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.
September 25, 1967
An opportunity to debate the matter is available to the House; an amendment to the Budget motion is now before the House and there are three supply motions to be considered, one of them very soon....
Speaker denies an emergency debate request, citing the issue as a 'continuing' rather than 'sudden' emergency with other debate opportunities available.
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.
March 2, 1967
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading March 2, 1967 Journals p. 1479 Debates p. 13658 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-268, an Act to amend...
The Speaker ruled a motion to recommit a bill out of order as it sought amendments beyond the scope of the bill and its authorizing Ways and Means resolution.
December 20, 1966
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading December 20, 1966 Journals pp. 1166-7 Debates p. 11427 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-251, an Act to...
A procedural event concerning the recommittal of a specific legislative clause to a committee for further study.
November 21, 1966
The Member is proposing a matter that might be decided later when the House discusses the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. "In applying the anticipation rule, preference is...
The Speaker applies the rule of anticipation to prevent debate on a topic already scheduled for a more conclusive discussion via a Minister's motion.
May 13, 1966
The motion is out of order because it proposes the committal of a bill before second reading, contrary to the Standing Orders. The practice is very clear: "every public bill must be read twice in...
The Speaker ruled a motion out of order for attempting to commit a bill to committee before its second reading, contrary to the Standing Orders.
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.
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.
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.