Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
April 14, 1969
A reasoned amendment would have to be declaratory of a principle in opposition to or differing from the principle, policy or provisions of the bill. The proposed amendment is not declaratory of a...
A proposed amendment was ruled out of order because it constituted a substantive motion proposing an alternative scheme, not a reasoned amendment opposing the bill's principle.
February 13, 1969
An amendment allowed on second reading must not relate to particulars of the clause of the bill it seeks to amend or anticipate amendments that might be moved in the standing committee considering...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because second-reading amendments must address the principle of a bill, not specific clauses reserved for committee review.
January 23, 1969
A bill must be read twice and referred to a committee before being amended, although a Member may move a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of a bill. The proposed amendment is...
A ruling clarifying that an instruction to a committee cannot be moved as an amendment at second reading but must wait until after the bill is referred.
October 21, 1968
The proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill but merely postpones consideration of the bill until a certain condition is met. Further, there is a substantial difference between...
This ruling clarifies that an amendment is procedurally acceptable if it postpones a bill's consideration based on a condition, rather than opposing its core principle.
November 22, 1967
Amendments at this stage cannot attach conditions to the second reading, which this proposed amendment does, concerning the approval of the bill in principle. This case is distinguished from the...
The Speaker ruled that an amendment to a bill at second reading is inadmissible if it imposes a condition on the approval of the bill's principle.
March 2, 1967
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading March 2, 1967 Journals p. 1479 Debates p. 13658 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-268, an Act to amend...
The Speaker ruled a motion to recommit a bill out of order as it sought amendments beyond the scope of the bill and its authorizing Ways and Means resolution.
December 20, 1966
The scope of the amendments allowed at third reading is more limited than at second reading; in this case, the proposed amendment is beyond the scope of the bill and is not actually included in...
A Speaker's ruling finds a third-reading amendment inadmissible as it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
September 7, 1966
A bill cannot be referred to a committee before it has been read a second time. The phrase "without prejudice to further proceeding to the said bill later this session" is unclear. Since the...
A ruling clarifying that an amendment cannot both approve a bill's principle at second reading and refer its subject-matter to a committee.
August 30, 1966
Opposition to the principle of a bill is only one criterion required for an acceptable reasoned amendment. A reasoned amendment can also express opinions on any circumstances connected with the...
The Speaker ruled that a reasoned amendment was acceptable because it met the necessary criteria and did not go into excessive detail about the bill's provisions.
June 27, 1966
The proposed amendment would create an entirely new principle that goes beyond the terms both of the clause under consideration and of the bill as expressed in the resolution.
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it introduced a new principle beyond the scope of the bill.