourn the House...
The Speaker rules that a motion to adjourn requiring notice must be handled under the 'Motions' section of business, as established by a 1955 committee report.
March 11, 1968
A motion or question that is substantially the same as one previously decided cannot be offered again during the same session. The key phrase is "substantially the same" and, as the authorities...
The Speaker rules that a motion cannot be re-introduced in the same session if it is substantially the same as one already decided by the House.
March 7, 1968
No notice of motion is required because these resolutions are introduced in the Committee of Ways and Means. "Procedurally there has been no notice because nothing appears on the Order Paper...
The Speaker ruled that Ways and Means resolutions do not require prior notice on the Order Paper as they originate directly within the committee itself.
February 28, 1968
The motion states clearly that the vote of the House was not one of non-confidence in the Government. The amendment, however, seeks to add irrelevant conditions. It also raises a new proposition...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the main motion and introduced a new substantive question.
February 26, 1968
"... the amendment, if carried, would make the motion difficult to understand." In addition, "it would also be contrary to the facts, since the bill was carried on first reading by unanimous...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was confusing and factually incorrect.
February 23, 1968
"This amendment goes far beyond the very limited scope of the motion now under consideration. It is a substantive motion or proposal which could be discussed only after notice or unanimous consent...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order as it was a new substantive motion that exceeded the scope of the original proposal.
February 22, 1968
The claim that the words "manufactured crisis" or "trickery" are in themselves libellous or slanderous cannot be accepted. "The fact that a statement is untrue does not necessarily form the basis...
The Speaker ruled that the terms 'manufactured crisis' and 'trickery' were not a prima facie breach of privilege as they were used generally and not as a personal attack.
February 19, 1968
Members may always propose motions for adjournment before the ordinary hour of adjournment. The Speaker should not be placed in a position where he is constrained to adjourn the House.
This 1968 ruling clarifies that while members can move to adjourn, the Speaker is not compelled to do so as the decision rests with the House.