Precedence and Sequence / Rule of Anticipation

Rule of anticipation

Journals pp. 68-9

Debates p. 661

Background

During debate at second reading of Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), Mr. Nielsen (Yukon) raised a point of order and claimed that further debate on the bill should be ruled out of order because a clause of the bill contained an expenditure which was currently under study by one of the committees and thus not yet "authorized". The Deputy Speaker invited Members' comments before ruling.

Issue

Can debate at second reading stage on a bill authorizing expenditures continue even if the relevant Estimates are under study in a committee?

Decision

Yes, debate can proceed.

Reasons given by the Speaker

In applying the rule of anticipation, recognition must be given to what can be considered a descending scale of values; that is, bills, motions and amendments. The estimate has not really come before the House and no decision has been made except to send it to a committee for study. "The bill has, however, been given first reading and the House is now considering whether it should have second reading . . . [T]he bill before the House is the more effective form of proceeding in relation to the estimate which is now being considered. Bill C-124 would give a statutory basis and the estimate would be a consequential proceeding."

Sources cited

May, 18th ed., pp. 364-5, 731.

References

Debates, January 25, 1973, pp. 647-54.