Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Relevance; expanded negative

Journals pp. 792-3

Debates pp. 7771-3

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) proposed an amendment that this House "declines to give second reading to a bill which does not provide sufficient stimulus to the economy of Canada with appropriate tax cuts and incentives, does not contain adequate tax exemptions and is not calculated to materially improve business and labour conditions in Canada". The Speaker expressed doubts about the acceptability of the amendment because it seemed to be of a substantive nature, but he invited Members to comment before ruling.

Issue

Does the amendment meet the requirements of a reasoned amendment?

Decision

It is accepted, although it is a borderline case.

Reasons given by the Speaker

In many respects the proposed amendment seems to meet some of the requirements for a reasoned amendment. "The most important of those, of course, is that the principle of relevance should govern every such motion." It is difficult to propose an acceptable reasoned amendment because it must be within the scope of the bill in order to be relevant and, at the same time, it must not be an expanded negative. In this case, the amendment will be accepted because it seems to be borderline. The problem of reasoned amendments is a difficult one; Members are resorting to this kind of amendment more and more, but it is difficult for the Chair to determine which should be accepted or refused. The Chair is being lenient in this case but the House should be aware that this does not establish a precedent for all possible reasoned amendments.

Sources cited

May, 17th ed., p. 527.

References

Debates, September 13, 1971, pp. 7757-71.