: Move to amend california
|Move to amend california|
|Free market capitalism vs capitalism|
|HELLO IS IT ME YOU RE LOOKING FOR SCARY MOVIE|
|HANCOCK BANK 401K LOGIN|
|Is watermelon infused water good for you|
Department of Defense
Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced on December 3, 2015, the Department of Defense will lift all gender-based restrictions on military service starting January. In response, Armed Services Committee Chairmen, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), issued a joint statement on December 3, 2015, saying, “Congress has a 30-day period to review the implications of today’s decision. … and receiving the Department’s views on any changes to the Selective Service Act that may be required as a result of this decision.”
As of January 2016, there has been no decision to require females to register with Selective Service, or be subject to a future military draft. Selective Service continues to register only men, ages 18 through 25.
Following a unanimous recommendation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta announced, on January 24, 2013, the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. The service branches continue to move forward with a plan to eliminate all unnecessary gender-based barriers to service. Ongoing project is still underway.
No More Stolen Elections!
David will also be offering two day-long "Activist Training" workshops in Sacramento and Los Angeles. No past experience is necessary to attend.
All events are open to the general public, Activist Trainings are $50-$100 sliding scale, public talks are free. Click the red links below for more info or to register for trainings.
Saturday, September 10, 10:00am-5:00pm – SACRAMENTO: Activist Training. Sol Collective. 2574 21st Street. Registration required.
Sunday, September 11, 7:00pm – OAKLAND: Evening Public Talk. Humanist Hall (between Telegraph and Broadway) 390 27th Street.
Monday, September 12, 7:00pm – PALO ALTO: Evening Public Talk. First Baptist Church of Palo Alto. 305 North California Avenue @ Bryant.
Tuesday, September 13, 11:30am-1:30pm – SAN JOSE: Lunchtime Public Talk.First Unitarian Church of San Jose. 160 North Third Street.
Tuesday, September 13, 7:00pm – FRESNO: Evening Public Talk. Wesley United Methodist Church. 1343 E. Barstow Avenue.
Wednesday, September 14, 7:00pm – SAN LUIS OBISPO: Evening Public Talk. Ludwick Community Center. 864 Santa Rosa Street.
Thursday, September 15, 7:00pm – OJAI: Evening Public Talk. Matilija Junior High School. 703 El Paseo Road.
Friday, September 16, 7:00pm – WHITTIER: Evening Public Talk. Saint Matthias Church. 7056 Washington Avenue (between Wardman and Philadelphia).
Saturday, September 17, 6:30pm – SANTA MONICA: Evening Public Talk. Santa Monica College. 1900 Pico Boulevard. Lecture Hall, HSS 165
Sunday, September 18, 9:30am-6:00pm – LOS ANGELES: Activist Training. The Peace Center. 8124 Move to amend california Third Street (between Fairfax and La Cienega). Registration required.
Monday, September 19, 7:00pm – PASADENA: Evening Public Talk. All Saints Episcopal Church. 132 North Euclid Avenue.
Tuesday, September 20, 6:00pm – PALM SPRINGS: Evening Public Talk. Crystal Fantasy and Enlightenment Center. 268 North Palm Canyon Drive.
Wednesday, September 21, 7:00pm – SAN DIEGO: Evening Public Talk. WorldBeat Cultural Center in Balboa Park. 2100 Park Boulevard.Cancelled.
For more information contact Margaret Koster, Move to Amend Field Organizing Coordination Team.
JEA and developer reach tentative accord on service for 11,500 home project on Westside
JEA and a Ponte Vedra-based developer that wants to build an 11,500 home project have reached a tentative agreement on how they could bring water and sewer service to a large area on the far Westside of Jacksonville.
A final agreement would head off a potential move by the developer to seek certification by the state Public Service Commission for starting an investor-owned utility on land that JEA says is part of its service territory.
JEA officials have warned that if the state commission allows a privately owned utility to start on land that falls in JEA's franchise territory, that would open the door to other developers to likewise start their own utilities.
