Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Relevance; opposed to progress of bill

Debates p. 4320

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-187, an Act respecting inland water resources in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories, Mr. Baldwin (Peace River) proposed an amendment declaring "that the bill fails to enunciate the principle that the inland water resources of northern Canada and the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories ought not to be exported from Canada by licence or otherwise and the bill should not be proceeded with". Mr. Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) then raised a point of order objecting that the bill was concerned only with water management, not exportation. The Speaker invited Members' comments before ruling.

Issue

Is the reasoned amendment relevant to the bill?

Decision

Despite some doubt, the amendment is acceptable. [The amendment was slightly defective in form, but the Speaker made the necessary change before putting it to the House.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

Reasoned amendments must be strictly relevant to the bill before the House. Although it is not completely clear that the amendment is relevant to the principle of the bill, it will be given the benefit of the doubt. Some measure of leniency has to be exercised, particularly when some "Members feel that the proposal included in the reasoned amendment should be put to a test in the House, and that the reasoned amendment should be allowed".

 

References

Journals, March 3, 1970, p. 509.

Debates, March 3, 1970, pp. 4315-20.