Ruling
May 21, 1970
Substantive; amending interpretation clause
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
The form and content of a motion to amend an interpretation clause must be consistent with the purposes given in that clause. One of the motions neither defines nor interprets any provision of the bill; its preliminary sentence appears to be an interpretation provision, but what follows is a list of prohibitions and objectives for the administration of the Act. The motion is therefore inconsistent with the purposes of the interpretation clause. Amendments of a substantive or declaratory nature should not be proposed to an interpretation clause; if such amendments were accepted, the clause would not then be an interpretation clause. With respect to the motions in amendment related to the financial provisions of the bill, such motions are bound by the amount, objects, purposes, qualifications and conditions set forth in the Royal Recommendation. In this particular case, the Government has taken steps through supplementary recommendations to expand the financial aspects of the original recommendation. This has had the consequent effect of making several of the motions in amendment out of order.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"Amendments are out of order if they add substantive provisions to an interpretation clause or if they exceed the financial scope of a bill's Royal Recommendation."
AI Summary
A Speaker's ruling finds amendments out of order for being substantive additions to an interpretation clause and for exceeding the Royal Recommendation.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Sustained
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Committee of the Whole
- Significance
Low
High