Precedence and Sequence / Rule of Anticipation

Rule of anticipation

Journals pp. 1000-1

Debates pp. 10127-8

Background

During debate on the motion of Mr. Sharp (Minister of Finance) that the House go into Committee of Supply, Mr. Winkler (Grey-Bruce) proposed an amendment concerning Canada's pension system and old age security. The Speaker expressed some reservations about the acceptability of the amendment, since legislative measures on this subject, proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, were standing on the Order Paper. The Speaker heard arguments from the Members before giving his decision.

Issue

Is an amendment to a motion acceptable if it concerns a legislative measure already on the Order Paper?

Decision

No. The amendment is out of order.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Member is proposing a matter that might be decided later when the House discusses the motion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. "In applying the anticipation rule, preference is given to the discussions which lead to the most effective result, and this has established a descending scale of values for discussions - bills, motions, amendments, etc. Thus a bill must not be anticipated by ... discussion of a motion, amendment or subject raised on another motion."

Sources cited

Journals, February 7, 1955, pp. 119-20.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 116-7, c. 131; pp. 198-9, c. 234.

References

Debates, November 21, 1966, pp. 10118-27.