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 12, 1972</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2804_118_01/279?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 293-4</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/255?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 2217-8</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On May 10, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Mr. Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe) proposed as an amendment that the Government consider the advisability of introducing appropriate amendments to increase old age security pensions to reflect the full increase in the consumer price index since January 1, 1967. The Deputy Speaker questioned whether the proposed motion was a reasoned amendment and whether the amendments referred to in the motion might be more properly proposed in committee. He invited the assistance of the House prior to making his decision.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">At this stage is an amendment acceptable if it does not oppose the principle or progress of a bill?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. The amendment is unacceptable.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The amendment meets none of the requirements for a reasoned amendment, either in form or in purport. "It is not contrary to or opposed in any shape or form to the principle of Bill C-207, nor is it opposed to the progress of the bill."</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 17th ed., p. 527.</p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 278, c. 386.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, May 10, 1972, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2804_03/190">pp. 2152-6</a>.</p> </div>