Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
December 20, 1973
The Standing Orders provide for a substantive proposition to be considered by the House. This cannot be done, however, by way of a recommendation from a committee studying a bill. "... there is no...
This ruling establishes that a committee studying a bill can only report the bill itself, with any changes being formal amendments, not separate recommendations.
May 19, 1972
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading May 19, 1972 Journals pp. 315-7 Debates pp. 2432-4 Background On May 18, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-211,...
The Speaker sustained a point of order, ruling that a member's remarks were beyond the scope of the bill and must remain relevant.
January 21, 1971
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading January 21, 1971 Journals pp. 273-4 Debates pp. 2622-3 Background On January 20, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill...
The Speaker ruled a government motion out of order because it sought to refer a matter to a standing committee that had not yet been established.
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.
March 31, 1969
''Allegations of misjudgment, or mismanagement, or maladministration on the part of a Minister in the performance of his ministerial duties [do] not come within the purview of parliamentary...
A ruling clarifying that allegations of ministerial misconduct are not matters of privilege but should be addressed through substantive or confidence motions.
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.
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.