Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
November 22, 1983
Precedence and Sequence of Business / Business of the House November 22, 1983 Debates p. 29061 Background As the House was about to proceed to the consideration of the business of supply under the...
A procedural ruling concerning the selection and priority of motions for debate on an allotted day of Supply.
October 27, 1983
Precedence and Sequence of Business / Business of the House October 27, 1983 Debates pp. 28371-5 Background At the beginning of the sitting, immediately prior to the call for the Order of the Day,...
A ruling on the procedures for setting the priority of government business and filing notices of motion.
October 17, 1983
The practice of the House is that if someone else but the one who has given notice of such a motion moves a motion, he must obtain the unanimous consent of the House. Furthermore, the authorities...
A ruling clarifying that a potentially debatable motion for concurrence must be moved by the Member who gave notice, not another, without unanimous consent.
June 28, 1983
The Member's statement, of course, does not constitute debate, for the very fact that during that period there was no motion before the House. The practice in the House is that the names of the...
The Speaker clarifies that the rule against using the names of the Royal Family or Governor General in debate should also be applied with discretion during Members' statements.
June 20, 1983
The problem of a complicated question refers to motions not bills; there is no procedural reason to divide the bill. Although some occupants of the Chair have expressed concern about the practice...
The Speaker ruled that an omnibus bill cannot be divided on the grounds of being a 'complicated question' as that principle applies only to motions.
May 26, 1983
The Acting Speaker gave a ruling as to the substance of the problem and his ruling was entirely correct and reflects the rules and practices in that whenever a specific length of time is provided...
A ruling clarifying that time for points of order does not reduce total debate time, but the Chair has discretion to extend an individual's speaking time.
May 17, 1983
According to one authority, "motions for the adjournment of the House... pending at the moment of interruption, lapse without question put". In this case, as the House had not seen fit to vote on...
The Speaker rules that a pending motion to adjourn lapses without a vote at the ordinary time of adjournment, forcing the House to adjourn.
May 16, 1983
Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous May 16, 1983 Debates p. 25477 Background On May 13, during the second reading of Bill C-155, An Act to facilitate transportation, shipping and handling of western...
Analysis based on a title regarding the eight-hour rule for debate at second reading; no ruling text was provided.
April 26, 1983
Various precedents indicate that charges of this kind cannot be made by way of a question of privilege, but only on a substantive motion making clear and specific accusations. While there may have...
Speaker rules that serious accusations must be made via a substantive motion, not a question of privilege, and finds no procedural error in the tabling of budget documents.
April 19, 1983
According to the practice whereby the Minister of Finance presents his budget in the House before declaring it in any other public forum, budget secrecy is a political convention which does not...
This ruling establishes that budget secrecy is a political convention, not a matter of privilege, and any accusation of its breach requires a substantive motion.