Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
June 8, 1988
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the arguments given some days ago with respect to Bill C-130. In my view, they were excellent arguments. I wish to advise honourable Members that the Chair...
The Speaker ruled that the omnibus free trade implementation bill (C-130) was procedurally acceptable because its many amendments were unified by the single purpose of enacting an international treaty.
January 28, 1988
The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for Okanagan—Coquihalla on October 21, 1999, concerning delays in the release of information under...
The Speaker ruled that delays in responding to an Access to Information request do not constitute a breach of privilege as this activity is not considered a 'proceeding in Parliament'.
December 17, 1987
The Speaker: Wednesday during our proceedings on the motion standing in the name of the honourable Minister for International Trade Miss Pat Carney) in relation to the endorsement of the Free...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it attempted to make the endorsement of a trade agreement conditional on a future general election, thereby introducing a new proposition.
June 17, 1986
Since the Opposition parties have indicated they would consent to allowing the Government's motions to be put to the House, it would not make sense to require the Government to go the whole route...
The Chair facilitated a procedural shortcut by using unanimous consent to put government motions to the House, as all parties had already agreed.
April 30, 1985
The motion sought to introduce into the bill indirectly what cannot be done directly, namely a definition of the term "net benefit". Further, the motion went beyond the purpose and scope of the...
The Speaker ruled a motion inadmissible because it introduced a new definition that went beyond the scope of the bill.
April 30, 1985
The pro pose d amendments are all similar efforts to introduce into the bill types of investments that would require review. Since this was not foreseen when the bill was adopted by the House at...
The Speaker ruled amendments inadmissible as they went beyond the scope of the bill agreed to at second reading.
April 30, 1985
The motions are simply modifying the conditions of acquisition of control, and the agency already has the authority to review acquisition of control as defined in the bill.. References Debates,...
The Speaker ruled that motions were in order as they only modified conditions for a principle already within the scope of the bill.
April 30, 1985
Insofar as the purpose clause differentiates between Canadian and non-Canadian investors and significant investments by non-Canadians in Canada are reviewable, then there is "discrimination" in...
The Speaker ruled two motions inadmissible because they introduced a form of discrimination that contradicted the principle of the bill.
September 13, 1983
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage September 13, 1983 Debates p. 27043 Background As the House was about to begin report stage consideration of Bill C‑110, An Act to amend the...
The provided text is a fragment containing the keywords 'Relevance' and 'parent Act' and is not a Speaker's ruling.
June 7, 1983
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage June 7, 1983 Debates p. 26118 Background During consideration, at report stage of Bill C‑85, An Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex,...
The provided text is a topic heading about the grouping of amendments and the scope of debate, not a full Speaker's Ruling, and cannot be analyzed.