Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage

Amendment and subamendment to motion in amendment

Journals p. 692

Debates p. 8233

Background

During debate at the report stage of Bill C-176, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Official Secrets Act ..., Mr. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved a motion in amendment to change the requirements for admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. Mr. Atkey (St. Paul's) moved an amendment. Mr. Lang then moved a subamendment to that of Mr. Atkey. Mr. Nielsen (Yukon) rose on a point of order to contest the admissibility of Mr. Lang's "second" amendment on the grounds that the Minister's original motion had been an amendment and that consequently his "second" amendment could not be considered until the "subamendment" of Mr. Atkey had been disposed of. To do otherwise, he argued, would be to allow more than one amendment and one subamendment before the House at the same time.

Issue

Is a motion in amendment a substantive motion which can itself be amended?

Decision

Yes, and therefore the Minister's subamendment may be put. It should, however, be proposed by someone other than the Minister. [Mr. Lang's subamendment was withdrawn and subsequently put forward again by Mr. Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare).]

Reasons given by the Speaker

At report stage, motions in amendment require notice, and are thus placed in the category of substantive motions subject to amendment and subamendment. As this is the first time an interpretation of this rule has been necessary. Members might be entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Although the Minister's subamendment is acceptable, it amends his own motion, and should therefore be proposed by another Member.

Sources cited

Standing Order 75(5).

References

Debates, November 27, 1973, pp. 8203-8; November 28, 1973, pp. 8229-33.