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 25, 1972</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2804_118_01/315?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 333-4</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/612?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 2574</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-211, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act in respect of election expenses, Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) proposed an amendment that the bill be not now read a second time, but that "the Government should give immediate consideration to the presenting of a bill that will provide effective control over election expenses". Mr. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) rose on a point of order to challenge the acceptability of the amendment.    After several exchanges between Mr. Knowles and Mr. MacEachen, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) ruled.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is the amendment acceptable as a reasoned amendment?</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 Acting Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Despite the claim that the amendment rejects the bill because it does not contain certain provisions, the amendment fails to oppose the principle of the bill and, in addition, it anticipates amendments that could be made at the committee stage. As to possible limitations on amendments related to the terms of the Royal Recommendation, it would seem that the one attached to this bill is in general terms and, appears to be wide enough to enable the committee, at the appropriate stage, to include the changes suggested in the amendment. The Chair, however, cannot anticipate what might be done in committee.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 277, c. 382; pp. 279-80, c. 389.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, May 25, 1972, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/607">pp. 2569-74</a>.</p> </div>