Point of Order
May 13, 1977
Amendment beyond scope of motion
Hon. James Jerome
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
<div class="DecisionMain" role="main">
<p class="decision-chapter">Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Amendment Beyond Scope of Motion</p>
<p class="d-DecisionDate">
<time>May 13, 1977</time>
</p>
<p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_3002_122_01/734">pp. 794-6</a></p>
<p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3002_06/260?r=0&s=1">pp. 5650-1</a></p>
<div>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2>
</div>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">During debate on a Supply Day motion proposed by Mr. Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby) urging the government to accept the principal recommendation of the Berger Report and to defer construction of a Mackenzie Valley Pipeline for at least ten years, Mr. Clark (Leader of the Opposition) moved an amendment "to appoint a special committee of the House to consider the recommendations of the Berger Report and all other reports, studies and recommendations relevant to the building of a northern pipeline and the method of settlement of native land claims, and urges that no commitment in principle be made to build a northern pipeline without parliamentary approval." Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) rose on a point of order and objected that the amendment introduced a totally new proposition and required notice.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Is the amendment acceptable or does it introduce a new proposition?</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The amendment is out of order.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The main motion is very clear and definite. “The motion asks the House to accept a particular recommendation of the Berger Report”.</p>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The amendment, on the other hand, “seeks to widen the scope of debate by asking the House, not simply to accept or reject the proposition contained in the main motion, but to consider whether the Berger Report ought to be studied by a committee of this House. That was not part of the main motion,” but is a new proposition.</p>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">By recommending the study of documents in addition to the Berger Report, "the amendment travels even farther beyond the rather narrow confines of the motion".</p>
<p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Finally, “the amendment proposes that the House pronounce itself on the proposition that no commitment in principle be made for or against the building of a northern pipeline without parliamentary approval.” This is clearly a new proposition.</p>
<h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2>
<p class="MsoNormal">Debates, May 13, 1977, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC3002_06/244">pp. 5634-8</a>.</p>
</div>
Edit Metadata
Holding
"The amendment is inadmissible because it introduces a new proposition that is beyond the scope of the main motion."
AI Summary
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it was not relevant to and went beyond the scope of the original motion.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Sustained
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High
AI Keywords
Cited Authorities
- House of Commons Procedure and Practice (3rd Edition, 2017)
- Erskine May (25th Edition)