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 14, 1971</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2803_117_01/504?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 554-5</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_06/284?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 5830-1</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-244, an Act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds ..., Mr. Burton (Regina East) moved that the bill be withdrawn and that the Government consider the introduction of a new bill that would increase the amount of proposed special transitional payments to western grain farmers and relate the proposed grain stabilization plan to an adequate level of farm income. The Deputy Speaker expressed initial reservations about whether the motion was a reasoned amendment and invited the assistance of the House. Some Members argued that the scale and magnitude of the measures contained in the amendment suggested a difference in the principle of Bill C-244.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Does the amendment qualify as a reasoned amendment?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No, and is therefore out of order.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">At second reading stage a reasoned amendment must oppose the principle of the bill, which the proposed amendment does not do. "... the principle of the bill relates to the proposition that there should be a transitional payment of an amount of money to the people who will benefit under the bill, and that a fund should be established for further stabilization." The amendment proposes an increase rather than an objection to that part of the bill. "It [also] suggests a change in the grain stabilization plan but not opposition to the principle of the plan itself."</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">May, 17th ed., pp. 526-7.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, May 14, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_06/279">pp. 5825-30</a>.</p> </div>