Selected Decisions of Speaker Gilbert Parent 1994 - 2001
Financial Procedures / Supply
Opposition motion: amendment changing the scope of the debate
Debates, pp. 17217-8
Context
During the business of supply and the debate on the motion of Francine Lalonde (Mercier) on unemployment insurance reform, Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast) moved an amendment. The Acting Speaker (Bob Kilger) declared that he would take under advisement the proposed amendment and make a ruling as soon as possible.[1]
Resolution
Later that day, the Deputy Speaker delivered his ruling. The proposed amendment was ruled out of order as it would significantly change the nature of the debate.
Decision of the Chair
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair has been asked to rule on the validity of the amendment made earlier today by the honourable member for Calgary Southeast. Her amendment reads:
That all the words be deleted after the word “prevents” and be replaced with the words “the governments of all the provinces of Canada from adopting a true labour market training policy of their own”.
The motion of the official opposition reads:
That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the manpower sector and thus prevents the government of Quebec from adopting a true manpower development policy of its own.
Under the circumstances the Chair must rule the proposed amendment is not valid within our rules. Briefly, the reasons are that the amendment would change the nature of the debate significantly in two respects. First, the official opposition’s motion focuses on Quebec only, as it is entitled to do, whereas the amendment enlarges the debate to all of the provinces.
Second, the official opposition’s motion refers to manpower development policy whereas the amendment proposed by the member for Calgary Southeast refers to labour market training policy.
On page 257 of Beauchesne 6th edition, citation 929 reads:
On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of supply, an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that proposed in the original motion. Journals, March 16, 1971, p. 416.
Accordingly, and with thanks to the member for Calgary Southeast for her submission, the Chair must rule the amendment is not receivable and not valid under our rules.
P0602-e
35-1
1995-12-05
Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.