Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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
"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.
July 7, 1969
The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. If the motion respecting the committee report had been moved, it...
The Speaker ruled that a Minister's motion could proceed because the rule of anticipation only applies if a similar, preceding motion on the Order Paper has actually been moved.
July 3, 1969
Arguments raised against the Government's motion are founded largely on the rule of anticipation. Unfortunately, Canadian precedents concerning this rule are not sufficiently clear and British...
The Speaker ruled that the rule of anticipation applies to the debate of a matter, not its placement on the Order Paper, thus allowing a government motion to proceed.
April 29, 1969
The amendment would have been allowed as a motion in amendment had notice of it been given with the other motions filed for report stage. At report stage, however, the House is limited to debating...
The Speaker ruled an amendment to a motion in amendment out of order at report stage because it was not strictly relevant to the motion it sought to amend.
April 25, 1969
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage April 25, 1969 Journals p. 947 Debates pp. 7969-71 Background During report stage consideration of Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code,...
A ruling on a point of order concerning whether debate or an amendment was irrelevant by going beyond the established scope of a bill.
April 16, 1969
The purpose of the clause which this motion seeks to amend is to provide certain exceptions to the law as stated in the Criminal Code. "The purport of the amendment is to delete the exceptions...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it introduced new substantive matters beyond the scope of the parent bill.
March 27, 1969
''At first blush", the matter was viewed as a question of the Member's rights as a former civil servant. This would tend to make the question one of a grievance against the Government. On the...
The Speaker weighs whether a Member's issue as a former civil servant constitutes a personal grievance or a question of privilege requiring the House's protection.
March 19, 1969
The issue is of undoubted national interest and the announced business of the House for the rest of the week provides no other opportunity for debate. This is the "type of situation where the...
The Speaker granted a request for an emergency debate due to the issue's national importance and the lack of alternative debate opportunities.