Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Relevance

Instruction to committee

Journals pp. 136-8

Debates pp. 1399-400

Background

During debate on the motion of Mr. Benson (Minister of Finance) to refer "the White Paper entitled Proposals for Tax Reform . . . to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs", Mr. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition) proposed an amendment. The purpose of the amendment was to instruct the committee "to develop alternatives to the proposed disincentives [which affect] middle income groups and small businesses in particular, and which increase the vulnerability of Canadian enterprise to foreign takeovers". The Deputy Speaker took the matter under advisement in order to consult with the Speaker. Later that day, the Speaker expressed his reservations on the acceptability of the amendment and heard comments from Members before making his ruling.

Issue

Is an amendment of instruction acceptable when proposed to a motion seeking to refer a document to a committee?

Decision

No. The amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

It is difficult to imagine in order any amendment which might be proposed to "this type of very simple and basic motion to the effect that a certain document be referred to a committee". Certainly such an amendment "would have to be relevant to and have the effect of amending the main question. It must not seek to amend the question which the motion would refer to the committee for consideration." The proposed amendment "endeavours to reach behind the motion and attempts to direct the committee to consider certain propositions which would appear to be outside the scope or the content of the motion". As such, it raises a new and substantive question which can only be moved after the appropriate notice.

Sources cited

Standing Order 47.

References

Debates, November 28, 1969, pp. 1376-83, 1395-9.