Precedence and Sequence / Rule of Anticipation

Rule of anticipation

Journals p. 555

Debates p. 6590

Background

Mr. Nielsen (Yukon) rose on a point of order to question the procedural regularity of two motions appearing on the Order Paper under Notices of Motions. These two motions, by Mr. Penner (Thunder Bay) and Mr. Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore), were, according to Mr. Nielsen, "in exactly the same terms as the motion" of Mr. McGrath (St. John's East). Mr. Nielsen suggested that the Speaker should prevent them from being transferred to Motions where they would follow the motion of Mr. McGrath.

Issue

Can there be more than one motion on the same subject on the Order Paper?

Decision

Yes.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"It is long-established practice, going back at least 100 years, that there can be more than one motion on the same subject appearing on the Order Paper." When the House takes a decision on or discusses a matter, the opportunity to move similar motions becomes restricted. "It is only by consent of the House, and as a result of practice that has been developing, that motions that are not proceeded with immediately are allowed to remain on the Order Paper" rather than fall to the bottom of the list or disappear from it.

Sources cited

Standing Order 19.

References

Debates, September 14, 1973, pp. 6589-90.