Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Relevance

Journals pp. 852-3

Debates, pp. 8626-7

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-227, an Act to authorize the payment of contributions by Canada toward the cost of insured medical care services ... , Mr. Rynard (Simcoe East) proposed an amendment that the bill not be proceeded with as no legislation will be satisfactory unless it secures co-operation of the provincial governments; recognizes the principle of voluntary choice; makes adequate prior provision for sufficient medical research, the training of adequate numbers of doctors and medical personnel; and provides for medical services for the needy. Mr. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) raised a point of order that the amendment did not present a policy contrary to the bill and was, in part, irrelevant to the provisions of the bill. The Speaker heard procedural arguments and then ruled.

Issue

Is the proposed reasoned amendment relevant to the bill?

Decision

Yes. The amendment is in order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Although the amendment does not present a policy contrary to the bill, it fulfils other conditions of an acceptable reasoned amendment. Where relevance is concerned, the fact that the amendment mentions matters in the Estimates is not sufficient reason to rule it out of order. As the Chair should not become involved in debates concerning whether or not amendments contain proposals

included in other legislation, the amendment is accepted on the grounds that the benefit of reasonable doubt should be given to the Member who proposes the amendment.

Sources cited

Journals, August 30, 1966, pp. 794-5.

Debates, August 30, 1966, p. 7808.

May, 17th ed., p. 527.

References

Debates, October 13, 1966, pp. 8613-8, 8624-6.