Skip to content
Point of Order June 4, 1970

Recommittal; beyond scope of bill

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 / Third Reading</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>June 4, 1970</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2802_116_01/874?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 937-8</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2802_07/1119?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 7737-8</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-144, an Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, Mr. Harding (Kootenay West) moved that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works with instruction to insert a new clause making offenders under the Act financially responsible. Having doubts as to. the admissibility of the amendment, the Deputy Speaker invited the Members to express their views before he handed down his decision.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Can an amendment be moved at third reading to insert a new clause into a bill?</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 proposition put forward by way of an amendment is a new proposition and cannot be allowed at this stage."</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 288, c. 418.</p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 17th ed., pp. 571-2.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, June 4, 1970, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2802_07/1112">pp. 7730-7</a>. </p> </div>
Edit Metadata

AI Summary

A ruling that a motion to recommit a bill is out of order if its instructions are beyond the bill's established scope.

AI Analysis

Holding
"A motion to recommit a bill with instructions is procedurally inadmissible if the instructions seek to introduce a subject that is foreign to the principle and scope of the bill."
Outcome
Sustained
Tone
Neutral
Procedural Stage
Government Orders
Significance
Low High

Cited Authorities

Tags & Keywords