Routine Proceedings / Motions

Committee report; rule of anticipation

Journals pp. 1289-90

Debates pp. 10779-80

Background

On July 2, when Mr. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) was about to move a motion under Government Notices of Motion, Mr. Baldwin (Peace River) rose on a point of order. He maintained that this government motion, which provided for rules under the Standing Orders for the application of time allocation on public bills, was identical in substance, though not in all particulars, to a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. By virtue of the British practice with respect to anticipation, Mr. Baldwin argued that the government motion should not be considered since the motion for concurrence in the report of the committee was already on the Order Paper. The Speaker heard arguments from Members and ruled the next day.

Issue

Can the Government set down a motion having substantially the same content as that contained in a committee report that has been presented to the House, but is not yet concurred in?

Decision

Yes, the Government can set down such a motion. The Speaker has had to decide whether it is procedurally in order to transfer the Minister's motion for debate. The Chair, on its own initiative, cannot determine which of two similar motions has priority. [The Minister's motion was transferred to Government Orders and ordered for consideration later that day.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

Arguments raised against the Government's motion are founded largely on the rule of anticipation. Unfortunately, Canadian precedents concerning this rule are not sufficiently clear and British practice is based on a specific Standing Order. Even with respect to British practice, it would appear that the rule of anticipation relates to "discussion or debate of a matter already set down, and not to the setting down itself of an item of business on the Order Paper". The Standing Orders are perfectly clear that a Minister can transfer his Notice of Motion for debate under Government Orders. "Once the motion has been transferred for debate under Government Orders it becomes the Government's decision and responsibility to decide whether it will proceed with its motion. It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the Minister's motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report." The House has been at liberty for several days to proceed with this motion for concurrence. Indeed, it could be moved later this day. On the other hand, the notice of motion for concurrence cannot be used to "block" consideration of the Government's notice of motion. It is suggested that the question of priority should not be confused with the rule of anticipation.

Sources cited

Standing Order 21.

May, 17th ed., pp. 399-400.

Campion, Gilbert, Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 3rd ed., (London, 1958), p. 180.

References

Debates, June 27, 1969, pp. 10693-4; July 2, 1969, pp. 10731-8.