Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Motions in amendment, opposing the principle of the bill

Journals pp. 1384-5

Debates pp. 14960-1

Background

As the House was proceeding to the report stage consideration of Bill C-84, an Act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to the punishment for murder and certain other serious offences, the Speaker expressed some doubt as to the procedural acceptability of a number of motions in amendment. The Chair invited Members to present arguments on the issue as to whether any amendment to a bill abolishing capital punishment can be accepted which has the effect of re-establishing the death penalty. The Speaker wanted to hear arguments which might explain the procedural problem inasmuch as these amendments seemed to contravene the principle of the bill.

Issue

Are motions in amendment acceptable if by their effect they conflict directly with the principle of the bill?

Decision

No, the motions are not acceptable and are ruled out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"In the final analysis the question reduces itself to whether, when the House pronounced itself upon second reading of the bill, it pronounced itself on a question of principle, and if so, what that principle was." Despite arguments to the contrary, the Chair must conclude that the principle of this bill is the abolition of capital punishment for crimes under the Criminal Code.

"There is a rule that amendments after second reading cannot contravene the principle adopted by the House at second reading."

Authority cited

May, 18th ed., p. 509.

References

Debates, June 29, 1976, pp. 14948-59.