Previous coverage: Developer pushing to set up private utility in JEA service territory
More JEA country homes for sale near austin tx JEA move to amend california could see estimated 8.5 percent rise in electric rates this winter
An attorney for the developer, 301 Capital Partners LLC, has said it doesn't want to be in the utility business but it applied to the state because it couldn't get JEA to provide service to that part of Jacksonville.
JEA and 301 Capital still will seek the blessing of Jacksonville City Council as a legislative amendment for a master plan of the proposed development off U.S. 301 north of Macclenny.
"JEA and 301 Capital Partners have reached a tentative agreement on terms to provide water and wastewater to the Westside development," the utility said in a statement Monday. "Representatives from JEA and 301 Capital Partners will be at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting to respond to questions and hopefully find support for an amendment."
JEA CEO Jay Stowe and 301 Capital Partners LLC manager Avery C. Roberts signed a memorandum of understanding Monday that gives a framework for an agreement.
The memo says 301 Capital Partners will design, permit, finance and build a new west regional water reclamation facility and water production and distribution facility on a site within the group's land holdings.
JEA then will purchase those facilities when they are substantially complete, possibly in phases as they are built. JEA will own and operate the water and wastewater facilities on 301 Capital's land.
The developer will have the task of obtaining a St. Johns River Water Management District permit for drawing water from the aquifer for the first phase of the development. The permit would be for about 1 million gallons per day and the permit would then be turned over to JEA.
The memorandum says when JEA and 301 Capital Partners reached a definitive agreement, 301 will withdraw or "restrictively amend" its application with the state Public Service Commission to start an investor-owned utility serving the proposed development.
The memorandum sets a Dec. 31 target date for reaching a definitive agreement.
Survival Tips on
Robert's Rules of Order
Three Ways to Amend a Motion
The difficult part is remembering that the more urgent motions can not be amended - Adjourn, Question of Privilege, Orders of the Day, Lay on/Take from the Table, Previous Question, Point of Order, Appeal, Parliamentary Inquiry, Suspend the Rules, and Reconsider.
During the Debate step of a Pending Motion, one may move to Amend the Pending Motion. All one needs to remember is that there are really only 3 basic processes of amendments:.
- Let's Amend this Sample Motion: "I move that we buy a new sign."
- You can Move to Amend by Inserting words or paragraphs.
I move to Amend by Inserting the phrase "not to exceed $50 dollars" at the end of the motion.
- You can Move to Amend by Striking out (not deleting) words or paragraphs.
I move to Amend by striking out the word "new".
- You can Move to Amend by Striking out and Inserting words or paragraphs. One can even Amend by Substituting (Striking out and Inserting) entire paragraphs or the complete motion.
I move to Amend by Striking out the word "sign" and Inserting the word "billboard".
You can also Amend the Amendment, before it is voted upon:
But you can only Amend the Inserted or Struck out words. You can not Amend a separate part of the Main Motion not covered by the Amendment that is currently being discussed!
After the current Amendment is voted upon, you can Amend the Motion again and Amend this new Amendment.
If you carefully review these 3 basic processes of amendments (insert, strike out, and strike out/insert), you will agree that any other form is not an amendment. Proper usage of these 3 processes will reduce the chances of chaos and confusion that is common during discussion of motions and amendments.
When one understands the means to amend a motion, one will be able to calmly defend oneself from all tyrannical group leaders.
Proposition 47 did not end prosecution of thefts under $950 in California
CLAIM: Under Proposition 47 in California thefts under $950 will not be prosecuted.
AP ASSESSMENT: False. Proposition 47 was passed in California in 2014 and reclassified felony theft offenses as misdemeanors. It did not allow shoplifting and petty theft to go unprosecuted.
THE FACTS: The false claim about the proposition circulated on social media with a video showing two individuals walking out of a T.J. Maxx in Granada Hills, California, with duffle bags filled with merchandise and their arms filled with clothing on hangers. No one attempted to stop the pair as they walked out of the store and through the parking lot.
