Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Subamendment Relevant to Amendment

Subamendment relevant to amendment

Journals p. 286

Debates pp. 3121-2

Background

During debate on an amendment proposed to the second reading of Bill C-49, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, which replaced all the words after “That” with the following:

"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-49, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax, because it fails to provide for a further 5 per cent reduction in personal income tax in the 1975 and subsequent taxation years despite unprecedented government revenues and the resulting overtaxation by the government”.

Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa—Whitby) proposed a subamendment seeking to substitute the words “a further 5 per cent reduction” with the words “a $400 tax credit”. Mr. Turner (Minister of Finance) rose on a point of order and objected to the proposal since it anticipated a clause in the bill. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner) heard arguments before making his decision.

Issue

Does the subamendment introduce a new and different proposition than that contained in the amendment which would require that it be moved as an amendment? If not, is it relevant?

Decision

The subamendment is in order.

Reasons given by the Acting Speaker

The Chair has already accepted the reasoned amendment which this subamendment seeks to modify and finds that it meets the rule of relevancy.

References

Journals, February 11, 1975, p. 285.

Debates, February 11, 1975, pp. 3117-8.