Precedence and Sequence / Rule of Anticipation

Rule of anticipation

Journals pp. 1316-8

Debates pp. 10938-9

Background

When the House proceeded to consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) for the adoption by the House of time allocation rules in the Standing Orders, Mr. Baldwin (Peace River) rose on a point of order. Referring to another point of order raised several days before and to the subsequent decision of the Speaker, Mr. Baldwin suggested that the Speaker might now wish to reconsider the earlier point of order and not allow the transfer of the present motion to Government Orders because this would block consideration of a similar matter contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.

Issue

Can the motion of the Minister be put before the House even though it might then block consideration of the committee report dealing with the same subject?

Decision

Yes. The motion can be moved.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with. If the motion respecting the committee report had been moved, it would have had precedence over the motion of the President of the Privy Council because of the greater significance given committees in the new Standing Orders. However, since the motion for concurrence in the committee report was not moved, the motion moved by the Minister has to be considered by the House. It is not the role of the Speaker to substitute his judgment for that which must be properly exercised by the House. "If a majority of the Members of the House think that this motion should not be adopted, that it should be voted down and that we should proceed later on with another motion, then it is up to them to take this course."

Sources cited

Standing Order 21.

Journals, July 3, 1969, pp. 1289-90.

Debates, July 3, 1969, pp. 10779-80.

References

Debates, July 7, 1969, pp. 10926-38.