The scene was captured on video by another person in the store and circulated widely on news media.
Adam Carolla, a comedian who hosts a podcast, posted the video to Facebook along with a false comment about Proposition 47.
“Thanks to Prop 47 thefts under $950 will not be prosecuted,” Carolla commented on the post. “So cops will not bother showing up. Just a reminder that you get what you voted for, California!”
But the post is incorrect. The 2014 proposition modified, but did not eliminate, sentencing for many nonviolent property and drug crimes.
“What Prop 47 did was take very low level crimes like petty theft, some petty drug offenses, petty larceny, and classify them as misdemeanors rather than felonies,” said Charis Kubrin, professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California, Irvine, who wrote a study examining the impact of the proposition on crime rates. “It doesn’t mean, like that Facebook post is saying, that you’re not prosecuted or that you aren’t committing a crime.”
According to Alex Bastian, special advisor to Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón who co-authored Prop 47, most shoplifting was already prosecuted as a misdemeanor anyway.
“What Prop 47 did is increase the dollar amount by which theft can be prosecuted as a felony from $400 to $950 to adjust for inflation and cost of living,” Bastian said. “But most shoplifting cases are under $400 dollars to begin with, so before Prop 47 and after Prop 47, there isn’t any difference.”
Proposition 47 was enacted to comply with a 2011 California Supreme Court order, which upheld that California’s overcrowded prisons violated incarcerated individuals’ Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
“In 2011, our prisons were bursting at the seams, and California was ranked either first or second behind Texas as having the highest per capita incarceration rate of any state in the country,” Kubrin said. “It was so bad that the Supreme Court stepped in and told us we needed to reduce our prison population by 33,000 individuals.”
“So the goal of Prop 47 was to limit our prison population, to reduce the number of people that we send to state prisons,” said Kubrin. “Prop 47 has achieved that goal while not move to amend california crime rates to go up.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Wednesday aimed at curbing organized retail theft, according to Associated Press reporting. The law allows prosecutors to seek to charge the offense as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
T.J. Maxx’s global media relations team did not respond to a request for comment, nor did store representatives.
This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform.
Here’s more information on Facebook’s fact-checking program: https://www.facebook.com/help/1952307158131536
Summary: California courts generally are to liberally permit amendments to the Complaint during any stage of the case if the defendant is not prejudiced by the delay; such includes adding a new cause of action after the statute of limitations has run if the cause of action is based on the same general set of facts alleged in the original complaint; further included is an amendment naming a fictitious Doe defendant whose name Plaintiff was ignorant of at the time of the original complaint.
1. MOTIONS FOR LEAVE (PERMISSION) TO AMEND ARE "LIBERALLY" GRANTED BY COURTS.
A court may, in the furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading on any terms as may be proper. California Code Civil Procedure §473(a) and §576. Pleading Examples: Complaint or Answer to Complaint.
There is a general policy in this state of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings at any stage of the litigation to allow cases to be decided on their merits. (Desny v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 751.)
See also Klopstock v. Superior Court. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19; Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.
"…it is a rare case in which ‘a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleadings so that he may properly present his case.’ (Citations omitted.) If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. (Citations omitted.)" (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)"Generally, leave to amend must be liberally granted (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939), provided there is no statute of limitations concern, nor any prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)" Solit v. Taokai Bank, Ltd. (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.Despite the policy of great liberality in granting leave to amend, a trial court may deny an otherwise proper amendment if there was an unwarranted delay in bringing the motion to amend. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.) To deny leave [permission] to amend based on an unreasonable delay in moving for leave to amend, however, the opposing party must have been misled or prejudiced by the delay (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 213 Cal.App.3e 1045, 1048.
NOTE: CCP § 472 provides that a party may amend its pleading once without leave (permission) of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed.
