The committee will come to order. Prior to beginning the committee of the whole work, I have a chair's ruling.
Chair's Ruling
On Monday, March 22, 1993, the Honourable Richard Nerysoo raised a point of order on the committee's handling of a motion and subsequent vote on Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act. Mr. Nerysoo stated, and I quote from page 2966 of unedited Hansard, "The matter of the amendment that has been voted against clearly changes the principle that was agreed to at second reading." Due to the complexity of the procedural issue raised by Mr. Nerysoo, I took the point of order under advisement so as to allow review of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, 6th edition, Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice and past decisions of Speakers delivered in the House of Commons.
It has been a long-standing parliamentary principle that motions which offend the principle of the bill after the House has accepted that principle are out of order. I cite Beauchesne's citation 698(2), "An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment." There are many examples of this principle being applied in the debates of the House of Commons; in the interests of brevity, I will not go into detail on these examples.
I have reviewed carefully Committee Motion 112-12(3), moved by Mrs. Marie-Jewell and adopted by the committee. I can find nothing in that motion which contravened the principle of the bill. Further, the subsequent defeat of the new clause created was well within the powers of the committee.
I wish to quote from Erskine May, 21st edition, on page 486, which states: "Notwithstanding the rule which forbids the moving of an amendment which is destructive of the principle of the bill, there is nothing to prevent a committee from negativing a clause or clauses, the omission of which may nullify or destroy the bill..."
What the committee achieved - the defeat of the "panel" concept for appeal committees - was within the committee's powers and could have been achieved by several procedural methods. For example, the committee could have also chosen to delete a portion of the clause under consideration. Alternatively, the committee could have deleted the entire clause and replaced only those portions of the clause Members found acceptable. These procedures were accepted by the House of Commons, notwithstanding the fact that the ultimate effect was to nullify the bill under consideration. As authority for this procedure and its effect, I cite House of Commons Debates, February 13, 1969 on pages 5490-91, wherein a motion to delete a clause, even to a bill which had only one clause, was ruled to be acceptable and in order. I also rely on Speaker Jerome's decision on June 29, 1976, on page 14964, in a debate over a bill dealing with the elimination of the death penalty wherein motions to delete were ruled in order, notwithstanding the fact that the motions, if adopted, would have the effect of reinstating the death penalty, hence contravening the principle of the bill.
Based on a thorough review of the authorities already cited, I rule that Mr. Nerysoo does not have a point of order.
What is the committee's wish that we deal with today? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.
