Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Reasoned amendments; criteria

Journals pp. 794-5

Debates p. 7808

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-230, the maintenance of the Railway Operations Act, Mr. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition) proposed an amendment that the House decline to proceed with the second reading because of certain failures in the bill. The amendment claimed that the bill's provisions departed from the terms of the Munroe report, failed to give any assistance of an equitable solution respecting fringe benefits or any directions as to the implementation of the Freedman report, and consequently did not provide an adequate solution for the current situation. Mr. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) rose on a point of order to argue that the amendment was not acceptable as a reasoned amendment because it failed to oppose the principle of the bill and because it anticipated amendments that should more properly be moved in committee. After hearing Members' comments, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Must a reasoned amendment oppose only the principle of the bill?

Decision

No. The amendment is accepted.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Opposition to the principle of a bill is only one criterion required for an acceptable reasoned amendment. A reasoned amendment can also express opinions on any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or seek further information. As the amendment fulfils at least one of these other two criteria, it meets the requirements of an acceptable reasoned amendment. Despite the objection that the amendment deals with the provisions of the bill and thus may anticipate committee study, the amendment appears to be a borderline case. It does not, in fact, refer in detail to the bill's provisions, and so it will be accepted.

Sources cited

Debates, November 30, 1960, pp. 350-6.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 280-1. c. 393.

May, 17th ed., pp. 527-8.

Abraham, L. and Hawtrey, S., A Parliamentary Dictionary, (London, 1956), p. 162.

References

Debates, August 30, 1966, pp. 7798-807.