Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading

Recommittal; expanded negative

Journals p. 1024

Debates p. 8595

Background

During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code ..., Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg  North Centre) moved that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to committee for amendment of one clause by deleting "in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council" and replacing this with "in accordance with any Jaw enacted by Parliament", thus retaining the procedure set out in the parent Act. Before making his decision, the Deputy Speaker allowed the Members to express their views on the matter.

Issue

Can an amendment be moved that would have the effect of re-establishing the law as it was previously written?

Decision

No. The amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker

The proposed amendment "is in the nature of an expanded negative". If it were passed, it would "strike at the essence of that proposal and would restore the law to the state it was [in] prior to the legislation now before us".

Sources cited

May, 17th ed., pp. 550-1, para. (6).

References

Debates, May 12, 1969, pp. 8580-9.