Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
December 19, 1978
Of the five motions, three of them (Motions 11, 27 and 30) "clearly seek to amend the parent Act in a way that was not envisaged by the amending bill." Another motion (No. 12) "is defective in...
A Speaker's ruling declares five motions out of order for procedural defects related to amending a parent act, combining clauses, and specifying a coming-into-force date.
May 19, 1978
A ways and means motion which forms the basis of a tax bill is an expression of the financial prerogative of the Crown. Standing Order 60(11) requires that the bill or bills introduced pursuant to...
The Speaker ruled that a clause in a tax bill was out of order because it was not based on the preceding ways and means motion as required by the Standing Orders.
July 21, 1977
Two of the motions (2 and 9) introduce a new concept into the bill and the clauses of the bill which they seek to amend. Five of the remaining motions (34, 35, 36, 43 and 45) which relate to a...
The Speaker ruled several amendments inadmissible as they were beyond the scope of the bill and lacked a Royal Recommendation.
July 15, 1977
The motion introduces an element that is completely foreign to the clause it seeks to amend by adding provisions relating to public hearings. In so doing, it goes beyond the scope of that clause.
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it introduced a new subject (public hearings) that was beyond the scope of the original clause.
June 23, 1977
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage June 23, 1977 Journals pp. 1213-4 Debates pp. 7052-3 Background On June 21, during consideration at the report stage of Bill C-27, an Act to...
A ruling that amendments are out of order if they infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown or exceed the scope of the clause being amended.
June 20, 1977
"An amendment to a particular clause must have relevance to the clause it seeks to amend as well as to the bill in general." "The amendment would seek to introduce into that clause, not the powers...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was irrelevant to the specific clause it sought to amend and went beyond its scope.
June 9, 1977
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading June 9, 1977 Journals pp. 1108-9 Debates p. 6460 Background During the third reading debate on Bill C-23, an Act to facilitate the...
The provided text 'Third reading' is a procedural stage, not a Speaker's Ruling, and lacks the content required for analysis.
March 18, 1977
"The role of the organization spelled out in every clause in the bill is so fundamental to the operation of the statute that it is more than simply an incidental aspect of the machinery of the...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it sought to remove a core element of the bill, thereby introducing a new principle beyond the bill's scope.
June 29, 1976
Even if the motions to delete go against certain precedents, by apparently contravening the principle of the bill, they are in accordance with the Standing Orders and this "appears to give them a...
The Speaker ruled that motions to delete clauses are permissible under the Standing Orders, even if they collectively challenge the bill's principle.
December 16, 1975
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage December 16, 1975 Journals p. 943 Debates pp. 10073-4 Background At the report stage of Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act,...
The Speaker ruled amendments inadmissible because they infringed on the Crown's financial initiative and were beyond the scope of the bill.