Content of Bills / Discrepancy with Provisions of the Ways and Means Resolution

Discrepancy with provisions of the ways and means resolution

Journals pp. 706-7, 709-11

Debates pp. 7549-50, 7582-3

Background

At the beginning of second reading debate on Bill C-66, an Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) raised a point of order to the effect that the bill should be rejected, since it was not in conformity with the provisions of the ways and means motion on which it was based.

Issue

Is it necessary that a bill, based on the provisions of a ways and means resolution, be identical with those provisions? If not, to what extent may the bill vary from the resolution?

Decision

Although not necessarily identical, the bill and the resolution should be in close conformity. The Chair is exercising its authority and is ordering the deletion of the inconsistencies. The bill is to retain its place on the Order Paper and debate thereon is not to be resumed until after distribution of a corrected version.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Based upon a number of precedents, there are two possible remedies; either to obtain another recommendation amending the preceding resolution or to delete the inconsistent provisions of the bill.

In this case, there is no attempt to go beyond the provisions of the bill, rather it is more a matter of form and procedure. Consequently, the Chair does not feel the need to discharge the order for second reading and to withdraw the bill as suggested in the point of order.

Authority and precedents cited

Standing Order 60(11).

Journals, December 10, 1912, pp. 83-4; February 13, 1913, pp. 243-8; March 5, 1957, p. 225; December 10, 1963, pp. 649-51; March 11, 1968, pp. 753-6; December 18, 1974, pp. 224-5.

Debates, March 5, 1957, p. 1903; December 10, 1963, pp. 5665-6; March 11, 1968, pp. 7493-5; December 18, 1974, pp. 2380-1.

References

Journals, July 9, 1975, p. 692.

Debates, July 9, 1975, pp. 7405-9; July 14, 1975, pp. 7531-5.