The Legislative Process / Stages

Second reading: reasoned amendment; admissibility of a subamendment

May 5, 2016

Debates, p. 2956

On May 5, 2016, Guy Caron (Rimouski Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques) moved a subamendment to a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures. The Deputy Speaker (Bruce Stanton) explained that a subamendment can only amend the amendment before the House and that he would consider Mr. Caron’s proposal before deciding on the admissibility of the subamendment. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) rose on a point of order to argue that the subamendment, by omitting and adding some words, did not in any way change the principle of the amendment already submitted, namely, that the House declined to give second reading to the bill. The Deputy Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

The Deputy Speaker delivered his ruling the same day. He declared the subamendment out of order and explained that the Chair considered the list of reasons explaining why the House should decline to give second reading to the bill to be an integral part of the original amendment. He also explained that the original amendment was not simply the proposal indicating that the House declined to give second reading, since this result could have been achieved by simply voting against the second reading motion. He added that, to be admissible, the subamendment should have related to the reasons stated in the original amendment.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: During the debate on Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures—the bill that is currently before the House—I took under advisement a subamendment moved by the member for Rimouski Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. I would like to thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his comments on the matter, and I am now prepared to rule.

Reasoned amendments allow a member to state the reasons for his or her opposition to second reading of a bill. Subamendments to reasoned amendments are permissible but, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out in citing O’Brien and Bosc at page 534, “must be strictly relevant to (and not at variance with the sense of) the corresponding amendment and must seek to modify the amendment, and not the original question”.

In the Chair’s view, the original amendment was the list of reasons explaining why the House should decline to give second reading to the bill, and not simply the phrase indicating that the House decline to do so, as the latter could be achieved by simply voting against the second reading motion.

To be admissible, a subamendment should not simply relate to the lead-in “that this House decline to give second reading”, but should instead relate to the reasons stated in the main amendment, either proposing to delete some of the reasons or to suggest additional reasons different from, but relevant to, the main amendment.

Accordingly, I declare the subamendment out of order and debate will continue on the amendment.

I thank hon. members for their attention.