Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
April 23, 1971
Though the effect of the amendment would be to stop proceedings on the bill, the amendment itself does not state an opposition to the principle of the bill, nor does it "indicate [the] reasons why...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to a second reading motion out of order because it set a condition instead of opposing the bill's principle.
March 16, 1971
The proposed amendment does more than qualify or amend the main motion; it seeks to provide a basis for an entirely different debate. Furthermore, when the opposition parties agree on the choice...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to an opposition day motion out of order because it introduced a new topic beyond the scope of the original motion.
February 8, 1971
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading February 8, 1971 Journals pp. 312-3 Debates p. 3153 Background On November 30, 1970, during debate on a motion for second reading of...
The provided text is an incomplete fragment and cannot be analyzed as a Speaker's Ruling.
January 26, 1971
The amendment as presented "is largely a deviation... from the old-established form of amendment which provides that the subject-matter of a bill or a motion before the House be referred to a...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible as it improperly deviated from the standard form for referring a bill's subject matter to a committee.
January 21, 1971
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading January 21, 1971 Journals pp. 273-4 Debates pp. 2622-3 Background On January 20, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill...
The Speaker ruled a government motion out of order because it sought to refer a matter to a standing committee that had not yet been established.
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.
December 17, 1970
Both motions in amendment go beyond the provisions of the Royal Recommendation, which defines the terms and conditions of the financial liabilities that may be proposed in the House.
The Speaker ruled amendments inadmissible because they exceeded the financial scope set by the Royal Recommendation.
December 15, 1970
The thrust of the main motion appears to address the steps the Government might take with regard to unemployment among youth. The subamendment is consistent with this motion and with the amendment...
The Speaker ruled a subamendment on youth unemployment to be in order as it was consistent with the main motion's theme.
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 24, 1970
''A bill such as this one, which deals with individual rights and fundamental freedoms, should be discussed as freely as possible and should be given the benefit of the liberal interpretation of...
The Speaker permits a procedurally questionable third-reading amendment to recommit a bill, citing the bill's focus on rights and the will of the House.