Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Supply Day

December 10, 1984

Debates pp. 1070-1

During consideration of a Supply day opposition motion moved by Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa), Mr. Turner (Leader of the Opposition) proposed an amendment to the main motion. Mr. Broadbent's motion asked that the House take note of the text of a United Nations Resolution on a nuclear-arms freeze and called upon the Government to adopt it as policy. Mr. Turner's amendment proposed that the last line, asking for the change in government policy, be deleted and replaced by a call for the Government to ask that certain considerations be included on the agenda of the two superpowers. The Speaker heard arguments from the three parties and then ruled immediately.

Issue

Is the amendment in order?

Decision

No. The amendment is not acceptable.

Reasons given by the Speaker

There are two principles which are central to the traditions of the House concerning motions put forward for debate on Supply days. The first is that an amendment must not change the direction or impact or thrust of the main motion. The second is the spirit of fair play which requires that the allotted day should not be taken away from the mover of the motion by means of an amendment moved by another Member. The effect of the motion put forward by Mr. Turner is to change the subject of the debate so radically as to offend against the traditions of Supply days.

When deciding whether an amendment is in order as an amendment, notwithstanding whether or not it negates the motion, there is another test which can be used as a simple rule of thumb, that is to see whether the amendment could stand alone as a separate motion and be debated separately. Mr. Turner's motion could form an additional motion for another day.