Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Substantive; amending interpretation clause

Journals pp. 835-7

Debates pp. 7166-7

Background

On May 20, at the start of report stage consideration of Bill C-144, an Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada ..., the Speaker made a statement to the House on the acceptability of the numerous motions in amendment that had been filed and on the grouping of those motions for debate. He then heard comments from Members on the procedural admissibility of the motions in amendment about which he had expressed reservations. The following day, he ruled on them.

Issue

Are motions in amendment in order if they are substantive or declaratory, and seek to amend an interpretation clause, or if they infringe the financial initiative of the Crown?

Decision

No. Such motions in amendment are out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The form and content of a motion to amend an interpretation clause must be consistent with the purposes given in that clause. One of the motions neither defines nor interprets any provision of the bill; its preliminary sentence appears to be an interpretation provision, but what follows is a list of prohibitions and objectives for the administration of the Act. The motion is therefore inconsistent with the purposes of the interpretation clause. Amendments of a substantive or declaratory nature should not be proposed to an interpretation clause; if such amendments were accepted, the clause would not then be an interpretation clause. With respect to the motions in amendment related to the financial provisions of the bill, such motions are bound by the amount, objects, purposes, qualifications and conditions set forth in the Royal Recommendation. In this particular case, the Government has taken steps through supplementary recommendations to expand the financial aspects of the original recommendation. This has had the consequent effect of making several of the motions in amendment out of order.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 239-40, c. 293.

References

Journals, May 21, 1970, pp.833-5.

Debates, May 20, 1970, pp. 7127-38; May 21, 1970, pp. 7165-6.