Rules of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: admissibility; rule of anticipation

June 11, 2014

Debates, p. 6649

On June 11, 2014, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order during Routine Proceedings after Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) moved that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be granted the power to divide Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. Mr. Van Loan noted that the motion was substantially the same as another motion to divide the Bill which had been moved and adjourned on May 26, 2014.^[1] In his view, the motion offended the rule of anticipation and was out of order. In response, Mr. Julian argued that the two motions were not identical and that the rule of anticipation had fallen into disuse.

Resolution

The Speaker ruled immediately. He confirmed that the two motions were substantially the same and ruled the motion out of order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I appreciate the points raised by both the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader. Upon examination of the section of O’Brien and Bosc upon which both House leaders have relied extensively for their arguments, it seems to the Chair that the key concept is the question of whether or not the motions are substantially the same.

Upon examination of both motions on the Notice Paper, it does seem that the motions are substantially the same and that the principles cited by the Government House Leader as to the practice of the House are persuasive to the Chair. Accordingly, we will not be proceeding with the motion at this time.