Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

January 16, 1986

Debates p. 9819

At report stage of Bill C-70 (Act to amend the Family Allowances Act), several motions were proposed in amendment. The Speaker made a preliminary ruling on December 11, 1985, and heard procedural argument on December 16, 1985.

Motion No. 2, standing in the name of Ms. Mitchell (Vancouver East), proposed the partial indexing of family allowances for one year. The Chair initially expressed concern that the motion infringed on the financial prerogative of the Crown, but was prepared to allow the motion to go ahead. Mr. Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council) objected that the motion would constitute a reversal of the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading, which provided for partial indexing without a time limit. Mr. Deans (Hamilton Mountain) maintained that the amendment in fact provided for a sunset clause, rather than negating the bill itself. The Speaker gave his ruling when consideration of the bill resumed on January 16, 1986.

Issue

Is the motion in order?

Decision

Yes. The motion may be debated.

Reasons given by the Speaker

On the one hand, the amendment appears to reinstate the parent Act after one year, apparently contradicting the principle of the bill at second reading. However, the argument that the amendment is a sunset clause, and therefore not a true negative of the bill, is a strong one. The Chair concluded that the amendment is not a true negative, but neither does it qualify as a true sunset clause. It appears to be a sunset clause to which future provisions are attached. Having expressed reservations, the Chair decided to give the Member the benefit of a debate and to allow the House to decide on the merits of such an amendment.