Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
May 6, 1966
While it is the right of Parliament to impose by its vote the type of condition suggested in this amendment, the proper procedure is by way of substantive motion after notice. "The proposed...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it introduced a new principle to a resolution, which must instead be done via a substantive motion.
April 22, 1966
Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous April 22, 1966 Journals p. 431 Debates p. 4210 Background During debate on the motion that the House resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Sharp...
Analysis not possible as the provided text 'Right of reply' is a procedural term, not a complete Speaker's Ruling.
March 29, 1966
Although the House may proceed from one item of business to another within the same type of order, Standing Orders do not allow a motion that the House move from an item in one type of order (in...
A motion to switch from Government Orders to Private Members' Business is out of order as it is a substantive motion requiring notice.
March 28, 1966
The Member's proposal "is under the form of an amendment to the main motion rather than a subamendment".
A ruling from March 28, 1966, clarifies that a proposal is out of order if it is framed as a subamendment but is substantively an amendment to the main motion.
March 15, 1966
The motion is similar to three previous motions on privilege ruled out of order last week. The motion before the House is not one of privilege: it proposes the establishment of a special...
The Speaker denied a motion presented as a question of privilege, ruling it was a substantive motion requiring notice.