Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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.
April 6, 1970
The Standing Orders stipulate, and "it has been long established, that there can be only one emergency debate during the course of a session on one subject... [T]he circumstances would be very...
The Speaker rules that a second emergency debate on the same subject within one session is not permitted under the Standing Orders.
March 24, 1970
"No principle is more surely provided for by our constitution and our Standing Orders than that which provides that the Crown alone initiates financial proposals... It is not competent... for the...
A ruling affirming the constitutional principle that only the Crown can initiate financial proposals, thereby preventing committees from substituting financial provisions in estimates.
February 25, 1970
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading February 25, 1970 Journals p. 492 Debates pp. 4100-1 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-134, an Act to...
A motion to recommit a bill is out of order if its instructions propose amendments beyond the bill's original scope.
February 25, 1970
The return presented is obviously not in the conventional or traditional form. If a return is to be of any value to a Member it should be presented in a form that will convey to the Member the...
The Speaker ruled that tabling documents on microfilm is improper as returns must be presented in a form that is immediately interpretable without a mechanical device.
January 29, 1970
According to established practice, "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...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown by altering the original purpose of a recommended charge.
January 21, 1970
Despite the reservations as to whether or not this case involves a question of privilege, the Member's remarks were not followed by a motion, and thus no further action can be taken. The Standing...
The Speaker ruled that no action could be taken on a member's concern because it was not followed by a motion, clarifying the rules for tabling documents.
January 15, 1970
Although this is a new form of amendment, it is not automatically out of order. Even if the amendment appears to be a statement or declaration of principle, rather than an amendment, it is, in...
A ruling clarifies that amendments at second reading must oppose a bill's principle and cannot simply seek to add new provisions.
December 17, 1969
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading December 17, 1969 Journals pp. 220-1 Debates pp. 2099-100 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-171, an Act...
A motion to recommit a bill was ruled out of order because its instructions proposed amendments that went beyond the bill's established scope.
December 15, 1969
It is assumed that the proposal of Mr. Laprise is a subamendment as there is an amendment to the second reading motion already before the House. The sub amendment is irrelevant at this stage...
The Speaker ruled a subamendment out of order because it prematurely addressed specific bill clauses, a matter reserved for the committee stage.