Precedence and Sequence / Rule of Anticipation

Rule of anticipation

Journals pp. 753-6

Debates pp. 7493-5

Background

At the outset of the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), on a point of order, brought to the attention of the Chair that of the eight clauses of this bill, four were identical, two were similar and two were entirely new when compared with Bill C-193, which had been defeated on third reading during the same session. He argued that in view of the similarities, Bill C-207 renews a question already decided during the current session and ought not to be proceeded with. After hearing Members' comments, the Speaker deferred his decision until later in the day.

Issue

Can a bill be considered if it contains provisions substantially similar to another bill already decided on during the current session?

Decision

No. Therefore the bill cannot be proceeded with and must be withdrawn. [The House subsequently agreed to a motion to withdraw the bill.]

Reasons given by the Speaker

A motion or question that is substantially the same as one previously decided cannot be offered again during the same session. The key phrase is "substantially the same" and, as the authorities mention but do not define this phrase, the bills must be compared and a judgment made. Some of the clauses are an exact repetition of clauses on a previously defeated bill. Further, one must guard against "putting the House in a position where it might have to take a decision which in part would be inconsistent with a decision taken previously".

Sources cited

Journals, January 26, 1967, pp. 1232-3.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 137, c. 163; p. 167, c. 200(1); p. 273, c. 373(2); p. 274, c. 375(1);

Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 328-9.

May, 17th ed., p. 522.

References

Debates, February 19, 1968, pp. 6894-6; March 11, 1968, pp. 7471-81.