Point of Order
February 25, 1970
Recommittal; beyond scope of bill
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>February 25, 1970</time>
</p>
<p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2802_116_01/458?r=0&s=1">p. 492</a></p>
<p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2802_04/756?r=0&s=1">pp. 4100-1</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-134, an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, Mr. Crouse (South Shore) moved that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry with instruction to consider inserting a new provision to allow the provinces the right to determine if foreign fishing vessels would have entry to their fishing zones. After a short debate on the amendment, and before putting the question, the Deputy Speaker indicated that he had certain reservations about the amendment's admissibility.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Can an amendment to have a new provision inserted in a bill be moved at third reading?</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No, not usually. In this case, however, the amendment has been moved and debated in the House. Accordingly, "the House ought to decide on it". [The amendment was negatived.]</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">After further study of the amendment, a caveat should be entered about its admissibility since it seems to exceed the scope of the bill.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, February 25, 1970, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2802_04/750">pp. 4094-100</a>. </p>
</div>
Edit Metadata
Holding
"A motion to recommit a bill with instructions is out of order if the proposed instructions would require the committee to consider amendments that are beyond the scope of the bill."
AI Summary
A motion to recommit a bill is out of order if its instructions propose amendments beyond the bill's original scope.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Other
- Tone
- Neutral
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High