Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Second reading

Journals pp. 275-6

Debates pp. 2971-2

Background

During debate on the second reading of Bill C-49, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) proposed that all the words after "That" be replaced with the following:

"this House, while approving the several provisions in Bill C-49, which relieve against the incidence of income tax on, inter alia, low-income earners, pensioners, and persons in receipt of specified sources of interest and investment income, declines to give second reading to a bill which includes provisions which eliminate the deductibility of royalties, licences or other fees payable to provincial governments from operational income in the computation of income tax by taxpayers engaged in the development and production of natural resources owned by such provinces".

Issue

Can a second reading amendment express opposition to only a part of the bill? What are the limits of acceptability for such a declaration of opposition?

Decision

The amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The amendment is a statement of opposition to some parts of the bill rather than an expression of a principle.

Even if the amendment could be held to express some principle, it is clearly opposed to some, and not all, provisions of the bill. But the precedents imply that such an amendment should oppose all the principles or provisions of the bill.

Precedent cited

Journals, September 13, 1971, pp. 793-4.

References

Journals, February 4, 1975, p. 270; February 5, 1975, p. 273.

Debates, February 4, 1975, pp. 2910-5; February 5, 1975, pp. 2943-7.