Point of Order
March 26, 1992
Opposition motion: amendment exceeding the scope of the motion
Hon. John Fraser
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
Mr. Speaker:
As honourable Members know, shortly after Question Period there was a further extension of a point of order which had been brought this morning relating to the amendment by the Official Opposition to the motion which has been proposed in this allotted day by the New Democratic Party. As I say, there was argument this morning and further argument this afternoon. I, of course, am indebted to all honourable Members for their contribution. By the way, I have read back through the arguments that were made this morning.
The Chair has considered the arguments that were raised earlier today by honourable Members on the proposed amendment by the honourable Member for Winnipeg North. As stated in Erskine May 21st Edition, page 339:
The effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question.
I am going to repeat that:
The effect of moving an amendment is to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question.
The honourable Member for Sudbury pointed out that the intention of the amendment was to expand the scope of the debate, and although it may be a laudable objective, unfortunately it is, in my view, out of order procedurally.
Other Members, including the Members for Winnipeg Transcona and Winnipeg North, mentioned a new proposition being introduced or made reference to Citation 929 of Beauchesne Sixth Edition. The Chair feels the amendment must not provide the basis for a different debate.
Furthermore, as explained in the Chair's ruling of March 16, 1971, when the opposition parties agree on the choice of subject for an allotted day, and I am quoting Speaker Lamoureux: [...]"the spirit of fair play would require that the day [should] not be taken away by means of an amendment".
[6]
The Standing Order requiring notice would be pointless if, after notice had been given, the motion were amended to make possible the consideration of an entirely new facet of the question.
There was further argument given of course this afternoon and I certainly listened to it, but I do not think I need to make further comment than what I have done. As a consequence, for these reasons I will have to rule the amendment out of order. That of course does not preclude another amendment being moved.
F0612-e 34-3 1992-03-26.
[1]
Debates, March 26, 1992, pp. 8826 and 8835.
[2]
Debates, March 26, 1992, p. 8845.
[3]
Debates, March 26, 1992, pp. 8847-8.
[4]
Debates, March 26, 1992, p. 8854.
[5]
Debates, March 26, 1992, pp. 8869-71.
[6]
Debates, March 16, 1971, p. 4306.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"The proposed amendment to the allotted day motion is ruled out of order because it improperly expands the scope of the debate and introduces a new proposition."
AI Summary
The Speaker ruled an amendment to an allotted day motion out of order because it improperly expanded the scope of debate, citing Erskine May and Beauchesne on the restrictive nature of amendments.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High