Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Relevance

Debates p. 8366

Background

On May 5, during debate at report stage of Bill C-150, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act ..., Mr. Laprise (Abitibi) proposed a motion in amendment that a clause be amended by removing the word "female" where it modified the word "person". On May 6, Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) rose on a point of order to argue that if the motion in amendment were passed, not only would the gender of certain pronouns in the bill have to be changed, but other portions of the original legislation would also have to be amended in order for Section 237 of the Criminal Code to be consistent and intelligible. After hearing Members' comments, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Does the motion in amendment exceed the terms of the bill?

Decision

No. The motion in amendment is relevant and, therefore, acceptable.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Despite the argument that the motion in amendment would, however indirectly, affect, amend or modify the original bill, there is a substantial difference between a proposed motion in amendment that obviously seeks to amend the original legislation directly and one that by way of consequence might entail minor modifications. The fact that the gender of certain pronouns might have to be changed if the motion in amendment were passed does not constitute grounds for rejecting it. "... since the House has already spent some time considering an amendment which [was accepted], . . . it would hardly be in order at this stage to hold that this amendment is not acceptable."

References

Journals, May 5, 1969, p. 994.

Debates, May 6, 1969, pp. 8363-6.