Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
January 29, 1970
According to established practice, "The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown by altering the original purpose of a recommended charge.
January 19, 1970
It would appear that there is a difference between the two texts of the proposed bill. However, in this particular case it seems that the difference is more of form than of substance. Nonetheless,...
The Speaker rules that a textual discrepancy in a bill is a matter for the committee stage, not for the Chair to resolve at second reading.
January 15, 1970
Although this is a new form of amendment, it is not automatically out of order. Even if the amendment appears to be a statement or declaration of principle, rather than an amendment, it is, in...
A ruling clarifies that amendments at second reading must oppose a bill's principle and cannot simply seek to add new provisions.
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.
November 10, 1969
Although the Standing Orders provide for the introduction of bills during Routine Proceedings, they do not allow for a motion to empower a committee to draw up a bill, nor is there any precedent...
The Speaker ruled a private member's motion to have a committee draft a bill out of order as it was procedurally unprecedented and exceeded the member's notice limit.
July 3, 1969
Arguments raised against the Government's motion are founded largely on the rule of anticipation. Unfortunately, Canadian precedents concerning this rule are not sufficiently clear and British...
The Speaker ruled that the rule of anticipation applies to the debate of a matter, not its placement on the Order Paper, thus allowing a government motion to proceed.
May 15, 1969
The requested document appears to have been tabled in the House as a return to a notice of motion for the production of papers. The problem seems to involve the description of the document. "It is...
The Speaker ruled that a dispute over the adequacy of a document tabled in response to a motion for production of papers is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair to decide.
April 25, 1969
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage April 25, 1969 Journals p. 947 Debates pp. 7969-71 Background During report stage consideration of Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code,...
A ruling on a point of order concerning whether debate or an amendment was irrelevant by going beyond the established scope of a bill.
March 7, 1968
No notice of motion is required because these resolutions are introduced in the Committee of Ways and Means. "Procedurally there has been no notice because nothing appears on the Order Paper...
The Speaker ruled that Ways and Means resolutions do not require prior notice on the Order Paper as they originate directly within the committee itself.
January 26, 1967
The Chair has no authority to remove one of two similar items on the Order Paper. This action should be taken by a Minister of the Crown. When the special joint committee reports to the House, an...
The Speaker ruled that only a Minister, not the Chair, can initiate the removal of a duplicate item from the Order Paper.