Precedence and Sequence / Rule of Anticipation

Rule of anticipation

Journals pp. 165-7

Debates pp. 1944-5

Background

At commencement of consideration of supply proceedings, Mr. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) rose on a point of order regarding a motion of non-confidence standing in the name of Mr. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition), which condemned the Budget proposals made in May 1972 and February 1973, relating to corporate tax reductions and accelerated depreciation write-offs. Mr. MacEachen alleged that the motion now before the House dealt with a matter similar to one considered and decided by the House during the recent Budget debate when the House approved the general budgetary policy of the Government. After listening to Members' comments, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Can a motion be proposed if its subject-matter appears to have been previously considered and decided by the House?

Decision

Not under most circumstances; however, given the latitude allowed to subjects raised during the Budget debate and the consequent concern that this particular question may not have been decided, the benefit of the doubt is given to the mover of the motion.

Reasons given by the Speaker

Many citations and precedents support the rule that the House may not be asked to vote twice on the same question during the same session. However, the Standing Order that allows non-confidence motions to be moved on opposition days is broadly phrased and the Opposition has wide scope in choosing matters to be proposed. ". . . the Speaker should not intervene to prevent debate, or a vote, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular." When both sides of a procedural question may reasonably be argued, the Chair has a duty to accept the motion and allow the House to decide.

Sources cited:

Standing Order 58(3).

Debates, January 29, 1969, p. 4901.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 168-9, c. 201.

References:

Debates, March 6, 1973, pp. 1936-44.