Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
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 24, 1970
Although the propositions that the principle of the bill be reconsidered and the second reading be deferred six months are both separately acceptable, they cannot be combined. There is no...
The Speaker ruled that a reasoned amendment and a six months' hoist motion cannot be combined into a single proposition.
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 19, 1970
It would appear that there is a difference between the two texts of the proposed bill. However, in this particular case it seems that the difference is more of form than of substance. Nonetheless,...
The Speaker rules that a textual discrepancy in a bill is a matter for the committee stage, not for the Chair to resolve at second reading.
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.
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.
November 20, 1969
Section 54 of the BNA Act applies only to appropriations, not to the imposition of taxes. ''Assuming that the proposed fees are a taxation measure,... proceedings on the bill could continue since...
The Speaker ruled that a bill imposing fees was procedurally sound, whether the fees were considered a tax or an appropriation covered by the Royal Recommendation.