Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
December 20, 1973
The Standing Orders provide for a substantive proposition to be considered by the House. This cannot be done, however, by way of a recommendation from a committee studying a bill. "... there is no...
This ruling establishes that a committee studying a bill can only report the bill itself, with any changes being formal amendments, not separate recommendations.
November 28, 1973
At report stage, motions in amendment require notice, and are thus placed in the category of substantive motions subject to amendment and subamendment. As this is the first time an interpretation...
The Speaker ruled that a Member cannot move a subamendment to their own motion; another Member must propose it.
June 11, 1973
Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage June 11, 1973 Journals pp. 397-8 Debates pp. 4647-8 Background During debate on a motion in amendment of Mr. Woolliams (Calgary North) at the...
Analysis could not be completed as the provided text is a procedural heading, not a Speaker's Ruling.
May 19, 1972
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading May 19, 1972 Journals pp. 315-7 Debates pp. 2432-4 Background On May 18, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-211,...
The Speaker sustained a point of order, ruling that a member's remarks were beyond the scope of the bill and must remain relevant.
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.
June 29, 1971
The proposed motion is out of order because it asks the House to proceed to the point it has already reached. Furthermore, a motion that the Orders of the Day be read is obsolete as a substantive...
The Speaker ruled a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day out of order as it was redundant and procedurally obsolete as a substantive motion.
June 7, 1971
The proposed motion in amendment is in the form of a substantive motion which goes significantly beyond the scope of the bill. Although it does not say so explicitly, it provides in essence that...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order for being beyond the scope of the bill and attempting to amend a separate, unrelated Act.
May 13, 1971
The amendment is not a substantive motion but an extension or an amplification of the main motion; it would be almost impossible "to consider the main motion in an abstract form without reference...
A ruling clarifies that an amendment is in order if it extends or amplifies the main motion rather than introducing a new substantive topic.
January 21, 1971
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading January 21, 1971 Journals pp. 273-4 Debates pp. 2622-3 Background On January 20, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill...
The Speaker ruled a government motion out of order because it sought to refer a matter to a standing committee that had not yet been established.
October 28, 1970
No precedents exist to show that it is acceptable to introduce a substantive amendment "by way of a modification to the interpretation clause". It does not necessarily follow that an amendment...
A ruling that a substantive amendment is out of order when proposed as a modification to a bill's interpretation clause.