Failure to oppose principle of bill

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Second Reading</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>May 29, 1972</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2804_118_01/319?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 337-8</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/677?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 2639</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-201, an Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, Mr. Fairweather (Fundy-Royal) proposed an amendment that the bill "be not now read a second time but that ... the Government consider introducing more comprehensive and more constructive measures that will increase Canadian participation in and control of the Canadian economy". The Deputy Speaker suggested that the amendment was not acceptable as a reasoned amendment because it did not oppose the principle of the bill. Mr. Fairweather replied that the status of second reading had been changed by the standing order changes of 1968. The Deputy Speaker then ruled.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Does the amendment oppose the principle of the bill?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. The amendment is out of order.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">"... the procedural acceptability in respect of reasoned amendments has not been changed by the rule changes." One of the requirements of a reasoned amendment is that it oppose the principle of the bill. The proposed amendment merely suggests that the Government introduce more comprehensive measures, which does not constitute opposition to the principle of the bill.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, May 29, 1972, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/673">pp. 2635-9</a>.</p> </div>