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

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>December 16, 1975</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_3001_121_02/191">p. 943</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3001_10/241?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 10073-4</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">At the report stage of Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, two motions stood on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Orlikow (Winnipeg-North):</p> <p class="k-speakerCitation" style="margin-left: 25px; margin-right: 25px;">That Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 36 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:</p> <p class="k-speakerCitation" style="margin-left: 50px; margin-right: 50px;">"thereof and the extended benefit period (described in section 34) shall not exceed the maximum."</p> <p class="k-speakerCitation-e align=center">and</p> <p class="k-speakerCitation" style="margin-left: 25px; margin-right: 25px">That Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 11 at page 6 and by substituting the following therefore:</p> <p class="k-speakerCitation" style="margin-left: 50px; margin-right: 50px;">"11. Subsections 33(2) and 36(1) of the said Act are repealed."</p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">When the first motion came up for discussion, a point of order was raised challenging its acceptability because it would effectively infringe upon the Royal Recommendation. In considering this case, the Deputy Speaker also rendered a decision on the second motion because of their procedural relationship.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Can amendments be moved at report stage which increase the financial application of a bill or which amend clauses of a parent Act?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Both amendments are out of order.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The first amendment cannot be accepted because it infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown by seeking to establish an unemployment benefit not provided for in the Royal Recommendation.</p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The second amendment is also unacceptable because it seeks to amend a section of the parent Act not contained in the bill and is therefore beyond the scope of the bill.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Authorities cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 207, c. 246(3). </p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 18th ed., p. 508.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Journals, December 15, 1975, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_3001_121_02/183">pp. 935-6</a>.</p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, December 16, 1975, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3001_10/239">pp. 10071-2</a>. </p> </div>