Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

UPDATED: It came from the floor of the Commons: The Bloc Quebecois Subamendment

by kadyomalley on Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:02pm - 26 Comments

Not that it has much chance of being passed, mind you, but since the first vote takes place later today, I figured we should at least know the substance of the motion itself, aside from the political optics of it being the First Vote on the Budget:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “on condition that the Government” and substituting the following:

“maintain the right of women to settle pay equity issues in court, and abandon its preference for tax cuts for the well off, instead redistributing this revenue to the neediest members of our society, particularly by responding to the unanimous demands of the National Assembly of Quebec as formulated in the motion adopted on January 15, 2009, to assist workers, communities and businesses hit by the economic slowdown, support at-risk sectors, particularly manufacturing and forestry, in the same way as the automobile industry, and enhance the employment insurance program by making the eligibility criteria more flexible, and on condition that it maintain the equalization program in its current form and relinquish the idea of setting up a pan-Canadian securities commission.”.

UPDATE:
According to Gilles Duceppe, this motion “basically repeats the motion passed unanimously in the National Assembly, along with a few other elements.” Further, “when the time comes to vote on it, all the members from Quebec will face a very clear choice: a choice for or against Quebec. All Quebec members who vote against this amendment to the amendment and in favour of the Conservative budget will be choosing Canada over Quebec.”

Tags: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Alan

    Holy Run-On-Sentence Batman! Seriously, can’t we get these statements broken down to actual normal sized sentences? Is there some rule that says every motion needs to be one sentence?

  • Sophie

    Yeah…. I’m thinking Not Passing.

    • Critical Reasoning

      That’s sort of the point, isn’t it? The motion passed unanimously in the National Assembly, so when it fails in the House of Commons, Duceppe will be able to whine that none of the other parties give a tinker’s damn about Quebec’s interests.

  • Andrew (not Potter or Coyne)

    Revenge of the S(overeign)ith?

    • archangel

      Pithy indeed.

  • Greg

    Make the rich pay. Where have I seen that before…

  • http://macleans.ca kc

    Iggy was voluntarily heading into the govts embrace why did Jack in particular feel the need to give him a shove? Way to burn yr bridges Jack.
    A new fed power on the horizon in Quebec??

  • http://carnewsandviews.com jwl

    It is hard to know whether this amendment will pass or not because Harper has been prostrating himself before Quebec since day one. And it’s a bit cheeky for anyone from Quebec to be making complaints about not doing very well with corporate welfare when four of the top five companies that receive government money are based in Quebec.

  • Derek Pearce

    Among the many things to be criticized about this “subamendment”, what the hell does not establishing one national securities monitor have to do with protecting the poorest or those hardest hit by the slow down? At least with this one thing they should have the guts to say it’s about pure separatism instead of social conscience.

    • John D

      Exactly what I was wondering. I could see a remote chance of this passing if it weren’t for the stupid securities thing.

  • Sisyphus

    For those keeping a ” compare & contrast ” list , That One down south signed an Equal Pay bill today.

  • madeyoulook

    I don’t know enough M&M, but I know a little of Robert’s Rules. And under Robert’s, this subamendment is DOA. Any proposed (sub)amendment to an amendment that basically throws out the original and replaces it with something else entirely is out of order. You vote to accept or reject amendment number one, then feel free to propose amendment number two.

    Anyone familiar enough with M&M care to clarify? Kady?

    • archangel

      They melt in your mouth, not in your hands.

    • Politicrack Junkie

      This is what the Marleau-Montpetit says:

      http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_d_budgetdebate-e.htm

      “Amendments to the Budget Motion
      [...]
      Only one amendment and one subamendment may be proposed to the Budget motion.

      On the first day of resumed debate on the Budget motion, the opposition Member who had previously moved the adjournment of the budget debate, continues with his or her speech and traditionally moves an amendment at the end of the speech. The next speaker, a Member of the next largest opposition party, typically moves a subamendment at the end of his or her speech.

      On the second day of debate, the Speaker interrupts the proceedings 15 minutes before the expiry of time provided for government business to put the question to dispose of any subamendment.

      On the third day of debate, the Speaker interrupts the proceedings, as on the second day, and puts the question on any amendment under consideration.

      On the fourth day of debate, unless debate has already concluded, the Speaker likewise interrupts the proceedings to put the question on the main motion.”

      So the Bloc sub-amendment was completely in order. It was voted down, but that doesn’t matter because it doesn’t really impact the Liberal motion anyways. Tomorrow, the Lib amendment will be up for vote, and I suspect it will pass through with at least the Tories and the Libs.

      • madeyoulook

        Thanks, PJ. And yet, M&M also says:

        http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_debatevoting-e.htm#6

        A subamendment is an amendment proposed to an amendment. Subamendments must be strictly relevant to the amendment and seek to modify the amendment, not the original question. In most cases, there is no limit on the number of amendments which may be moved; however, only one amendment and one subamendment may be before the House at any one time.

        I cannot reconcile your “doesn’t really impact the Liberal [amendment] anyways” with the rules’ “must be strictly relevant to the amendment.” I still don’t see why the Speaker didn’t just toss it out.

  • Critical Reasoning

    Duceppe is paddling furiously now that Ignatieff is poised to become the most popular federal politician in Quebec. Already, the seperatists (oops, sorry, souverainistes) are trying to stir up anti-Canada sentiment to counter the perceived Liberal threat.

    Hopefully Duceppe decides to retire soon and is replaced by some Boisclair-style fool who sinks the Bloc into political oblivion.

    • archangel

      How do you say ‘messiah’ in Quebecois?

      • Clarence Seunarine

        La Messie.

        • Jarrid

          It’s Messie as you say CS but with a masculine pronoun.

          • Clarence Seunarine

            Oui, c’est vrai. Je me suis trompé.

  • Wascally Wabbit

    I’m not really sure what Roberts rules have to do with Parliamentary amendments and sub-amendments – I thought they were to do with associations that wished to maintain good order! ;-)
    And this lot certainly don’t!

  • sf

    Same-old same-old. Why don’t they just make it illegal to be rich?

  • Jenn

    Okay, wait a minute. Apart from the very last line, this is exactly what I want in an amendment to the budget. Can somebody please explain to me why the other opposition parties can’t motion for their own amendment? Is it only possible to have one amendment on a bill?

    Keep the reporting requirements. Add in the EI eligibility. Remove changes to pay equity. Dump the tax cuts in favour of the above. I don’t really care which party amends with which item, as long as the whole thing happens.

    Hey real conservatives. My suggested tweaks will cost less than the budget as it is written. So why not even have a Conservative backbencher make a motion to amend?

    I know Duceppe has to word it so that its all about Quebec and all that, but (except for the last line) everything else helps everybody all across Canada. Why can’t you all see that, or what am I missing?

    • Critical Reasoning

      What you’re missing is that this is a slapdash, vague, poorly worded amendment that nakedly panders to Quebecers’ key industries (forestry and manufacturing) while insisting that the equalization program “remains in its current form”. (There is much consternation in Quebec that Ontario will soon receive its first equalization payment, and Quebec’s share of the equalization loot will decline by a billion dollars.)

      Also, you may have noticed that the amendment relies on vague, empty symbolism, as opposed to useful specifics. Another strike against the amendment: it was crafted as a political time bomb. The “securities commission” poison pill encourages the bill’s defeat, which the Bloc will point to as proof that all the other parties hate Quebec.

      , the intention being that when the amendment’s defeat is assured by including that securities commission poison pill

      • Critical Reasoning

        Ignore the last line… I really need to slow down and proofread before I hit submit :)

Previous

Next

From Macleans