Rules of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: amendment; beyond the scope

September 29, 2005

Debates, p. 8230

On September 29, 2005, Mauril Bélanger (Minister for International Trade, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for Official Languages and Associate Minister of National Defence) rose on a point of order with respect to an amendment moved by Pierre Paquette (Joliette) to Motion M-164 standing in the name of Paul Crête (Montmagny–L’Islet–Kamouraska–Rivière-du-Loup), regarding assistance to the textile and clothing industries. The Minister argued that the amendment was out of order because it expanded the scope of the Motion, inasmuch as it placed before the House a new proposition which should have been the subject of a separate motion, rather than restricting the field of debate, as an amendment is intended to do. The amendment, the Minister argued, included a whole series of issues which required more analysis and consultation, and which went beyond the scope of the original Motion. Another Member also spoke to the matter.^[1]

The Speaker ruled immediately. He agreed that the amendment exceeded the scope of the Motion by introducing propositions that were broader than and different from the original proposition. Thus, it was a new proposition which should properly have been the subject of a separate substantive motion with notice. Consequently, he ruled the amendment out of order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I have listened to the arguments presented by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Bloc Québécois House Leader. I greatly appreciate their assistance on this matter. It was a bit tricky but I believe that there is another quote that may be significant on page 453 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if:

it is not relevant to the main motion—

That is not at issue here.

—(i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion or exceeds the scope of the motion, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice).

What is at issue here is that the motion makes the following proposition:

That… the government should establish, in compliance with international agreements, a policy of assistance to the textile and clothing industries in order to enable the industries to compete throughout the world, particularly by—

That was one proposition. Now, we have an amendment that introduces 11 other propositions and eliminates the only proposition contained in the main motion. As a result, I have some reservations, particularly when we consider the propositions that are being made. As I mentioned, there are 11 of them, and they are much broader than and very different from the initial proposition, which was to broaden the Technology Partnerships Canada Program to include these two sectors. I am concerned about that aspect.

Consequently, I am inclined to rule in favour of the argument presented by the hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. In my opinion, the amendment is out of order. Perhaps another amendment will be made. However, it is my belief, to quote once again from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it is because the amendment “introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a substantive motion with notice”.