Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Subamendment beyond scope of amendment

Journals pp. 795-6

Debates p. 7822

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-230, an Act to provide for resumption of operations of railways and for the settlement of the existing dispute . . . between railway companies and their employees, Mr. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam) proposed a subamendment to the amendment of Mr. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition) which had been moved earlier in the day. The subamendment gave causes in addition to those cited in the Diefenbaker amendment as to why second reading should not be given, specifically that the bill imposed compulsory arbitration and failed "to provide for the appointment of an administrator ... so that there might be effective collective bargaining". Mr. McIlraith (Minister of Public Works) reserved the right to raise a point of order on the subamendment once he had had an opportunity to study the text. A short procedural debate took place later that sitting, after which the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Does the proposed subamendment anticipate committee stage? Is it relevant to the amendment?

Decision

The subamendment is not in order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

While the subamendment does not anticipate the committee stage, it enlarges the scope of the amendment. Although subamendments should deal with matters not covered by the amendment, this subamendment "advances something new and suggests a new proposal" and cannot be accepted in this form.

Sources cited

Debates, August 30, 1966, p. 7808.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 169, c. 202(3); p. 171, c. 203(1); pp. 279-80, c. 389.

References

Journals, August 30, 1966, p. 794.

Debates, August 30, 1966, pp. 7808-15, 7821-2.