Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
February 6, 1975
The amendment is a statement of opposition to some parts of the bill rather than an expression of a principle. Even if the amendment could be held to express some principle, it is clearly opposed...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible at second reading because it only opposed some provisions of the bill, not its entire principle.
December 19, 1974
An amendment at second reading may not introduce a new proposition or a new concept. "An independent commission" is a new concept. The Member's amendment stated explicitly his idea of the subject...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible at second reading because it introduced a new concept not contained within the principle of the bill.
November 28, 1974
The fact that the amendment would appear to add a totally new clause to the definition section, which in turn would add a totally new principle to the application of the bill as a whole, offends...
A Speaker's ruling deems an amendment inadmissible for introducing a new principle beyond the scope of the bill.
November 5, 1973
The proposed motion is beyond the scope of the bill. Furthermore, if the motion were accepted, nothing in the bill could give effect to it as additional legislation and amendments would be...
The Speaker ruled a motion inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill under consideration.
October 24, 1973
A petition must relate to a matter over which Parliament has control. In a recent precedent, a matter which had, by statute, been allocated to a public corporation was judged to be beyond the...
The Speaker ruled a petition inadmissible because its subject matter was under the jurisdiction of the CRTC, a body to which Parliament has delegated authority.
June 12, 1973
The bill proposes an amendment to a financial provision in the Farm Improvement Loans Act by increasing the maximum amount of a loan. Although the amendment does not in itself propose a direct...
The Speaker ruled a Senate bill inadmissible because increasing government-backed loan maximums created new financial liabilities, infringing the exclusive privilege of the House of Commons.
January 25, 1973
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading January 25, 1973 Journals pp. 67-8 Debates pp. 643-4 Background On January 24, during debate on the motion for the second reading of...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible as it was beyond the scope of the bill.
June 7, 1972
Although the right to petition the House of Commons is fundamental, there is a precedent to the effect that the House will not receive a petition dealing with a matter that falls within the...
The Speaker ruled a petition inadmissible because it was outside the House's jurisdiction and contained improper charges.
March 16, 1972
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading March 16, 1972 Journals p. 197 Debates pp. 907-8 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-8, an Act to...
A ruling was made that a proposed amendment was inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill.
September 27, 1971
"... it is not competent upon any Member on either side of the House to amend a bill substantially by changing the interpretation clause... [A]mendments of a substantive or declaratory nature...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it improperly sought to change an interpretation clause and infringed on the Royal Recommendation.