Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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.
May 12, 1969
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading May 12, 1969 Journals p. 1024 Debates pp. 8602, 8605 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-150, an Act to...
A ruling on the procedural admissibility of a motion to recommit a bill, focusing on whether the instructions to the committee exceeded the bill's scope.
May 6, 1969
Despite the argument that the motion in amendment would, however indirectly, affect, amend or modify the original bill, there is a substantial difference between a proposed motion in amendment...
The Speaker permits an amendment, ruling that minor consequential changes to a bill do not make the amendment inadmissible.
April 25, 1969
These motions are reasoned amendments which are of a kind normally considered at second reading, and certainly cannot be moved at this stage.
The Speaker ruled reasoned amendments out of order as they were moved at an improper procedural stage, noting they are only acceptable at second reading.
April 16, 1969
Both motions in amendment are reasoned amendments since they provide that the bill be not now read. Such amendments, while appropriate at the second or third reading stage, cannot be put at the...
The Speaker ruled that reasoned amendments are procedurally inadmissible during the report stage of a bill.
March 31, 1969
The established form of a committee recommendation dealing with legislative proposals is that the Government take into consideration the advisability of introducing legislation for a specified...
A Speaker's ruling clarifies that minor formal errors in a committee report may be overlooked, while substantive and constitutional arguments are matters for the House to decide, not the Chair.
March 28, 1969
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage March 28, 1969 Journals pp. 863-4 Debates p. 7265 Background During report stage consideration of Bill C-102, an Act to amend the Patent Act, the...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible as it was beyond the bill's scope and infringed on the Crown's financial initiative.
March 24, 1969
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading March 24, 1969 Journals p. 829 Debates p. 7055 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-173, an Act respecting...
A ruling confirming that a motion to recommit a bill is out of order if its instructions propose amendments beyond the bill's original scope.
February 13, 1969
In Committee of the Whole the motion is to adopt a clause. If, at that stage, a Member moves an amendment to delete a clause, it would constitute an expanded negative, which is contrary to the...
The Speaker rules that a motion to delete a clause at report stage is procedurally acceptable, unlike in Committee of the Whole where it would be an expanded negative.
February 3, 1969
''According to the Standing Orders, a question put during the daily Oral Questions may be answered either by an oral answer, by an order for return or by a ministerial statement on motions." The...
The Speaker ruled that tabling a document is not a valid new procedure for answering an Oral Question, but a minister may table a document under the separate rule for government papers.