Reference of subject-matter to outside agency

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>May 20, 1971</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2803_117_01/518?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 568-9</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_06/475?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 6021-2</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-238, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, Mr. Schumacher (Palliser) moved that the bill be not now read a second time but that its subject-matter be referred to the Canadian Wheat Board to determine by a plebiscite of producers whether provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act might be applied to rye, flax seed, rapeseed, or any or all of them. The Deputy Speaker expressed doubt as to the procedural acceptability of the amendment and invited comments on the matter. Some Members contended that the motion was a reasoned amendment that combined the precedents of both a referendum and the reference of a matter to an outside agency.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is an amendment acceptable if it seeks to refer the subject-matter of a bill to an agency outside the confines or jurisdiction of Parliament?</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">While it might be possible to accept an amendment referring the subject-matter of a bill to an outside agency, that can only happen if the amendment is also "a declaratory one adverse to the principles of the bill". Such is not the case in the present situation. Also significant to the determination of this ruling is the "well-established principle that a reasoned amendment is not in order if it purports to do something which could be done by the committee considering the bill after it had passed second reading". The provisions of the bill would allow the Member to seek the changes he proposes through amendments to clauses of the bill.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 3rd ed., pp. 499-501.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Debates, May 20, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_06/470">pp, 6016-21</a>.</p> </div>