Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
December 20, 1966
The scope of the amendments allowed at third reading is more limited than at second reading; in this case, the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the bill and is not actually included in...
A Speaker's ruling finds a third-reading amendment inadmissible as it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
September 7, 1966
A bill cannot be referred to a committee before it has been read a second time. The phrase "without prejudice to further proceeding to the said bill later this session" is unclear. Since the...
A ruling clarifying that an amendment cannot both approve a bill's principle at second reading and refer its subject-matter to a committee.
June 29, 1966
The amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Moreover, a reasoned amendment cannot attach a condition upon the second reading of a bill. The proposed amendment is also similar to one moved by...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to a bill out of order for being beyond scope, conditional, and reviving a past debate.
May 24, 1966
Rules of Debate / Miscellaneous May 24, 1966 Debates p. 5453 Background During debate on a motion by Mr. Macaluso (Hamilton West) for second reading of Bill S-11, an Act to incorporate the Income...
The provided text is a title concerning references to the Senate and contains no ruling details.
May 13, 1966
The motion is out of order because it proposes the committal of a bill before second reading, contrary to the Standing Orders. The practice is very clear: "every public bill must be read twice in...
The Speaker ruled a motion out of order for attempting to commit a bill to committee before its second reading, contrary to the Standing Orders.
May 6, 1966
While it is the right of Parliament to impose by its vote the type of condition suggested in this amendment, the proper procedure is by way of substantive motion after notice. "The proposed...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it introduced a new principle to a resolution, which must instead be done via a substantive motion.
February 22, 1966
''A motion opposing second reading of a bill must not anticipate amendments which may be moved in committee." A Member may move an amendment relating to the principle of a bill before the House,...
A ruling clarifying that amendments at second reading must address the bill's principle, not specific clauses which are reserved for committee.
January 24, 1966
Since it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for the Chair to examine each bill at this time, it is suggested that the House follow the procedure agreed upon in each of the past...
The Speaker proposed using unanimous consent to give all Private Members' Bills first reading and deferring the procedural review to a later stage.
December 10, 1912
Based upon a number of precedents, there are two possible remedies; either to obtain another recommendation amending the preceding resolution or to delete the inconsistent provisions of the bill....
The Speaker denied a point of order, ruling that a formal discrepancy between a bill and its Ways and Means resolution did not require the bill to be withdrawn.