Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Second reading

Journals pp. 276-7

Debates p. 2979

Background

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

"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in the 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government".

Issue

Can an amendment reject a bill because it does not contain a desired measure? Does the amendment anticipate procedures which might be undertaken at a later stage?

Decision

The amendment, although it might have been drafted better, is in order.

Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker

The effect of the amendment is to oppose the passage of the bill and the basic principles of taxation within the bill.

It would be difficult to accomplish a similar result at a later stage.

Such an amendment may be acceptable if it attacks the "substantive... parts" of a bill.

Authority and precedent cited

May, 18th ed., pp. 487-8.

Journals, February 6, 1975, pp. 275-6.

References

Debates, February 6, 1975, pp. 2977-9.