Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion of instruction in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, just read to the House is out of order and cannot be put to the House. It is obviously part of an ongoing effort by the NDP, in this case, to obstruct and resist the Board of Internal Economy meeting under way. However, whatever the motives may be, the fact is this.
On Monday, May 26, the hon. member for Gatineau moved a motion of instruction, which was adjourned, and pursuant to Standing Order 66 (1), now sits on the order paper as Government Motion No. 11.
For the Chair's ease of reference, let me read the motion. It states:
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13.
Now let me read the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster. It states:
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, the Committee be granted the power to divide the Bill into two bills: the first consisting of clauses 2 to 7 and 27, related to cyberbullying; and the second bill containing all the other provisions of Bill C-13 related to other online activity.
Mr. Speaker, the difference is these five words, which were added at the end of today's motion, “related to other online activity”.
What is indisputable is that the substantive effect of these two motions is identical. Having established that these motions are for all intents and purposes identical, let me turn to page 560 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, which discusses the rule of anticipation. It states:
The moving of a motion was formerly subject to the ancient “rule of anticipation” which is no longer strictly observed. According to this rule, which applied to other proceedings as well as to motions, a motion could not anticipate a matter which was standing on the Order Paper for further discussion, whether as a bill or a motion, and which was contained in a more effective form of proceeding (for example, a bill or any other Order of the Day is more effective than a motion, which in turn has priority over an amendment, which in turn is more effective than a written or oral question). If such a motion were allowed, it could indeed forestall or block a decision from being taken on the matter already on the Order Paper.
Picking up at a later paragraph, I again quote:
The rule is dependent on the principle which forbids the same question from being decided twice within the same session.
That is a quite well-established principle we are all familiar with.
It continues:
It does not apply, however, to similar or identical motions or bills which appear on the Notice Paper prior to debate. The rule of anticipation becomes operative only when one of two similar motions on the Order Paper is actually proceeded with.
That is to say at this very moment.
Continuing on with the passage, it states:
For example, two bills similar in substance will be allowed to stand on the Order Paper
We have that, for example, I would note, with regard to Veterans Affairs. It continues:
but only one may be moved and disposed of. If the first bill is withdrawn (by unanimous consent, often after debate has started), the second may be proceeded with. If a decision is taken on the first bill, the other may not be proceeded with. A point of order regarding anticipation may be raised when the second motion is proposed from the Chair, if the first has already been proposed to the House and has become an Order of the Day.
That is exactly the present case, since the substantively identical motion of the hon. member for Gatineau is an order of the day, identified on the order paper as Government Motion No. 11.
As a result, the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster would offend the rule of anticipation. Therefore, I would submit that the motion of instruction you just read should not be proposed to the House, and the House should, in my respectful view, carry on with the remaining items of routine proceedings.
I of course note that I raised this immediately, at the moment the motion was read to the House, at the very earliest opportunity, the appropriate point in time to raise such a point of order.
Clearly, the House has already made this, as the rules say, an order of the day. It has already dealt with it. It is a duplication of that effort. As such, it is entirely out of order at this time.