Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
March 10, 2020
The Speaker: I am ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on February 25 by the member for Fundy Royal and on February 27 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government...
The Speaker found a prima facie breach of privilege due to the deliberate premature disclosure of a government bill to the media before its introduction in the House.
May 11, 1977
The practice in respect of dividing substantive motions has never been extended to bills. The Speaker agrees that a Member ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate...
The Speaker rules that bills cannot be divided for voting, but Members can use a motion to delete under S.O. 75(5) to achieve separate votes on specific clauses.
September 13, 1971
In many respects the proposed amendment seems to meet some of the requirements for a reasoned amendment. "The most important of those, of course, is that the principle of relevance should govern...
The Speaker accepts a borderline reasoned amendment, cautioning that the leniency shown does not set a future precedent.
September 7, 1971
An amendment moved in the form of a declaratory resolution must respect the principle of relevance. This amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill; accepting it would replace the government bill...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it was not relevant and went beyond the scope of the parent bill.
November 27, 1970
The amendment in question opposes the progress of the bill, not its principle. It is not, therefore, a reasoned amendment. The amendment should be relevant to the bill and not bring into the...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to a bill out of order because its subject matter was not relevant to the bill itself.
November 22, 1967
Amendments at this stage cannot attach conditions to the second reading, which this proposed amendment does, concerning the approval of the bill in principle. This case is distinguished from the...
The Speaker ruled that an amendment to a bill at second reading is inadmissible if it imposes a condition on the approval of the bill's principle.
June 27, 1966
The proposed amendment would create an entirely new principle that goes beyond the terms both of the clause under consideration and of the bill as expressed in the resolution.
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it introduced a new principle beyond the scope of the bill.