Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Setting two distinct propositions

Journals pp. 486-7

Debates pp. 4045-6

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-152, an Act to amend the National Parks Act, Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) proposed an amendment that "the Government should reconsider the principle of the bill, [and] this bill be read a second time on a day six months hereafter". The Deputy Speaker had some reservations with regard to the form of the amendment and deferred ruling in order to discuss it with the Speaker. The Speaker later ruled after hearing comments by Members.

Issue

Can an amendment contain two distinct propositions?

Decision

No. Such an amendment cannot be proposed. [At the suggestion of the Speaker, Mr. Lambert sought and obtained the unanimous agreement of the House to put forward an amendment containing only the first proposition, rejecting the principle of the bill.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

Although the propositions that the principle of the bill be reconsidered and the second reading be deferred six months are both separately acceptable, they cannot be combined. There is no precedent to allow a six months' hoist to be attached to a reasoned amendment, or vice-versa.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 169, c. 202(7), p. 396, form 92.

References

Journals, February 24, 1970, p. 485.

Debates, February 24, 1970, pp. 4026-31, 4044-5.