Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
September 26, 1967
The proposed amendment constitutes a new question and cannot be considered an amendment to the original motion; the original motion was designed simply to delete an entry, whereas the amendment is...
A 1967 ruling found an amendment inadmissible because it sought to delete an entire bill, which was beyond the scope of the original motion to delete a single entry.
July 7, 1967
The amendment is a substantive proposition and raises a new question which requires notice. A more serious objection, although not raised in debate by Members, is that the amendment seeks to...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order as it was a substantive proposition requiring notice and involved expenditure without a Royal Recommendation.
April 20, 1967
The motion in question is a time allocation motion and the notice of motion was given by a Minister orally at an earlier sitting. The provisional Standing Order "not only dispenses with the...
A ruling explaining that a Minister's oral notice for a time allocation motion bypasses the standard 48-hour notice requirement.
April 3, 1967
The amendments are now before the House in two forms: the report which was tabled and which is now officially before the House, and the amended bill which has been distributed. Distribution might...
The Speaker rules that the late distribution of an amended bill is a matter of convenience, not a valid point of order.
March 15, 1967
While the irregularity in the Estimates may be a matter of dispute, the role of the Chair is limited to determining if the issue should be given priority over other business byway of a question of...
The Speaker ruled that an irregularity in the Estimates is a matter for debate on supply, not a prima facie question of privilege.
December 13, 1966
The question is whether or not, in view of planned negotiations, there is an urgency for debate. As "there can be only one debate on a specific matter under Standing Order 26 during a session",...
Speaker denies an emergency debate request, citing a lack of urgency and the one-debate-per-session rule under S.O. 26.
October 24, 1966
In such an instance as this, it is not necessary for the Speaker to decide if a breach of privilege has been committed, but to decide if the complaint was raised at the earliest opportunity, and...
The Speaker ruled that a prima facie question of privilege regarding reflections on a Member was established and allowed the corresponding motion to proceed.
October 18, 1966
The Chair must rule on two points in the case. First, the motion goes beyond the scope of the limited question of privilege raised by Mr. Nugent and revives a point concerning the fact of the...
The Chair denied a question of privilege, ruling the motion was improperly substantive and the minister's words did not meet the prima facie threshold for a breach.
October 13, 1966
The rules do not contemplate the possibility of a second interpretation on a decision of the Chair on a question of privilege. The Member had originally asked for a ruling on a question of...
The Speaker denies a request for a second ruling, clarifying that Chair's decisions are final and complaints about words are typically points of order, not questions of privilege.
October 12, 1966
"It is only in extreme circumstances that an adjournment is granted... It may well be that this is a type of business on which there should be an adjournment", but there is before the Chair a...
The Speaker ruled that a matter of privilege cannot be debated via an immediate adjournment and must instead be placed on the Order Paper as a motion.