Skip to content
Ruling April 10, 1975

Motion in amendment, irrelevant to the bill and beyond its scope

Hon. James Jerome

Hon. James Jerome

Speaker of the House

Ruling Text

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>April 10, 1975    </time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_3001_121_01/392">p. 431</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3001_05/349?r=0&amp;s=1">p. 4709</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On March 26, at the beginning of debate at the report stage of Bill C-13, an Act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, the Speaker expressed certain reservations as to the acceptability of Motion No. 4, presented by Mr. Nielsen (Yukon), to make the Commission subject to any ordinance of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories that provides for the regulation of the operation of any system, works, plant or equipment for the production, transmission, delivery or furnishing of electricity. The Speaker proposed to deal with the issue of the acceptability of the motion when the House took it under consideration.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is a motion in amendment acceptable if it introduces a new and substantive provision into a bill?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The amendment is unacceptable.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Any amendment that introduces a new and substantive provision into a bill is unacceptable since it is either irrelevant to the bill or beyond its scope.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Authorities cited </h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 285, c. 406. </p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 18th ed., p. 508.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, March 26, 1975, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3001_05/156">p. 4516</a>; April 10, 1975, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3001_05/348">p. 4708</a>.</p> </div>
Edit Metadata

AI Summary

The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was found to be irrelevant to the bill and beyond its established scope.

AI Analysis

Holding
"Amendments to a bill must be relevant to its subject matter and must not go beyond the scope of the bill as agreed to at second reading."
Outcome
Sustained
Tone
Educational
Procedural Stage
Government Orders
Significance
Low High

Cited Authorities

Tags & Keywords