Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading

Relevance; setting a condition

Journals pp. 160-1

Debates p. 1562-3

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-186, an Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada ..., Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) proposed an amendment that the bill be not now, read a second time, but that no financial guarantees or grants should be given to Canadian National Railways until it implemented certain improvements in pension arrangements recommended by a House committee and concurred in by the House the previous month. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lanie!) reserved his decision. Later that day he heard comments from Members before ruling.              

Issue

Is an amendment opposing the progress of the bill and stipulating a condition for second reading an acceptable reasoned amendment?

Decision

No. The amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The amendment in question opposes the progress of the bill, not its principle. It is not, therefore, a reasoned amendment. The amendment should be relevant to the bill and not bring into the debate a question that is irrelevant to the purpose of the bill. The proposed amendment is irrelevant because the bill relates exclusively to capital expenditures and to meeting the deficits of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, not to pensions. The amendment is not relevant to the motion for second reading as any words to be added to this motion may only attach conditions to the second reading.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 277, c. 382; p, 279, c. 388; pp. 280-1, c. 393.

May, 17th ed., p. 528.

References

Journals, November 27, 1970, pp. 159-60.

Debates, November 27, 1970, pp. 1549-53, 1560-2.