Point of Order
April 2, 1974
Equivalent to negative of bill
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux
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 2, 1974</time>
</p>
<p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2902_120_01/84">p. 90</a></p>
<p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2902_02/91?r=0&s=1">pp. 1101-2</a></p>
<div>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2>
</div>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On April 1, as the House proceeded to the report stage consideration of Bill C-5, an Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada ... , for the period from January 1, 1973, to June 30, 1974, the Chair expressed doubts on the admissibility of a motion in amendment in the name of Mr. MacKay (Central Nova), which proposed to substitute "the 1972 and 1973 fiscal years" with 'the 1972 fiscal year". When the motion was called the following day, the Chair heard Members' comments and ruled.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Can a motion in amendment negative the principle of the bill as determined by the House on second reading?</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. The motion in amendment is out of order.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Although it is possible to amend particular provisions in a bill to reduce the proposed expenditures, the motion in amendment proposed by the Member negatives the principle of the bill as determined by the House on second reading. "An amendment which is equivalent to a negative of a bill, or which would reverse the principle of a bill as agreed to on the second reading, is not admissible."</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 18th ed., p. 509.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Journals, April 2, 1974, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2902_120_01/83">p. 89</a>.</p>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, April 1, 1974, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2902_02/25">p. 1035</a> ; April 2, 1974, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2902_02/89">pp. 1099-101</a>.</p>
</div>
Edit Metadata
Holding
"Amendments that are equivalent to a direct negative of the bill they seek to amend are out of order."
AI Summary
A ruling that an amendment is out of order because it is equivalent to a direct negative of the bill.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Sustained
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High
AI Keywords
Cited Authorities
- House of Commons Procedure and Practice (3rd Edition)
- Erskine May's treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (25th Edition)