Skip to content
Point of Order February 25, 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>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&amp;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&amp;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

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

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."
Outcome
Other
Tone
Neutral
Procedural Stage
Government Orders
Significance
Low High

Cited Authorities

Tags & Keywords