Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Relevance

Subamendment

Debates p. 2070

Background

During debate on an amendment of Mr. Mazankowski (Vegreville) to a supply day non-confidence motion of Mr. Fortin (Lotbinière), Mr. Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) proposed a subamendment condemning the Government for failing to pursue policies of full employment and for failing to amend regulations governing employment training. Mr. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) objected that the subamendment was inconsistent with the thrust of the original motion, which sought to condemn the Government for raising false hopes among the young whose talents were being under-utilized. After some discussion, the Deputy Speaker ruled.

Issue

In this case, is the subamendment relevant to the amendment and to the original motion?

Decision

Yes, the subamendment is in order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The thrust of the main motion appears to address the steps the Government might take with regard to unemployment among youth. The subamendment is consistent with this motion and with the amendment moved to it. While various remedies may be available to the Government, the thread of the problem has been followed throughout the debate, having been established in the main motion and continued in the amendment and now in the subamendment.

References

Debates, December 15, 1970, pp. 2066-70.