Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
May 6, 1971
Questions Related to Content of Bills / Omnibus May 6, 1971 Journals pp. 531-2 Debates pp. 5585-6 Background On May 4, when beginning the consideration of the motion for second reading of Bill...
The provided text 'Omnibus' is insufficient to be analyzed as a Speaker's Ruling.
January 20, 1971
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading January 20, 1971 Journals p. 270 Debates p. 2609 Background During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-193, an Act to...
A procedural note indicating the subject matter of a Royal Recommendation was referred to a Committee of the Whole.
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.
June 19, 1970
Even if a section of the parent act is indirectly before the House through a subclause of the bill and even if the Royal Recommendation refers to this section, this does not mean that the section...
This ruling establishes that legislative amendments must be strictly relevant to the bill being debated and cannot be used to alter the parent act.
June 4, 1970
It is a long-standing practice that an amendment on third reading has to be particularly relevant to the motion for third reading of the bill before the House and cannot deal with any matter not...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible at third reading because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown by allowing a committee to request new expenditures.
June 2, 1970
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage June 2, 1970 Journals pp. 910-1 Debates pp. 7613-4 Background During report stage consideration of Bill C-144, an Act to provide for the...
A ruling was issued on a point of order concerning whether debate or an amendment was irrelevant by going beyond the scope of a bill.
March 3, 1970
Reasoned amendments must be strictly relevant to the bill before the House. Although it is not completely clear that the amendment is relevant to the principle of the bill, it will be given the...
The Speaker allowed a reasoned amendment of questionable relevance to proceed, giving Members the benefit of the doubt.
December 15, 1969
It is assumed that the proposal of Mr. Laprise is a subamendment as there is an amendment to the second reading motion already before the House. The sub amendment is irrelevant at this stage...
The Speaker ruled a subamendment out of order because it prematurely addressed specific bill clauses, a matter reserved for the committee stage.
December 10, 1969
The only precedent discovered that is relevant to this case is useful in some respects, but is ultimately unsatisfactory because on that occasion no motion was raised and, consequently, the...
The Speaker denied a question of privilege against the Minister of Finance, ruling the matter was an administrative grievance, not an obstruction of a Member's duties.
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.