Skip to content
Back to Search
Point of Order September 7, 1971

Beyond scope of bill; opposing subject-matter

Hon. Lucien Lamoureux

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 / Second Reading</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>September 7, 1971</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2803_117_01/722?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 778-9</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_07/926?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 7572-3</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-262, an Act to support employment in Canada, Mr. Lewis (York South) proposed an amendment that the bill be not now read a second time, but that the Government consider measures to stimulate the Canadian economy and free it from its dependence on the United States. The Deputy Speaker expressed concern that the amendment did not oppose the narrow principle of the bill and that it went beyond the scope of the bill. He invited the assistance of Members before ruling.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Can an amendment be accepted if it opposes the subject-matter of a bill but not its principle?</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">A reasoned amendment must clearly oppose the principle of a bill; it must also state a principle opposed to that of the bill rather than of its subject-matter. Furthermore, an amendment must stay within the four corners of a bill; otherwise it becomes irrelevant, as has happened in this case. The effect of accepting this amendment would be to withdraw the bill and substitute it with debate on suggestions and proposals to attack the problem of unemployment.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Debates, September 7, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_07/919">pp. 7565-72</a>.</p> </div>
Edit Metadata

AI Summary

The Speaker sustained a point of order, ruling an amendment inadmissible because it introduced a subject foreign to the principle of the bill.

AI Analysis

Holding
"The amendment is inadmissible as it goes beyond the scope and principle of the bill as agreed to by the House at the second reading stage."
Outcome
Sustained
Tone
Educational
Procedural Stage
Government Orders
Significance
Low High

AI Keywords

relevance second reading principle of the bill scope of a bill admissibility of amendment

Cited Authorities

  • House of Commons Procedure and Practice (3rd Edition)
  • Erskine May (25th Edition)

Tags & Keywords