Beyond scope of bill

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>January 25, 1973</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2901_119_01/66?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 67-8</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_01/645?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 643-4</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On January 24, during debate on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), Mr. Baldwin (Peace River) proposed an amendment to prevent the approval of a measure that would remove restrictions on advances made under the Act and allow advances to be made in excess of the existing statutory limit. The text of the amendment also said that the House accepted the need to provide funds for payment of unemployment insurance benefits to those entitled. The Chair reserved its decision on the acceptability of the amendment and heard comments from Members on its timeliness, relevance and propriety.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is the amendment acceptable as a reasoned amendment?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. The amendment is out of order.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The amendment satisfies most of the requirements of a reasoned amendment, including that it oppose the principle of the bill. "The point about the restrictions on advances . . . clearly was declaratory of a principle differing from one of the principles of the bill." Nevertheless, the amendment is not acceptable because of the nature of its declaration that the House "[accepts] the need to provide funds for payment of unemployment insurance benefits to those entitled". While the declaration appears relevant to the bill, these words take the motion outside the purview of the bill now before the House. The ruling is made on "narrow, technical grounds" which is necessary "if reasoned amendments are to be meaningful".</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 170, c. 202(14); p. 277, c. 382.</p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 18th ed., pp. 487-8.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, January 24, 1973, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_01/616">pp. 614-24</a>.</p> </div>