2. A COURT MAY ALLOW A PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A FICTITIOUSLY NAMED PARTY."When the plaintiff is ignorant of the name of a defendant, he must state that fact in the complaint…, and such defendant may be designated in any pleading or proceeding by any name, and when his true name is discovered, the pleading or proceeding must be amended accordingly." Code of Civil Procedure §474.
"It is not enough, of course, simply to name `Doe' defendants. Rather, the complaint must allege that they were responsible in some way for the acts complained of." See Winding Creek v. McGlashan (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 933. "In keeping with this liberal interpretation of section 474, it is now well established that even though the plaintiff knows of the existence of the defendant sued by a fictitious name, and even though the plaintiff knows the defendant's actual identity (that is, his name), the plaintiff is "ignorant" within the meaning of the statute if he lacks knowledge of that person's connection with the case or with his injuries."General Motors Corporation v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 580, 593‑594.
"If the identity of the Doe defendant is known but, at the time of the filing of the complaint the plaintiff did not know facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe that liability is probable, the requirements of section 474 are met. 'Section 474 allows a plaintiff in good faith to delay suing particular persons as named defendants until he has knowledge of sufficient facts to cause a reasonable person to believe liability is probable.' (Dieckmann v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 345, 363.) 'The fact that the plaintiff had the means to obtain knowledge is irrelevant.' (General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at p. 594.) "In short, section 474 does not impose upon the plaintiff a duty to go in search of facts she does not actually have at the time she files her original pleading." (Id. at p. 596.)" McOwen v. Grossman (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 937.
".the plaintiff does not relinquish her rights under section 474 simply because she has a suspicion of wrongdoing arising from one or more facts she does know."General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 580.
3. DEFENDANTS ARE NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
A. When an Amended Complaint is not barred by the Statute of Limitations.
Relation Back Doctrine - Fictitious Defendants: Where a complaint sets forth, or attempts to set forth, a cause of action against a defendant designated by a fictitious name and his true name is thereafter discovered and substituted by amendment, he is considered a party to the action from its commencement so that the statute of limitations stops running as of the date of the earlier pleading. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 599.
Relation Back Doctrine - New Causes of Action: Even when a plaintiff seeks to add new legal theories or causes of action, the amended complaint relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint and thus avoids the bar of theStatute of Limitations so long as recovery sought in both pleadings is based upon the same general set of facts. Smeltzley v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co. (1977) 18 Cal.3d 932, 939‑940; See also Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (Marker, U.S.A.) (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1045, 1048; Hirsa v. Superior Court (Vickers) (1981) 118 Cal. App. 3d 486, 489.
In the California Supreme Court case of Grudt v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 575, plaintiff sued the city under the respondeat superior theory alleging that police officers had intentionally killed her husband. The amended complaint charged that the city was liable for its own negligence in retaining officers known to be dangerous. Even though the plaintiff's amended complaint added a significant new dimension to the original, the court determined that the amendment was based "on the same general set of facts" as the original complaint" and allowed the amendment to be made.
In Smeltzley v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co. (1977)18 Cal. 3d 932, 939, plaintiffs original complaint alleged injuries caused by defendant's failure to provide him with a safe work place. After the statute of limitations had run, plaintiff amended the complaint to add a previously unnamed defendant as a party and a separate cause of action alleging that his injuries were also caused by a defective machine manufactured by the previously unnamed defendant. The Court of Appeal ruled that because the injuries alleged stemmed from the same set of facts, plaintiffs' amended complaint related back to the original complaint and was therefore not barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal found that the relation back precedent rests on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on their merits.
B. The Amended Complaint is not to delay the trial or necessitate added preparation costs. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.
4. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO THIS TYPE OF MOTION.
"A motion to amend a pleading before trial must:
(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;
(2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and
(3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located."
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a).
"A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify:
(1) The effect of the amendment;
(2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;
(3) When the facts giving rise to the amended pleading were discovered; and
(4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier."
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b).
