Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
December 10, 1973
If a vote on the non-confidence motion is taken before 9:45 p.m., the House would then have the opportunity to look at the procedural difficulties mentioned in connection with the notices of...
The Speaker ruled that motions for concurrence in committee reports must be deferred to a future supply day and cannot be considered on a day with a non-confidence vote.
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.
February 3, 1971
While a supposed contempt of Parliament may be an element of a breach of privilege, it is not by itself a question of privilege. The complaint raised by the Member may be classified as (i) wilful...
The Speaker rules that a complaint of being misled or contempt is not a prima facie question of privilege and must be pursued through other procedural avenues.
June 2, 1970
According to the rules, a motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill must be printed on the Notice Paper no later than 24 hours prior to the consideration of a report stage....
A statement clarifying that substantive amendments at a bill's report stage require 24 hours' notice on the Notice Paper.
November 28, 1969
It is difficult to imagine in order any amendment which might be proposed to "this type of very simple and basic motion to the effect that a certain document be referred to a committee". Certainly...
A 1969 ruling establishes that an amendment to a referral motion is out of order if it tries to instruct the committee on matters beyond the motion's scope.
June 9, 1969
In matters of privilege involving newspaper comments two conflicting interests must be taken into account: the privilege of Members to exercise their duties and the freedom of the press to report...
A question of privilege concerning a newspaper article was denied due to not being raised at the earliest opportunity and an improperly worded motion.
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 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.
January 30, 1967
A motion for the temporary suspension of a rule requires notice under the Standing Orders. In addition, any motion dealing with the business of the House should be introduced, after due notice, by...
The Speaker ruled that motions to suspend rules or manage House business require prior notice and should be introduced by the Government House Leader.
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.