Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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 21, 1970
"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 of recommendation is attached, must...
The Speaker clarifies that a Royal Recommendation definitively sets a bill's financial scope, including its amount, objects, and purposes, which cannot be expanded by amendment.
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.
April 20, 1970
While the argument is not without merit, it is somewhat premature. "... if the bill receives second reading and is referred to committee, it would then be considered by a committee of the House...
The Speaker ruled that a point of order about a bill referencing other bills was premature and should be raised at third reading.
March 24, 1970
Despite the new rules, the principles in connection with reasoned amendments are the same. "The reasoned amendment must oppose the principle of the bill... It seems that the [proposed]...
The Speaker takes under advisement whether a reasoned amendment is admissible, as it may not directly oppose the principle of the bill.
March 24, 1970
"When a motion for second reading is before the House, [the House] may debate in a general way the principle of the bill but not the clauses in detail." They and the schedules should be debated at...
A ruling clarifying that debate at second reading must address the principle of a bill, not its individual clauses.
March 3, 1970
Reasoned amendments must be strictly relevant to the bill before the House. Although it is not completely clear that the amendment is relevant to the principle of the bill, it will be given the...
The Speaker allowed a reasoned amendment of questionable relevance to proceed, giving Members the benefit of the doubt.