Financial Procedures / Supply

Opposition motion: amendment exceeding the scope of the motion

March 26, 1992

Debates, pp. 8876-7

On March 26, 1992, during the consideration of an opposition motion standing in the name of Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North) that expressed the concern of the House about threats to Canada's health care system inherent in the avowed intention of certain Liberal premiers to abandon the principle of universality and to charge user fees, Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North) moved an amendment to the effect that the health care system was also threatened by measures taken by certain New Democratic premiers to close health care centres and reduce the services offered at others, as a direct result of the federal Government's withdrawal from its support to Canada 's health care system. The Deputy Speaker (Hon. Andrée Champagne) took the amendment under advisement.^[1] Shortly thereafter, she indicated to the House that the amendment posed procedural difficulties and that she would hear argument after the period for questions and comments following the remarks by Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona).^[2] When the occasion occurred, Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury) argued that the main motion introduced the idea of incumbent governments and that the amendment simply clarified the nature of the threat referred to in the motion. Other Members also intervened on the matter. The Deputy Speaker asked the indulgence of the House to study the new arguments.^[3] The debate continued. Before suspending the sitting for the mid-day interruption, the Deputy Speaker informed the House that she would consult the Speaker and that a decision would be delivered following Question Period.^[4] Immediately following the weekly statement of business, Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) rose on a point of order to state that if the amendment were deemed to exceed the scope of Standing Order 81(11) because it did not deal with a matter falling under the jurisdiction of the federal Government, then the Chair would also have to find the main motion inadmissible. Other Members took part in the discussion.^[5] The Speaker left the chair to consider the matter. On his return, he delivered his decision which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: As honourable Members know, shortly after Question Period there was a further extension of a point of order which had been brought this morning relating to the amendment by the Official Opposition to the motion which has been proposed in this allotted day by the New Democratic Party. As I say, there was argument this morning and further argument this afternoon. I, of course, am indebted to all honourable Members for their contribution. By the way, I have read back through the arguments that were made this morning.

The Chair has considered the arguments that were raised earlier today by honourable Members on the proposed amendment by the honourable Member for Winnipeg North. As stated in Erskine May 21st Edition, page 339:

The effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question.

I am going to repeat that:

The effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question.

The honourable Member for Sudbury pointed out that the intention of the amendment was to expand the scope of the debate, and although it may be a laudable objective, unfortunately it is, in my view, out of order procedurally.

Other Members, including the Members for Winnipeg Transcona and Winnipeg North, mentioned a new proposition being introduced or made reference to Citation 929 of Beauchesne Sixth Edition. The Chair feels the amendment must not provide the basis for a different debate.

Furthermore, as explained in the Chair's ruling of March 16, 1971, when the opposition parties agree on the choice of subject for an allotted day, and I am quoting Speaker Lamoureux: […]"the spirit of fair play would require that the day [should] not be taken away by means of an amendment".^[6]

The Standing Order requiring notice would be pointless if, after notice had been given, the motion were amended to make possible the consideration of an entirely new facet of the question.

There was further argument given of course this afternoon and I certainly listened to it, but I do not think I need to make further comment than what I have done. As a consequence, for these reasons I will have to rule the amendment out of order. That of course does not preclude another amendment being moved.

F0612-e

34-3

1992-03-26