Relevance; beyond scope 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 19, 1972</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2804_118_01/298?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 315-7</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/470?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 2432-4</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On May 18, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-211, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act ..., Mr. Macquarrie (Hillsborough) proposed an amendment that criticized the Government's delay in introducing the bill and the bill's failure to take into sufficient account recent advances in communications and transportation which would allow for shorter elections and reduced expenses. In expressing doubts on the acceptability of the amendment, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) noted that reasoned amendments were being used to introduce what were, in fact, substantive motions that were often not relevant to the principle of the bill. Moreover, the Members putting forward these amendments sometimes voted in favour of the bill, contrary to correct procedure. If such practices continued, it might ultimately produce a new method of amending motions at second or third reading stages. A final decision on the amendment was reserved until the following day, after arguments had been presented by Members.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is an amendment to the motion for second reading acceptable if it does not oppose the principle of a bill?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. The amendment is not acceptable.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Acting Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">According to the rule of relevance, an amendment must relate strictly to the bill before the House. The reference in the proposed amendment to the Government's delay in introducing the bill "is quite irrelevant to the principle of the bill. It must also be said that the motion does not claim to oppose the bill on those grounds." Moreover, the suggestion that there should be a provision for a shorter election period is also beyond the terms of the bill. In essence, the amendment "is not declaratory of any proposition adverse to, or differing from, the principle of the bill".</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 278, c. 386. </p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 17th ed., pp. 527-8.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="MsoNormal">Debates, May 18, 1972, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/447">pp. 2409-12</a>; May 19, 1972, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_06/470">pp. 2428-32</a>.</p> </div>