Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
February 17, 1970
The proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill, but rather attaches a condition to the motion for second reading of the bill. It is therefore not essentially a reasoned amendment.
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it attached a condition to a bill's second reading instead of opposing its principle, failing the test for a reasoned amendment.
February 13, 1970
A Member may "move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing...
A ruling clarifying that reasoned amendments moved at second reading must be adverse to the principle of the underlying bill.
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 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 11, 1969
The amendment contains a new principle since it would lead the Committee of the Whole to suppress a provision in the bill and substitute a new fiscal arrangement. "... the purport of the...
A ruling finding an amendment inadmissible because shifting a tax burden, even if revenue-neutral, infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown.
June 20, 1969
The Member's motion contravenes the principle that every provision may be isolated and dealt with directly at report stage. A complex motion dealing with several clauses of a bill inevitably leads...
The Speaker ruled that a single motion at report stage cannot address multiple clauses and must be divided for clarity.
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.