Financial Procedures / Business of ways and means
Budget: Economic and Fiscal Statement; amendment to a motion for a take-note debate on the Statement
Debates, p. 439
Context
On November 27, 2008, Jim Flaherty (Minister of Finance) delivered his Economic and Fiscal Statement in the House during “Statements by Ministers”. The following day, Gordon O’Connor (Minister of State and Chief Government Whip) moved that the House take note of the Economic and Fiscal Statement. On December 1, 2008, during debate on the motion, Scott Reid (Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington) rose on a point of order shortly after Pierre Paquette (Joliette) proposed an amendment to replace the words “take note of” with the word “condemns”. Mr. Reid argued the amendment was out of order as it exceeded the scope of the main motion. The Acting Speaker (Barry Devolin) allowed debate on the main motion to proceed while he took the matter under advisement.
Resolution
The Speaker delivered his ruling later in the sitting. Referring to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000 and citing a ruling he gave as Deputy Speaker in 1999, he stated that the proposed amendment was not relevant to and contradicted the main motion. Accordingly, he ruled the amendment out of order.
Decision of the Chair
The Speaker: Before continuing, I would like to inform the House of the Speaker’s opinion of the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Joliette. I must indicate that I have given consideration to the amendment and I have an opinion to express to the Chamber regarding its admissibility.
First, I must mention the quote from Marleau and Montpetit to which the hon. Member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington referred previously in the House. I will again quote the text from page 453:
An amendment must be relevant to the main motion. It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning and intent. An amendment should take the form of a motion to:
A list of what may be proposed by an amendment follows.
I must also cite a ruling I gave in 1999, when I was Deputy Speaker:
I am sure the hon. Member is aware that virtually any motion, except I believe an adjournment motion, put to the House is amendable. There may be a few others that are listed in the Standing Orders that are not but there are not many.
A motion, even on a take-note debate, it seems to me is an amendable motion. It may be that the question is not put but that is in accordance with the rule adopted by the House in relation to this debate. Accordingly amendments are amendments. As long as they are relevant to the main motion and do not contradict the main motion and as long as they are not repugnant to it generally they are ruled to be in order.
In my opinion, the proposed amendment, which replaces the words “take note of” with the word “condemns” is not relevant to the main motion. In my opinion, this motion contradicts the main motion. Therefore it is not in order at this time.
Postscript
Debate resumed on the main motion and on December 1, 2008, Leon Benoit (Vegreville–Wainwright) moved that the question be now put.[1] Debate then arose on the motion of Mr. Benoit and continued until December 4, 2008 when Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) rose on a point of order to read the proclamation proroguing the First Session of the Fortieth Parliament.[2]