Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Motions in amendment, infringing on financial initiative of the Crown; beyond scope of bill

Journals p. 943

Debates pp. 10073-4

Background

At the report stage of Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, two motions stood on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Orlikow (Winnipeg-North):

That Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended in Clause 9 by striking out line 36 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:

"thereof and the extended benefit period (described in section 34) shall not exceed the maximum."

and

That Bill C-69, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be amended by deleting Clause 11 at page 6 and by substituting the following therefore:

"11. Subsections 33(2) and 36(1) of the said Act are repealed."

When the first motion came up for discussion, a point of order was raised challenging its acceptability because it would effectively infringe upon the Royal Recommendation. In considering this case, the Deputy Speaker also rendered a decision on the second motion because of their procedural relationship.

Issue

Can amendments be moved at report stage which increase the financial application of a bill or which amend clauses of a parent Act?

Decision

Both amendments are out of order.

Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker

The first amendment cannot be accepted because it infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown by seeking to establish an unemployment benefit not provided for in the Royal Recommendation.

The second amendment is also unacceptable because it seeks to amend a section of the parent Act not contained in the bill and is therefore beyond the scope of the bill.

Authorities cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 207, c. 246(3).

May, 18th ed., p. 508.

References

Journals, December 15, 1975, pp. 935-6.

Debates, December 16, 1975, pp. 10071-2.