Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Reference of subject-matter to committee with instruction

Journals pp. 783-4

Debates pp. 7632-3

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-262, an Act to support employment in Canada, Mr. Saltsman (Waterloo) proposed an amendment that the bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject-matter of the bill be referred to a standing committee so that consideration could be given to the effect of the proposed legislation on agriculture, fisheries and small business. The Speaker expressed reservations about the procedural aspects of the amendment because it departed from the established form and, in fact, proposed an alternative mode of action instead of simply referring the subject-matter of the bill to a committee. He invited comments from Members before ruling.

Issue

Is an amendment that refers the subject-matter of the bill to a committee for the purpose of considering certain provisions of it acceptable?

Decision

No. The amendment is out of order. [At the suggestion of the Speaker, and with the unanimous consent of the House, the amendment was modified to refer only the subject-matter of the bill to a committee, in which form it was put to the House for debate.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

The amendment goes beyond the reference of a subject-matter and departs from well-established form. The House cannot, under the guise of an amendment referring the subject-matter to a committee, also refer certain provisions of the bill itself. The amendment is, in fact, an instruction to a committee to consider certain provisions of the bill; this can be done only after the bill has been read twice and referred to a committee.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 278, c. 386.

References

Debates, September 8, 1971, pp. 7630-2.