The author of the above article, Attorney Matthew B. Tozer, presently does not perform legal services for plaintiffs or defendants in a full or limited basis regarding amending complaints.
Disclaimer:The information provided in this article is informational, only. The subject matter and applicable law is evolving and/or constant state of change. This advice is based on California law. No legal advice is given and no attorney/client or other relationship is established or intended. The information provided is from general sources, and I cannot represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in this website is accurate, current, or is appropriate for the usage of any reader. It is recommend that readers of this information consult with their own counsel prior to relying on any information on this website.
This summary is intended to provide basic information to members and their staff on how to amend bills at committee and report stages. It is not intended to cover all aspects of the legislative process. A summary of the steps to follow when preparing amendments is also available.
Structure of a Bill
A bill is the text of a legislative initiative submitted to Parliament to be approved and possibly amended before becoming law. A bill may amend a current law or enact a new one. Bills contain:
- a title (a short title may also be included for easy reference);
- clauses, which are numbered 1, 2, 3, etc.;
- lines of text, which are also numbered;
- perhaps schedules; and
- perhaps a preamble.
Titles, clauses, the preamble and most schedules are amendable. The clause, line and page numbers are always referred to in an amendment so that everyone can determine its exact location in the text of the bill.
Stages of a Bill
In the days before printing was common, bills were quite literally read three times so that members had a clear idea of what they were voting on. Bills still have three readings but with two more stages. These readings and stages occur in the following order:
- First reading simply introduces the bill, thus making it public. It is then printed and distributed; there move to amend california no debate at this stage.
- Second reading and reference to move to amend california is a debatable motion on the general principles of the bill. Once the motion is passed, the principle and scope of the bill are fixed. (Note: Bills can be sent to committee before second reading. This enables members to examine the principle of the bill and to propose amendments that may alter its scope.)
- Committee stage of a bill usually begins with the hearing of witnesses followed by clause-by-clause consideration. This is the line-by-line, word-by-word examination of the bill and is the member's first, and maybe only, opportunity to amend the provisions of the bill. Once the committee has adopted the bill, it reports the bill, with or without amendments, to the House.
- Report stage takes place in the House and gives the House a chance to examine, and further amend, the bill as reported by the committee. If there are no report stage amendments, the House may concur in the bill as reported by the committee and proceed immediately to third reading.
- Third reading is the House's final look at the bill before it is sent to the Senate; the Senate goes through a similar process when it examines a bill.
The committee decides how and when it will study each bill that it receives. Usually, the committee hears first from the sponsor of the bill or from officials, who explain the provisions of the bill, and then from interested groups and individuals. The committee also decides when to begin clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
If the member has a proposal for an amendment, he or she should access the legislative drafting services offered by lawyers in the House of Commons’ Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Based on written instructions given to them by members, the legislative counsel will draft amendments on a confidential basis, in both official languages and in accordance with established legislative drafting standards. The amendments, once drafted, will be sent to the member, who can then decide whether he or she wishes to move them. It is advisable to contact the legislative counsel as early as possible in the process so that the draft amendments may be prepared and considered within the applicable time constraints.
The drafting of amendments requires the legal expertise offered by legislative counsel. An amendment may be properly drafted in a legal sense but, because parliamentary procedure is not a field of law, it may be inadmissible under the procedural rules and practices of the House of Commons. Members are encouraged to obtain the advice of the move to amend california clerks on the procedural admissibility of their proposed amendments. Like the legislative drafting service, procedural advice how to register business account on amazon confidential.
Notice is not required to propose an amendment at committee stage unless the committee itself adopts a rule to that effect. However, in order to have an orderly and thorough examination of the bill, Chairs often request that members submit their amendments to the clerk of the committee in advance of the clause-by-clause study of the bill. The legislative clerk arranges the amendments in a package in the order in which they appear in the bill. When there is sufficient time, and if the committee agrees, the package can be circulated to the committee in advance of the clause-by-clause meeting. This way, all the members of the committee can see what changes their colleagues wish to make to the bill.
