Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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.
March 16, 1971
The proposed amendment does more than qualify or amend the main motion; it seeks to provide a basis for an entirely different debate. Furthermore, when the opposition parties agree on the choice...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to an opposition day motion out of order because it introduced a new topic beyond the scope of the original motion.
May 14, 1970
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage May 14, 1970 Journals p. 807 Debates pp. 6985-6 Background During report stage consideration of Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Oil and Gas...
An amendment was ruled inadmissible for being beyond the scope of the bill and for setting a new condition.
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.
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.
May 3, 1966
The subamendment is not relevant to the amendment; it raises a distinct question which can be considered only on a motion after notice.
A 1966 ruling established that a subamendment is out of order if it is not relevant to the main amendment and introduces a new, distinct question.