Reasoned amendments

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="Main Content" --> <p class="decision-chapter"> Amendments to Motions on the Progress of Bills / Second Reading </p> <div> </div> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>November 28, 1984</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates"> Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3301_01/709?r=0&amp;s=1">p. 707</a> </p> <div><h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2></div> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> During the debate at second reading of Bill C-11 (Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85), two reasoned amendments were proposed. The first, by Mr. Johnston (Saint-Henri—Westmount), stated that the House would not proceed with a bill to provide borrowing authority for a fiscal year for which the Government has not provided complete details of spending requirements or revenue projections. The second, by Mr. Riis (Kamloops—Shuswap) stated that it was objectionable in principle for the House to grant authority to borrow a sum greater than the amount required to meet the Government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year and that therefore the House declined to give the bill second reading. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski) took both amendments under advisement and allowed debate to continue. The Speaker returned to the House later that day to give his rulings. </p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> Are the amendments in order? </p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> The amendment proposed by Mr. Johnston is not in order. The amendment proposed by Mr. Riis is acceptable. </p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Acting Speaker</h2> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> The re are specific conditions which must be met for a reasoned amendment to be in order. Mr. Johnston's amendment is not opposed to the principle of the bill but rather is attempting to indirectly impose conditions upon the passage of such a bill. Passage of the amendment would not determine the status of the bill, and the re fore the amendment must be ruled out of order. </p> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> The amendment proposed by Mr. Riis does clearly oppose the principle of the bill. It is declaratory of a principle adverse to the principle of the bill and is therefore in order. </p> <div class="FootnoteContainer"><div "="" class="alert alert-info"><p>Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact <a href="mailto:accessible@parl.gc.ca">accessible@parl.gc.ca</a>.</p></div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 226, c. 744(1). </p> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> Debates, October 23, 1979, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3101_01/539?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 537-9</a>. </p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-ContextResoEdNotePostscript"> Debates, November 28, 1984, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3301_01/691?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 689</a>, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3301_01/696?r=0&amp;s=1">694</a>. </p> </div> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> </div>