Debate on clause-by-clause
The Chair will call the first clause of the bill. The rest of the clauses will be considered one by one in the order they appear in the bill.
A member may ask questions about provisions in the clause or may debate any part of a clause, even if he or she has no amendments to propose. Any member wishing to move an amendment should keep the following rules in mind:
- Only members of the committee may propose amendments.
- No seconders are required to move amendments in committee.
- Amendments may be proposed in either official language and should be in writing.
- The committee may consider only one amendment at a time.
- An amendment must modify only a single clause.
- Amendments are taken up in the order of the lines in the bill that they propose to amend.
- A quorum of the committee must be present to make any decision.
The amendment will be debated and voted on by the committee. The committee then will vote on the clause (whether amended or not). The committee next proceeds to the following clause and any amendments proposed to it, until all the clauses, schedules and the title of the bill have been considered.
While it is possible to propose an amendment in either official language, it is advisable to have the amendment drafted in both official languages by a legislative counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.
A subamendment is an amendment proposed to an amendment. The committee can have only one subamendment before it at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.
To be admissible, amendments should conform to the rules and practices of the House in order to preserve the integrity of the bill. The committee Chair rules on the admissibility of amendments and is advised by the legislative clerk.
The following are the most common rules of admissibility:
Principle of the bill: The principle of the bill is the object or purpose which the bill seeks to achieve. The principle of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment contrary to the principle of the bill is inadmissible.
Scope of the bill: The scope of the bill means the schemes or ways by which the principles of the bill are achieved; the scope of the bill is fixed when the bill is adopted at second reading. Any amendment that goes beyond the scope of the bill is inadmissible.
When a bill is referred to a committee before second reading, amendments may alter the principle and scope of the bill.
Relevance: Any amendment must be relevant or pertinent to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause under consideration. This applies to bills both before and after second reading.
Parent Act rule: Many bills amend existing laws and these laws are called "parent Acts". In general, any amendment to a section of the parent Act not otherwise amended by the bill is inadmissible; any amendment to an Act not mentioned in the bill is inadmissible.
Financial initiative of the Crown: This refers to the exclusive power of the Crown to spend public money and impose taxes; Crown approval is signified by a Royal Recommendation for spending and a Ways and Means motion for taxation.
Any amendment calling for additional public spending or changing the terms and conditions of such spending is inadmissible, as it would infringe on the Royal Recommendation, if one is already attached to the bill, or would require a Royal Recommendation if there is not one attached to the bill. Only the Government can provide a Royal Recommendation.
Any amendment to impose a charge on the people, such as creating or increasing a tax, is inadmissible; all such taxes require a Ways and Means motion that only the Government can move.
Any amendment to reduce or restrict public spending or to reduce or restrict a tax is admissible.
New clauses: New clauses are subject to the same admissibility rules as amendments to existing clauses: they must respect the scope and principles of the bill, be relevant and not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.
Deletion of a clause: Any amendment proposed in committee to delete a clause is inadmissible, as the proper course of action is to vote against the clause.
Report to House
Once the committee has concluded its clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, it reports the bill to the House with or without amendment. The report contains only the actual text of the adopted amendments, as well as a mention of any clauses which were defeated.
The committee generally orders that a bill be reprinted as a working copy for use at report stage if any amendments have been adopted at committee stage.
After a bill is adopted in committee and reported to the House, the next stage is report stage, which takes place in the House.
Report stage is not a detailed line-by-line examination of a bill, but a review of move to amend california bill as reported from the committee. Since there is no clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the only subjects for debate are the amendments proposed at report stage. These are called "report stage motions". If none are proposed, there is no report stage debate. The House votes on the bill as reported and may then proceed immediately to third reading.
If a member has a proposal for an amendment, he or she should access the legislative drafting services offered by lawyers in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Based on written instructions given to them by members, the legislative counsel will draft amendments on a confidential basis, in both official languages and in accordance with established legislative drafting standards. Once drafted, the report stage motions (amendments) will be sent to the member, who can then decide whether he or she wishes to proceed with them.
