Ruling
May 6, 1969
Relevance
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
Despite the argument that the motion in amendment would, however indirectly, affect, amend or modify the original bill, there is a substantial difference between a proposed motion in amendment that obviously seeks to amend the original legislation directly and one that by way of consequence might entail minor modifications. The fact that the gender of certain pronouns might have to be changed if the motion in amendment were passed does not constitute grounds for rejecting it. "... since the House has already spent some time considering an amendment which [was accepted],... it would hardly be in order at this stage to hold that this amendment is not acceptable."
Edit Metadata
Holding
"An amendment is not rendered inadmissible simply because its adoption would necessitate minor consequential modifications, such as changing pronouns, in the original bill."
AI Summary
The Speaker permits an amendment, ruling that minor consequential changes to a bill do not make the amendment inadmissible.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High