Amendment to motion in amendment

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Amendments to the Content of Bills / Report Stage</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>October 4, 1971</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2803_117_01/784">pp. 848-50</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_08/663?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 8397-8</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On September 22, during consideration at report stage of Bill C-244, an Act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds ..., and of the motion in amendment moved by Mr. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar) to include increased production costs in calculating the proceeds of grain sales, Mr. Howard (Skeena) moved as an amendment that increased production costs be calculated on the basis of the crop year ending July 31, 1970. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel) asked for time to study the question. On September 24, the Deputy Speaker, still dubious as to the acceptability of Mr. Howard's amendment, invited Members' comments. On October 4, after hearing further comments, the Deputy Speaker ruled.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Can an amendment seek to modify a motion in amendment?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Yes; therefore the amendment is acceptable.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Despite initial doubts about the original motion in amendment, Members consented to proceed, and the Chair was satisfied that such a motion could properly be put before the House. The matter now before the House is the procedural acceptability of the amendment proposed to hat motion by Mr. Howard. This amendment does not exceed the scope of the motion in amendment nor does it substitute one method or principle for another. It must be accepted because it simply clarifies a text that might be somewhat difficult to interpret by itself and helps make the question before the House more comprehensible.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Standing Order 75(5).</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, June 22, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_07/605">pp. 7251-2</a>; September 22, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_08/355">p. 8089</a>; September 24, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_08/412">pp. 8146-53</a>; October 4, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_08/659">pp. 8393-7</a>.</p> </div>