Recommittal; subamendment beyond scope of amendment

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>December 15, 1971</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2803_117_01/897?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 980-1</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_10/565?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 10511-2</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">During debate on the amendment of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) that Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Income Tux Act, be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole in order to consider specific changes to reduce taxes, Mr. Laprise (Abitibi) proposed a subamendment. The purpose of the subamendment was to recommend additional changes to the bill in order to allow the deduction of employment expenses. The Deputy Speaker expressed some doubts as to the relevance of the subamendment and invited comments from Members before ruling.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is a subamendment acceptable if it seeks to amend parts of a bill not stipulated in the amendment?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. The subamendment is not relevant and is therefore out of order.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">In proposing a subamendment, Members are under the constraint that they must not enlarge on, or differ in substance from, the amendment they are seeking to amend. In this case, the amendment deals with a specific part of the bill and would have the effect of reducing a tax right across the board. The subamendment, however, is attempting to change another part of the bill, a part dealing with employment expenses reductions.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, December 14, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_10/522">p. 10464</a>; December 15, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_10/561">pp. 10507-11</a>. </p> </div>