Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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.
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.
December 30, 1971
The proposed motion is a superseding motion, which would have to be moved while the House is debating a matter. This motion cannot be put on a point of order.
The Speaker ruled that a superseding motion is out of order when raised as a point of order and must instead be moved during debate.
December 1, 1971
In this case the provisions of the Standing Orders do not require a 48-hour written notice. The Standing Orders further state that a Minister who has given notice of an intention to do so, may...
The Speaker confirms that a time allocation motion does not require 48-hour written notice under the Standing Orders.
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 Furthermore, a motion that the Orders of the Day be read is obsolete as a substantive...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.
May 28, 1971
Given that committees sometimes study the same question for several weeks, "it would seem to be most impractical for the House to adopt the position that the membership of committees should not be...
The Speaker denied a request to return a committee report, citing the impracticality of freezing membership and the proximity of the Supply deadline.
October 6, 1970
The Standing Orders clearly state that a committee report cannot be considered by the House until 48 hours have elapsed following its presentation. This is a relatively new standing order...
The Speaker clarifies that the 48-hour notice period for a committee report can be satisfied over a weekend.
June 18, 1970
Government business is not reached until Orders of the Day are called. There is no conflict with the proceedings on supply even though Members anticipate that it may cause problems in the future....
The Speaker confirms that a motion properly moved during Routine Proceedings is procedurally acceptable, even if it might conflict with a future supply day.
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.
January 27, 1969
The Standing Orders require a 24-hour written notice be given; therefore, it should be open to Members to file their notices for motions, bills or papers and written questions, just as it should...
The Speaker rules that a suspension of a sitting is not an adjournment, and therefore the 24-hour notice period for filing business continues to run.