Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Relevance

Beyond scope of motion; substantive motion

Journals pp. 493-4

Debates p. 3164

Background

During debate on the motion by Mr. Pinard (President of the Privy Council) to adjourn the House for the summer, Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa) moved an amendment asking the House to pronounce itself on certain aspects of the building of a portion of the northern pipeline and on the subsequent financial guarantees before the House adjourned. After hearing comments from Members, the Deputy Speaker reserved his ruling on the question of the admissibility of the amendment. The Speaker ruled later the same day.

Issue

Is the proposed amendment relevant to the main motion?

Decision

No. Therefore, the amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The proposed amendment raises a question completely foreign to the one contained in the main motion. Since it involves an amendment which represents a new proposition of a substantive nature, notice is required before it can be debated.

Sources cited

Journals, July 7, 1967, p. 330.

Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 155, c. 437.

References

Debates, July 21, 1980, pp. 3155-6.