Parliamentary Privilege / Form of Bills

Omnibus bills: time allotted for consideration alleged not to allow for sufficient scrutiny

November 6, 2018

Debates, p. 23341

On October 31, 2018, Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) rose on a question of privilege regarding Bill C-86, A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures. He contended that the government’s intended timeline for debate on Bill C-86 would not allow sufficient scrutiny of the 850-page omnibus bill. Mr. Julian contended that, since parliamentarians have a right and an obligation to examine legislation thoroughly, a bill of this size impeded his ability to perform his parliamentary functions and, thus, constituted a breach of privilege. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

On November 5, 2018, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that the timeline for the consideration of the bill allowed for each stage of the legislative process and that the question was a matter of debate rather than a question of privilege. The Speaker again took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On November 6, 2018, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the rules and practices of the House do not address the length of a bill or provide the Chair with a mechanism to rule when a supposition is made about the limited time for its debate. Acknowledging the magnitude of the bill, the Speaker added that it remains for the House, not the Chair, to determine when and if a bill has received sufficient consideration. The Speaker concluded that there was no prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege as well as the point of order raised on October 31, 2018, by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby regarding Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.

I would like to thank the member for having raised the matter as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House for his observations.

In regard to his question of privilege, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby contended that the government’s intent to allow a few days of debate on Bill C-86 would not allow for sufficient scrutiny of its clauses, given the length of the bill, at 850 pages. As parliamentarians have a fundamental right and responsibility to examine legislation, he concluded that a bill of this size is more than an omnibus bill and constitutes an obstruction to his ability to perform his parliamentary duties.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader assured the House that time will be available for the bill to be considered at each stage of the legislative process and, thus, the member’s privileges are not being breached.

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the member for New Westminster—Burnaby’s concern with his ability to scrutinize a bill of this magnitude thoroughly and, in turn, debate with confidence. This is a massive bill, the largest budget implementation bill to date.

That said, the rules and practices of the House have yet to address the issue of limits on length of legislation. Even with the addition of Standing Order 69.1, which grants the Speaker some authority with respect to omnibus legislation, there is no mechanism for the Chair to deal with legislation based solely on its size. This is no less true when there is a supposition being made about the limited amount of time that will be allowed for debate on any given bill. Whether or not a reasonable amount of time has been allowed for debate is not a question that the Chair can answer, even now when members are being asked to digest a “gargantuan bill”, as the member for New Westminster—Burnaby called it.

As my predecessor said on June 12, 2014, at page 6717 of the Debates, “it is the House that retains that authority and therefore must continue to make that determination as to when and if a bill has received adequate consideration.” For these reasons, I cannot conclude that the objection raised constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House.

Editor’s Note

Immediately after Mr. Julian rose on his question of privilege, he rose on a point of order regarding the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-86. Mr. Julian argued that, as specific measures in the bill did not appear to arise out of measures announced in the budget, those sections should be separated out for a distinct vote.^[3] The Speaker allowed a separate vote on select provisions. The ruling can be found on page 268.