I will start with the Speaker's ruling, because very conveniently Mr. Lukiwski didn't actually reference the ruling. He kind of said this exact word that needed to be found about being null and void is the only thing that we would listen to. Then he cited Mr. Milliken's rulings from 13 years ago, which were cited by the Government House Leader, of course, in the House of Commons, and he lost on that point. He raised Milliken's point that Mr. Lukiwski has repeated, and the Speaker ruled against him.
What the Speaker said again, and I am quoting now from the Speaker's ruling—unlike Mr. Lukiwski who is quoting from Mr. Milliken 13 years ago—which shows the relevance, I think:
At issue then is whether the motion in question was an admissible motion, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1.
That is the question the Speaker was asked, and the Speaker ruled:
it leads the Chair to the conclusion that the motion
stepped
beyond what the House has come to accept as being within the confines of Standing Order 56.1.
That's on page 6. So the Speaker asked the question. At the heart of the question, which was absolutely right, was whether or not this was admissible. On page 6 he said it was not admissible as it stepped “beyond what the House has come to accept as being within the confines of Standing Order 56.1”.