Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading

Reasoned amendment indicating why bill should not be proceeded with

Journals pp. 1314-5

Debates pp. 10907-8

Background

During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-120, an Act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, Mr. McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) proposed an amendment that the bill be not now read a third time, but that the Government take the necessary steps to have the Supreme Court rule on the bill's constitutionality. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard) decided to refer the question to the Speaker. Subsequently, the Speaker invited comments from Members before he ruled.

Issue

Can a reasoned amendment be moved at third reading to require a ruling by the Supreme Court?

Decision

In this case, the amendment is acceptable. [The Chair suggested a slight modification in the wording of the amendment to conform to past procedure concerning reasoned amendments.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

The proposed amendment does not suggest that the bill be set aside on the basis of a proposition omitted from the bill; it simply indicates why the bill should not be proceeded with further. The proposed amendment is essentially a reasoned amendment.

Sources cited

May, 17th ed., p. 417.

References

Debates, July 7, 1969, pp. 10896-9, 10905-7.