The Chair is prepared to make a ruling on the acceptability of the amendment introduced earlier today by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
I must begin by saying that the Chair has concerns regarding this amendment.
These concerns arose particularly out of the colourful language the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough chose to incorporate into the amendment. To an independent Chair it is always a shock to see language like this in a motion before the House.
However I have survived the shock and I have decided to examine some of the precedents I know the hon. member will be interested in hearing about, some of which were found in Marleau and Montpetit in the section describing the acceptability of reasoned amendments.
I refer hon. members to a situation that occurred in 1971. The reference can be found on page 7764 of the Hansard for that date. The hon. member for Edmonton West, Mr. Lambert, proposed an amendment to a bill on income tax.
The amendment he moved reads as follows:
That all the words after “That” be struck out and the following substituted:
“this House deeply concerned with unacceptable levels of inflation, persisting unemployment and stagnant industry and conscious of the necessity for meaningful tax reform declines to give second reading to a bill which does not provide sufficient stimulus to the economy of Canada with appropriate tax cuts and incentives, does not contain adequate tax exemptions and is not calculated to materially improve business and labour conditions in Canada now or in the foreseeable future.”
The amendment provoked a lengthy debate on its procedural acceptability following which Mr. Speaker Lamoureux indicated his concerns about the acceptability of the amendment but ultimately decided to admit it. He said among other things:
Hon. members have recognized that it is difficult for the Chair to rule on the procedural aspect of reasoned amendments. Hon. members who have participated in this very interesting procedural debate have suggested, or some of them have, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to propose acceptable reasoned amendments. I cannot entirely agree with this suggestion. If hon. members will look into the records of our House of Commons they will note that during most of our parliamentary history so-called reasoned amendments have been proposed on rare occasions only. It seems that only during the last few years have members started to use this device, that is, the device of reasoned amendment, on second or third reading of bills.
Obviously that was then and this is now. However the fact is that we do have these a little more often but normally the amendments are ones for the six month hoist or that the bill be sent to a committee or not be accepted for some specific reason.
The hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough moved:
That all the words after “that” be deleted and the following be substituted,
“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-55 because it constitutes an autocratic power grab by the Liberal government at the expense of parliamentary oversight and the civil liberties of Canadians.”
As I indicated at the outset, I have concerns regarding the terms used by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in the text of his amendment. Despite this, and with some reservation, I have decided that the amendment was in order and I am now putting it to the House.
Accordingly, the debate is on the amendment.