Rule of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: admissibility of an amendment contrary to the main motion

May 8, 2017

Debates, pp. 10898–9

On May 5, 2017, Patty Hajdu (Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour) moved that the House reject the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.^[1] During the debate, Pierre Poilievre (Carleton) proposed an amendment to the government motion. His amendment would, instead, have had the House concur in the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-4. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that Mr. Poilievre’s amendment was out of order, as adopting it would reverse the government’s intent. He invited members who opposed the rejection of the Senate’s amendments to vote against the government’s motion. Other members also rose to address the matter. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Carol Hughes) took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On May 8, 2017, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He agreed that the amendment was contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the motion’s defeat. He therefore ruled that it was out of order but added that his ruling did not prevent members from proposing amendments and subamendments in keeping with practice and precedent.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the admissibility of the amendment moved on Friday, May 5, 2017 by the hon. member for Carleton to the motion respecting the Senate amendments to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.

At the time, the Chair took the matter under advisement and committed to return to the House as quickly as possible with a ruling. Thereafter, the House leader of the official opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the member for Oxford made interventions on the matter, and I thank them for having done so.

The main motion would see the House disagree to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4. The amendment is intended to do the opposite. Specifically, it aims to see the House agree to the Senate amendments.

No precedent of such an amendment could be found; thus, it is up to the Chair to rule on its admissibility.

Amendments are an integral part of the process of debate but are subject to certain limitations. Page 533 of the second edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: “An amendment must be relevant to the motion it seeks to amend.”

In this case, it is clear that the proposed amendment is indeed relevant to the main motion. However, House of Commons Procedure and Practice also states, on the same page, that an “amendment is out of order procedurally, if … it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion”.

I notice that the House leader of the official opposition has argued that the effect of adopting the amendment at hand in this case is different.

That being said, since there are no clear precedents allowing the Chair to accept the amendment, I would refer members to what is written at page 792 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , and I quote:

The motion for the consideration of Senate amendments is itself open to amendment and subamendment during debate. Members opposed to Senate amendments may move reasoned amendments to them.

While the member has proposed an amendment that is not in keeping with the procedural criteria outlined earlier, other types of amendments could be envisioned that would be more in keeping with precedents and practice. Accordingly, I find the amendment to be out of order. Debate will therefore continue on the main motion.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.