Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Repetition

Amendment to Budget motion

Journals p. 565

Debates p. 5122

Background

During debate on the Budget presented by Mr. Sharp (Minister of Finance), Mr. Monteith (Perth) proposed to move an amendment regretting the Government's failure to manage the economy and its proposal to increase taxes. Rising on a point of order, Mr. Olson (Medicine Hat) objected to the amendment because its substance had been considered and decided by the House twice before (once on the occasion of an earlier Budget) during the session. After allowing some comments from Members, the Deputy Speaker ruled.

Issue

Can an amendment be proposed to a Budget motion even though its subject-matter is similar to others which have already been decided?

Decision

Yes. The amendment is in order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The traditional practice restricting the introduction of amendments similar to others already decided by the House during the same session, if they are to apply to the Budget debate, does not take into account the possibility of having more than one Budget in the year. Moreover, the amendment addresses the issue of a tax increase which was not an aspect discussed on the earlier occasion. To apply the traditional rule too strictly would even put into doubt the presentation of the second Budget now before the House; therefore, the amendment is allowed.

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 164-5, c. 194; pp. 167-8, c. 200.

References

Debates, December 6, 1967, pp. 5118-22.