Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Seeking to add provisions; setting a condition

Journals pp. 311-3

Debated pp. 2427-8

Background

On January 14, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-144, an Act to provide for the water resources of Canada ... Mr. Comeau (South Western Nova) proposed an amendment citing certain failures and omissions in the bill and directing the Minister responsible to redraft the bill to include these and other fundamental omissions before it was read a second time. The Deputy Speaker expressed doubts on the admissibility of the amendment and deferred any discussion on the matter. Since it was almost the ordinary time of adjournment, the House rose at that time. The following day, the Speaker heard comments from Members before ruling.

Issue

Is an amendment to redraft a bill to include other provisions acceptable at second reading?

Decision

No. The amendment cannot be received.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Although this is a new form of amendment, it is not automatically out of order. Even if the amendment appears to be a statement or declaration of principle, rather than an amendment, it is, in fact, more like a substantive motion. Only certain types of amendment can be proposed at second reading, despite the recent rule changes. "... there is nothing in the new rules that can be taken to broaden the scope of the amendments which can be proposed to the House and received by the House as in order." An amendment that is not adverse to the principle of a bill but proposes that certain provisions be added to the bill cannot be moved on the motion for second reading. The amendment proposed is not a reasoned amendment because it does not oppose the principle of the bill.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 277, c. 382; pp. 280-1, c. 393(1), (3).

References

Debates, January 14, 1970, pp. 2408-12; January 15, 1970, pp. 2424-7.