Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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.
June 2, 1970
According to the rules, a motion to amend, delete, insert or restore any clause in a bill must be printed on the Notice Paper no later than 24 hours prior to the consideration of a report stage....
A statement clarifying that substantive amendments at a bill's report stage require 24 hours' notice on the Notice Paper.
May 21, 1970
The form and content of a motion to amend an interpretation clause must be consistent with the purposes given in that clause. One of the motions neither defines nor interprets any provision of the...
A Speaker's ruling finds amendments out of order for being substantive additions to an interpretation clause and for exceeding the Royal Recommendation.
May 20, 1970
The Member questions the adequacy of current legislation with respect to abortion. It would be a questionable practice to initiate the consideration of amendments to statutes by way of debate...
The Speaker denied a request for an emergency debate on abortion, ruling that the matter was not urgent and the procedure was inappropriate for initiating legislative amendments.
May 14, 1970
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage May 14, 1970 Journals p. 807 Debates pp. 6985-6 Background During report stage consideration of Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Oil and Gas...
An amendment was ruled inadmissible for being beyond the scope of the bill and for setting a new condition.
April 24, 1970
By considering this motion in amendment, the House would be considering an entirely new bill which should have been introduced like any other bill. The only thing left of the original bill is its...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order for being beyond the scope of the original bill, as it effectively created entirely new legislation.
February 25, 1970
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading February 25, 1970 Journals p. 492 Debates pp. 4100-1 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-134, an Act to...
A motion to recommit a bill is out of order if its instructions propose amendments beyond the bill's original scope.
February 24, 1970
Although the propositions that the principle of the bill be reconsidered and the second reading be deferred six months are both separately acceptable, they cannot be combined. There is no...
The Speaker ruled that a reasoned amendment and a six months' hoist motion cannot be combined into a single proposition.
February 17, 1970
The proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill, but rather attaches a condition to the motion for second reading of the bill. It is therefore not essentially a reasoned amendment.
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it attached a condition to a bill's second reading instead of opposing its principle, failing the test for a reasoned amendment.