Since report stage can begin as soon as the second sitting day following the presentation of the committee report to the House, it is important for members to act quickly. It is advisable to contact the legislative counsel as early as possible in the process so that the draft amendments may be prepared and considered within the prescribed time constraints.
Deadline for notice
Notice is required for report stage motions. The motions, signed by the member, must be submitted to the Journals Branch, no later than 6 p.m. Mondays to Thursdays and by 2 p.m. on Fridays, for publication on the Notice Paper of the following sitting day. Notice must be given no later than the sitting day before the bill is first considered at report stage. For a bill referred to committee before second reading, notice must be submitted two sitting days before the bill is first considered at report stage. Once the report stage debate has begun, no further motions can be submitted.
Admissibility of motions
All report stage motions are reviewed to determine whether they are procedurally admissible. Motions found to be inadmissible are returned to the sponsoring member with an explanation and are not published in the Notice Paper.
The rules of admissibility at report stage are identical to those applied at committee stage (see "Admissibility rules" under Committee stage), with the following two exceptions:
- a report stage motion to delete a clause is admissible;
- a report stage motion requiring the expenditure of public funds is admissible if it is accompanied by a Royal Recommendation.
Selection of motions for debate
Even though they may be properly drafted in a legal sense and meet the criteria for admissibility, not all report stage motions published on the Notice Paper go forward for debate in the House. The Standing Orders give the Speaker the authority to select those which will be debated. This is done to avoid a repetition of committee stage, and to ensure that report stage retains its purpose, which is to enable the House to examine the committee's work on a bill. Thus, the Speaker does not normally select motions which
- could have been presented in committee;
- were defeated in committee, or considered and withdrawn, unless the Speaker judges them to be of exceptional significance to members and therefore to warrant further consideration;
- are repetitive, frivolous or vexatious; or
- would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings at report stage.
Motions may be selected if they
- further amend an amendment adopted by the committee;
- make consequential changes to the bill based on an amendment in committee; or
- delete a clause.
At the beginning of each report stage debate, the Speaker delivers a ruling regarding the motions published on the Notice Paper. The ruling lists which motions have been selected, how they are grouped for debate and what the voting pattern is (e.g.: a vote on one motion may apply to another).
The groups are based on the subject matter of the motions and their location in the bill. A single debate takes place on each group. The voting pattern for each group is available at the Clerk's Table.
Debate at report stage
A member who has given notice of report stage motions must be present in the House to move them. Move to amend california seconder is also required. Members may speak once for a maximum of ten minutes to each group of motions. Amendments to report stage motions may be proposed from the floor without notice.
Voting at report stage
When debate on a group of motions ends, members are called to vote. If a recorded vote is demanded, it is typically deferred until the debate on all groups is finished.
Once all the report stage motions have been voted on, according to the voting pattern, the House votes on a motion of concurrence in the bill at report stage.
The report stage of a bill that was sent to committee before second reading is an integral part of the second reading stage of the bill. At the conclusion of report stage, a single motion for concurrence at report stage and second reading is put to the House.
Services to members
Legislative counsel with legislative drafting expertise in the House of Commons’ Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel draft all the Private members' public bills and amendments for committee and report stages in both official languages and in accordance with accepted legislative drafting standards.
They may be contacted move to amend california 613-947-6311 or [email protected]
Legislative clerks review all the committee and report stage amendments for procedural admissibility and provide advice to members and the Chairs of committees. They organize all the amendments received so that the committee can conduct an orderly study at committee stage. They attend the clause-by-clause meetings, draft the report to be presented to the House and prepare draft rulings for the Speaker at report stage.
They may be contacted at 613-992-3150 or [email protected]
The Journals Branch is responsible for the preparation of the Notice Paper. For information on the deadlines and processes to submit report stage motions, contact the Journals Branch at 613-992-2038 or [email protected]