September 27, 1971

Journals pp. 828-9

Debates pp. 8189-90

At the outset of the report stage consideration of Bill C-262, an Act to support employment in Canada ..., the Speaker made a statement of assessment as to the acceptability of four motions in amendment which had been filed. The Speaker expressed reservations about two of them, including one proposed by Mr. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley), which sought to insert a paragraph into an interpretation clause to include within the terms of the bill provisions for raw produce from agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The Speaker indicated that the motion was substantial in nature and affected the financial initiative of the Crown, but invited Members' comments before he ruled.

Issue

Can a motion in amendment be proposed that would change an interpretation clause or affect the financial initiative of the Crown?

Decision

No, the motion in amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"... it is not competent upon any Member on either side of the House to amend a bill substantially by changing the interpretation clause ... [A]mendments 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." In addition, the amendment as presented cannot be accepted because the effect would be to expand the terms of the Royal Recommendation.

Sources cited

Journals, May 21, 1970, p. 836.

Beauchene, 4th ed., pp. 206-7, c. 246.

References

Debates, September 27, 1971, pp. 8186-9.