Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Setting a condition

Journals pp. 525-6

Debates p. 4584

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-168, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, Mr. Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean) proposed an amendment that the bill "be not now read a second time, but that all further consideration of the said bill be postponed until the Canadian people approve its principle by a referendum". The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif) submitted the amendment to the Speaker, who took the Chair. Mr. Smallwood (Battle River-Camrose) reminded the Chair that a motion accepted during the flag debate was similar to the one now being proposed. After hearing Members' arguments, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Is it permissible to attach a condition to the second reading motion?

Decision

No. The proposed amendment is inadmissible.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Amendments at this stage cannot attach conditions to the second reading, which this proposed amendment does, concerning the approval of the bill in principle. This case is distinguished from the flag debate precedent in that the latter dealt with a resolution; the type of amendment permitted for resolutions is different from that permitted at second reading of a bill.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 281, c. 394(1).

References

Debates, November 22, 1967, pp. 4580-4.