Ruling
July 3, 1969
Committee report; rule of anticipation
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
Arguments raised against the Government's motion are founded largely on the rule of anticipation. Unfortunately, Canadian precedents concerning this rule are not sufficiently clear and British practice is based on a specific Standing Order. Even with respect to British practice, it would appear that the rule of anticipation relates to "discussion or debate of a matter already set down, and not to the setting down itself of an item of business on the Order Paper ". The Standing Orders are perfectly clear that a Minister can transfer his Notice of Motion for debate under Government Orders. "Once the motion has been transferred for debate under Government Orders it becomes the Government's decision and responsibility to decide whether it will proceed with its motion. It is at that point that the anticipation rule might become operative in the sense that the Minister's motion, if proceeded with, might block consideration of the committee report." The House has been at liberty for several days to proceed with this motion for concurrence. Indeed, it could be moved later this day. On the other hand, the notice of motion for concurrence cannot be used to "block" consideration of the Government's notice of motion. It is suggested that the question of priority should not be confused with the rule of anticipation.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"The rule of anticipation applies to the actual debate of a motion, not its placement on the Order Paper; therefore, a government motion cannot be blocked from being set down simply because a similar item already exists."
AI Summary
The Speaker ruled that the rule of anticipation applies to the debate of a matter, not its placement on the Order Paper, thus allowing a government motion to proceed.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High