Other
March 27, 1973
Recommittal; beyond scope of bill
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
<div class="DecisionMain" role="main">
<p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading</p>
<p class="d-DecisionDate">
<time>March 27, 1973</time>
</p>
<p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2901_119_01/197?r=0&s=1">p. 219</a></p>
<p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_03/361?r=0&s=1">p. 2679</a></p>
<div>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2>
</div>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Mr. Rondeau (Shefford) proposed that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for the purpose of studying the eligibility requirements stated in the parent Act. The Deputy Speaker expressed reservations about the acceptability of the amendment. Before making a final decision, however, he invited Members to present arguments on the matter.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Can an amendment at third reading seek to have a committee study the parent Act?</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. The amendment is not acceptable.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The bill before the House deals with the amount of pension payable under the Old Age Security Act. The amendment, however, proposes the study of the conditions of eligibility for the pension. It seems that the Member is endeavouring to reach behind the bill for the purpose of amending the enabling legislation. The proposed amendment is not really relevant to the bill before the House, and "it is a fundamental rule that the amendment must be relevant to the question".</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 288, c. 418.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, March 27, 1973, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_03/351">pp. 2669-79</a>. </p>
</div>
Edit Metadata
Holding
"A motion to recommit a bill with instructions is out of order if the instructions direct the committee to consider amendments that are beyond the scope of the bill."
AI Summary
A motion to recommit a bill is procedurally out of order if its instructions propose amendments that are beyond the bill's original scope.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Other
- Tone
- Neutral
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High
Cited Authorities
- House of Commons Procedure and Practice (3rd)
- Erskine May (25th)