Precedence and Sequence / Rule of Anticipation

Rule of anticipation

Journals pp. 565-6

Debates p. 6746

Background

On September 19, Mr. Howard (Skeena) proposed to move concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Speaker reminded the House that a point of order concerning the rule of anticipation had been raised some months earlier on the same report and the same subject-matter (aboriginal rights) by Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands). The Speaker invited Mr. Howard to present his case, which the Chair would take under advisement.

Issue

Is it in order to move a motion similar to one already before the House?

Decision

While the motion can remain on the Order Paper, it cannot be debated at this time.

Reasons given by the Speaker

In interpreting the rule of anticipation, the Chair "should have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time ... [T]he probability of resuming debate on a motion by the ...  Member for Kingston and the Islands is still an open question. The Chair must assume that probability is still open." The debate on the motion of Miss MacDonald was interrupted and is consequently listed as a Government Order which can be called and considered in such sequence as the Government determines. Unless the House adopted a special order superseding Standing Order 18, neither the Chair nor any Member other than those in the Government could designate which Government Order would be taken up at any sitting.

Sources cited

Standing Orders 18(2) and 45(2).

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 12, c. 13.

References

Journals, September 19, 1973, p. 563.

Debates, September 19, 1973, pp. 6711-2.