Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Amending interpretation clause

Journals p. 61

Debates pp. 660-1

Background

The order having been read for report stage of Bill C-172, an Act respecting the Federal Court of Canada ..., the Speaker stated that he had reservations about the propriety of a number of the proposed motions in amendment, particularly motion No. 1 and its dependent motion, No. 2, both of which stood in the name of Mr. Woolliams (Calgary North). The motions attempted to extend the definition of the Federal Court by amending the interpretation clause of the bill to include various provincial courts within the definition of the "Federal Court of Canada". Mr. Woolliams, responding to the expressed reservations, claimed that since the amendments were moved and studied in committee they should be in order in the House.

Issue

Is it permissible at report stage to introduce a substantive amendment to a bill by modifying its interpretation clause?

Decision

No. Neither of the motions in amendment is acceptable.

Reasons given by the Speaker

No precedents exist to show that it is acceptable to introduce a substantive amendment "by way of a modification to the interpretation clause". It does not necessarily follow that an amendment discussed in committee is in order in the House. The House is not bound by rulings made in committee. "There may be some other way that the amendment might have been introduced. There is still third reading stage where the matter can be debated."

Sources cited

Journals, May 21, 1970, pp. 834-7.

References

Notice Paper, October 27, 1970, p. iii.