Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
April 23, 2018
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1to Bill C-74, an...
The Speaker ruled that a budget implementation bill is exempt from omnibus bill rules requiring separate votes as long as its provisions were mentioned in the budget, regardless of their length or detail in the bill.
November 20, 2017
The Speaker: I will ask the member to be patient for a moment while I provide a quick ruling on a point of order raised a bit earlier, and then there will be three minutes remaining in questions...
The Speaker ruled that Standing Order 69.1, allowing for the division of questions on a bill, can only be applied at the second and third reading stages, not on a motion to refer a bill to committee before second reading.
November 8, 2017
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 3, by the hon. member for Carleton concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-63, a second act to...
The Speaker sustained a point of order by dividing the vote on a budget implementation bill (C-63) after finding it contained measures unrelated to the budget, thereby setting a precedent for the new omnibus bill rule (S.O. 69.1).
November 7, 2017
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 31, 2017 by the hon. opposition House leader concerning the applicability of the new Standing Order 69.1 to Bill...
The Speaker denies a request to divide Bill C-56 under S.O. 69.1, ruling its parts are sufficiently related as they both concern inmate treatment under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
February 10, 2014
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 6, 2014, by the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition, regarding the form of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the...
The Speaker ruled that a discrepancy in a bill's summary does not render the bill out of order, as the summary is not technically part of the bill.
December 6, 2012
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 22, 2012, by the hon. Member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie regarding the need for a royal recommendation for Bill...
The Speaker ruled that Bill C-377 did not require a royal recommendation as the new costs were administrative and covered by the Canada Revenue Agency's existing mandate.
June 11, 2012
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June [4], by the hon. Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the form of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions...
The Speaker denied a point of order that an omnibus budget bill was procedurally improper, ruling that the Chair cannot set aside a bill for its complexity as long as it meets the formal requirements for introduction.
November 4, 2011
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Windsor—Tecumseh concerning ways and means proceedings on Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act...
The Speaker ruled that a Private Member's Bill removing a tax exemption for labour organizations was out of order because it was not preceded by a required Ways and Means motion.
February 23, 2004
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on two points of order: the first one was raised on Friday, February 13 by the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough regarding an alleged discrepancy...
The Speaker ruled that an administrative correction of a clerical error in a bill by the Law Clerks before prorogation was valid, meaning the subsequently reinstated bill was in the correct form.
April 28, 1992
The Speaker: This morning the Chair heard from the honourable Member for Mackenzie on the admissibility of certain amendments made in committee on Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Farm Products...
The Speaker sustained a Point of Order, ruling that three amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture to Bill C-54 were inadmissible because they exceeded the scope of the bill and attempted to amend sections of the parent act not under consideration.