Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading

Recommittal; infringing on financial initiative of the Crown

Journals p. 307

Debates p. 2368

Background

During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Mr. Rynard (Simcoe North) moved that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs with instruction to consider inserting three new paragraphs concerned with increasing the old age security pension to reflect the full increase in the Consumer Price Index since January 1, 1967. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lanie!) had reservations about the admissibility of the proposed amendment and invited the Members to comment before he made his ruling.

Issue

Does the proposed amendment depart from the principle adopted at second reading, and does it embody a new financial proposition?

Decision

Yes. The amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Acting Speaker

"On the third reading of a bill, an amendment to refer back to the Committee of the Whole must not tend to change the principle approved on second reading." The proposed amendment changes the principle adopted on second reading as it "brings in a new subject, a new approach", and therefore departs from the rule of relevance. The amendment also embodies a financial proposition; it thus infringes on the Crown's financial initiative and attempts to do indirectly what cannot be done directly.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 207, c. 246(3); p. 287, c. 415; p. 288, c. 418.

May, 17th ed., p. 527.

References

Journals, May 17, 1972, pp. 306-7.

Debates, May 17, 1972, pp. 2364-8.