Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
February 13, 1969
In Committee of the Whole the motion is to adopt a clause. If, at that stage, a Member moves an amendment to delete a clause, it would constitute an expanded negative, which is contrary to the...
The Speaker rules that a motion to delete a clause at report stage is procedurally acceptable, unlike in Committee of the Whole where it would be an expanded negative.
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.
February 7, 1969
This is not the occasion to speak on the general procedure followed by a committee of the House. If the Member "has a protest to make,... it should be made when there is a general debate on the...
The Speaker ruled that a Member's remarks at report stage must be confined to their specific motion in amendment, not general committee procedure.
January 27, 1969
The Standing Orders require a 24-hour written notice be given; therefore, it should be open to Members to file their notices for motions, bills or papers and written questions, just as it should...
The Speaker rules that a suspension of a sitting is not an adjournment, and therefore the 24-hour notice period for filing business continues to run.
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.
October 10, 1968
If the words of the proposed amendment do not enlarge the terms of the clause, then the amendment is redundant and superfluous. If they do enlarge the terms of the clause, they must be examined to...
The Speaker ruled an amendment inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the financial resolution authorizing the bill.
March 11, 1968
A motion or question that is substantially the same as one previously decided cannot be offered again during the same session. The key phrase is "substantially the same" and, as the authorities...
The Speaker rules that a motion cannot be re-introduced in the same session if it is substantially the same as one already decided by the House.
February 26, 1968
"... the amendment, if carried, would make the motion difficult to understand." In addition, "it would also be contrary to the facts, since the bill was carried on first reading by unanimous...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was confusing and factually incorrect.
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.