Precedence and Sequence / Miscellaneous

Resolution; dividing complicated question

Journals p. 334

Debates pp. 3083-4

Background

Before the start of debate on the resolution concerning the abolition of capital punishment, moved jointly by Messrs. Byrne (Kootenay East), Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona), Scott (Danforth) and Stanbury (York­ Scarborough ), Mr. Allard (Sherbrooke) raised a point of order and asked the four Members if they would agree to divide their resolution into two parts for the purpose of the vote. When the Chair indicated that the question appeared to be hypothetical, Mr. Gregoire (Lapointe) raised a point of order, suggesting that the Speaker should take the initiative to divide the resolution. The Speaker reserved his ruling until later the same day.

Issue

Can the Chair divide the proposed resolution into two parts?

Decision

Not in this case. Any intervention by the Chair to amend the proposed resolution would be unjustified.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"There is only one proposition before the House . . . and the other aspects of the question are rather of a secondary nature and could not, in the circumstances, be separated from the initial proposition and made into separate resolutions. It is only in exceptional circumstances and when there is little doubt about it that the Speaker can intervene and, of his own initiative, amend the resolution proposed by a . . . Member."

References

Journals, March 21, 1966, p. 320.

Debates, March 23, 1966, pp. 3067-8.