Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Failure to oppose principle of bill; setting a condition

Journals pp. 432-3

Debates p. 3588

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill S-5, an Act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, Mr. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris) proposed an amendment to defer consideration of the bill until the question for concurrence in the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs, relating to the sovereignty of Canada in the Arctic, had been put. The Deputy Speaker expressed misgivings as to the acceptability of the amendment. He also indicated his desire to consult the Speaker before ruling, which he did later that day after receiving comments from Members.

Issue

Is the amendment admissible?

Decision

No. The amendment is unacceptable.

Reasons given by the Speaker

A Member may "move as an amendment to the question a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the Bill by Committees, Commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of Judges". The operative requirement is that the resolution contain some principle adverse to, or differing from, the bill. Moreover it is not allowed to approve the principle of the bill and at the same time make a declaration of policy at second reading stage.

Sources cited

Journals, January 15, 1970, pp. 311-3.

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

May, 17th ed., pp. 526-7.

References

Journals, December 16, 1969, pp. 207-11 (Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, First Report); February 13, 1970, p. 431.

Debates, February 13, 1970, pp. 3579-88.