Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Relevance; setting a condition

Journals pp. 725-7

Debates pp. 7034-6

Background

On June 28, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-207, an Act to authorize contributions by Canada toward the cost of programs for the provision of assistance and welfare services ... Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) proposed to move that the bill be not now read a second time, but that "the Government should give consideration to the immediate introduction of concurrent legislation providing for ... an old-age pension of $100 a month, without a means or needs test, for all persons 65 years of age and over". The Deputy Speaker reserved judgment on the admissibility of the amendment; the following day, the Speaker heard procedural arguments and then ruled.

Issue

Is the proposed amendment relevant to the bill? Does the amendment impose a condition on the question before the House? Does the amendment provide for some method of disposing of the bill?

Decision

The proposed amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. Moreover, a reasoned amendment cannot attach a condition upon the second reading of a bill. The proposed amendment is also similar to one moved by Mr. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition) during debate on the Throne speech, and thus would revive a debate already concluded and perhaps place the House in the position of making" a contradictory decision in the same session. Finally, the amendment does not seek to dispose of the bill but calls upon the House to start with another proceeding extraneous to the bill.

Sources cited

Journals, January 23, 1958, pp. 366-7.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 277, c. 382; p. 281, c. 394(1); pp. 126-7, c. 148(1), (2); p. 167, c. 200(1).

May, 17th ed., p. 527.

References

Debates, June 28, 1966, pp. 6989-94; June 29, 1966, pp. 7024-34.