Motions in amendment, infringing on financial initiative of the Crown; beyond scope of clause

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>June 23, 1977</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_3002_122_01/1135">pp. 1213-4</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3002_07/688?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 7052-3</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On June 21, during consideration at the report stage of Bill C-27, an Act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, the Speaker expressed reservations as to the acceptability of an amendment to clause 38 moved by Mr. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt), to make benefits payable to women who can prove the impending adoption of a child. When debate re-opened on June 23, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner) made a final ruling.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is a motion in amendment acceptable when it appears to go beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend, and when it entails an additional expenditure from the public treasury without being accompanied by a Royal Recommendation?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The motion is unacceptable.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Acting Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">First, the motion goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend and, second, it should have been brought in as a separate clause, in which case it would still have been rejected because it involves an expenditure of public moneys that only the Crown may authorize.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Authority cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 19th ed., p. 521.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, June 21, 1977, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3002_07/525">p. 6889</a>.</p> </div>