Amendments and Subamendments to Motions / Relevance

Subamendment

Journals p. 361

Debates p. 3313

Background

During debate on the motion concerning the abolition of capital punishment proposed jointly by Messrs. Byrne (Kootenay East), Nugent (Edmonton­Strathcona), Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury (York-Scarborough), Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) moved an amendment to retain capital punishment for murder committed by those in prison for life. Mr. Laflamme (Quebec­ Montmorency) proposed a subamendment to retain capital punishment for certain other categories of offence. The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rinfret) expressed doubt about the acceptability of the subamendment, and reserved decision. The Speaker, upon returning to the Chair, ruled.

Issue

Is the subamendment relevant to the amendment?

Decision

No, the subamendment is therefore out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Member's proposal "is under the form of an amendment to the main motion rather than a subamendment".

Sources cited

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 171, c. 203(1).

References

Journals, March 28, 1966, pp. 360-1.

Debates, March 28, 1966, pp. 3296-9.