UPDATED - Omnibudget Watch: Surprise! An eleventh hour reasoned amendment debate!

Moments ago, NDP finance critic Peggy Nash deployed what is quite possibly the very last procedural ace up the collective sleeve of the opposition: a reasoned amendment that would delete the entire bill, and replace it with text condemning pretty much every aspect thereof. 

Although traditionally moved at second reading, the parliamentary rulebook permits a reasoned amendment to be put forward at third reading provided that it "deals strictly with the bill" and is not "contrary to the principle ... as adopted at second reading."

Whether or not the motion before the House falls within those parameters is, of course, for the speaker to decide, but given the fate of the hundreds of deletion amendments that went down to defeat during last week's marathon report stage vote, even if the motion is ruled in order, it's unlikely to succeed -- nor will it delay the progress of the bill through the final vote and onward to the Senate.

The omnibudget bill is, after all, still under time allocation, thanks to the motion passed last week, which set aside just 8 hours for third reading. When moved at second reading, time allocation covers all votes required to dispose of that stage, including any sparked by reasoned or hoist amendments. That would mean that the House would still be bound by the original deadline, with the best case scenario for the NDP a full vote on the reasoned amendment itself. 

In any case, we'll see how the speaker rules. Stay tuned! 

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"this House declines to give third reading to Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, because this House:

a)   does not know the full implications of the budget cuts given that the government has kept the details of the $5.2 billion in spending cuts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer whose  lawyer  Joseph Magnet says

      the government is violating the Federal Accountability Act law and should turn the information over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer;

b)   is concerned with the impact of the changes in the Bill  on Canadian society such as:

i.   making  it more difficult for Canadians to access Employment Insurance when they need it  and forcing them to accept jobs at 70% of what they previously earned or lose their EI;

ii.   raising the age of eligibility for Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement from 65 to 67 years and thus driving thousands of Canadians into poverty while downloading spending to the provinces;

iii.   cutting  back the federal  health transfers to the provinces from 2017 on, which will result in a loss of $31 billion to the health care system; and

iv.   gutting the federal environmental assessment regime and  weakening  fish habitat protection which  will adversely  affect Canada's environmental sustainability for generations to come; and

c)  is opposed to the removal of critical oversight powers of the Auditor General over a  dozen agencies and the systematic concentration of powers in the hands of Government ministers  over agencies such as the

    National Energy Board which weakens Canadian's confidence in the work of parliament,  decreases transparency and erodes fundamental democratic institutions by systematically eroding institutional checks and

    balances to the government's ideological driven agenda.