Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
December 5, 1977
On close technical grounds the motion can be ruled unacceptable because it is too general to qualify as a question of privilege. Members did not consider carefully enough that the judge's comments...
The Speaker denies a question of privilege concerning a judge's comments, ruling the motion too general and the comments outside the scope of parliamentary privilege.
July 21, 1977
Two of the motions (2 and 9) introduce a new concept into the bill and the clauses of the bill which they seek to amend. Five of the remaining motions (34, 35, 36, 43 and 45) which relate to a...
The Speaker ruled several amendments inadmissible as they were beyond the scope of the bill and lacked a Royal Recommendation.
July 15, 1977
The motion introduces an element that is completely foreign to the clause it seeks to amend by adding provisions relating to public hearings. In so doing, it goes beyond the scope of that clause.
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it introduced a new subject (public hearings) that was beyond the scope of the original clause.
June 28, 1977
The amendment motion is unacceptable because it attempts to amend two sections of an Act which are not mentioned in the bill to which the motion is directed, and thus it goes beyond the scope of...
The Speaker permitted an amendment that was beyond the scope of a bill due to its minor impact and the House's unanimous consent.
June 27, 1977
The provisions of the motion endeavor to enlarge the scope of the measure by describing how the House is to examine the reports of the Auditor General. By providing for the composition of a...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the bill by attempting to alter committee rules and the Standing Orders.
June 23, 1977
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage June 23, 1977 Journals pp. 1213-4 Debates pp. 7052-3 Background On June 21, during consideration at the report stage of Bill C-27, an Act to...
A ruling that amendments are out of order if they infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown or exceed the scope of the clause being amended.
June 20, 1977
"An amendment to a particular clause must have relevance to the clause it seeks to amend as well as to the bill in general." "The amendment would seek to introduce into that clause, not the powers...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was irrelevant to the specific clause it sought to amend and went beyond its scope.
May 13, 1977
Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Amendment Beyond Scope of Motion May 13, 1977 Journals pp. 794-6 Debates pp. 5650-1 Background During debate on a Supply Day motion proposed by Mr....
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was not relevant to and went beyond the scope of the original motion.
March 18, 1977
"The role of the organization spelled out in every clause in the bill is so fundamental to the operation of the statute that it is more than simply an incidental aspect of the machinery of the...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it sought to remove a core element of the bill, thereby introducing a new principle beyond the bill's scope.
January 24, 1977
"If the motion is amended and adopted by the House, it leaves the matter of implementation open, and that is inconsistent with the initial proposition. It is... a new proposition." Because of the...
A ruling that an amendment is inadmissible if it removes the implementation details of a motion, thereby creating a new and inconsistent proposition.