The Legislative Process / Form of Bills

Omnibus bills: request under Standing Order 69.1

November 8, 2017

Debates, pp. 15143–5

On November 3, 2017, Pierre Poilievre (Carleton) rose on a point of order regarding Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.^[1] He argued that the bill grouped together unrelated provisions that were not part of the original budget presentation. He added that these provisions should be voted on separately under Standing Order 69.1(1). Since these provisions had not been announced, the exemption under Standing Order 69.1(2) did not apply. In addition, Mr. Poilievre emphasized that one element of the bill, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, had been announced but that the planned spending for this initiative had almost doubled. As a result, this element should not be exempted under Standing Order 69.1(2). On November 7, 2017, Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) suggested that the exception under Standing Order 69.1(2) should apply only if all the measures in the bill had been announced. Therefore, Bill C-63 in its entirety, rather than solely the measures that were not announced, should be subject to Standing Order 69.1(1).^[2] This was the first use of these Standing Orders, which were adopted in June 2017, in relation to a budget implementation bill.

Resolution

On November 8, 2017, the Speaker delivered his ruling. With regard to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, he stated that the variance between the planned investment and the announced investment was not enough to make the measure new or separate in relation to the budget. Therefore, a separate vote on this issue was not warranted. Furthermore, the Speaker stated that only the measures that were not announced in the budget could be voted on separately. In this case, four measures would be voted on separately at second reading of the bill. Lastly, the Speaker explained how this new procedure would work.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 3, by the hon. member for Carleton concerning the applicability of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Carleton for raising this matter, as well as the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader for their comments.

The hon. member for Carleton asked that the Chair use the authority granted under Standing Order 69.1 to divide the question on the motions for second and, if necessary, third reading of Bill C-63, as he argued the bill contained measures not announced in the budget of March 22, 2017.

He noted, for example, that the summary indicated that a measure in part 2 of the bill was implementing a change to the GST/HST rebate for public service bodies announced on September 8, 2017. He also argued that the measures concerning the taxation of agricultural and fisheries co-operatives in part 1, and those concerning beer made from concentrate in part 3, were not in the budget, nor were three measures from part 5, namely division 5 regarding the Bank of Canada, division 11 concerning judges, and division 13 regarding payments to discharge debt.

The hon. member also argued that the monies authorized in part 5, division 2, regarding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, far exceeded what was announced in the budget.

In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance indicated that the government would be investing $256 million in the AIIB over five years, while clause 176 of the bill authorizes the minister to spend $375 million U.S., or roughly $480 million Canadian.

While he indicated that he did not feel strongly about having a separate vote on each of the other measures, the hon. member for Carleton was particularly keen on having a separate vote on this measure. He thought the Standing Order provided the Speaker with such authority, given that the bill authorized quite a bit more spending than what was announced in the budget.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby argued that the bill was in fact an omnibus bill, insofar as it contained measures not announced in the budget. He also noted that this was specifically the case in relation to the measures concerning agricultural and fisheries cooperatives and those concerning beer from concentrate. Furthermore, he argued that the inclusion of such measures meant that Bill C-63 could not qualify for the exemption provided in the Standing Orders for budget implementation bills and that therefore the entire bill should be treated as an omnibus bill.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, in his intervention, sought to reassure the House that certain measures were indeed arising out of the budget. He pointed out that the plan for Canada to become a member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank was indeed announced in the budget, and that the bill operationalizes that plan. He also argued that the amendments to the Judges Act in division 11 give effect to the intention announced in the budget to implement the recommendations of the 2015 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The changes relating to the Bank of Canada in division 5, he contended, are part of the government’s plan to bolster the tool kit for managing the resolution of Canada’s largest banks, as announced in the budget.

Finally, he insisted that the Standing Order does not foresee the division of a bill for the purposes of debate or committee referral, but only for the purpose of voting at second and third reading.

The hon. member for Calgary Shepard argued that in coming to a decision, the Speaker should be inspired by the procedure in the Quebec National Assembly in relation to motions to divide bills. He argued that the Chair should not confuse the principles contained in a bill with the field of legislative action it addresses. While the measures in the bill all deal with economic policy, he did not think that the Speaker should conclude that they are all interrelated. He also raised a number of points that were less specifically about Bill C-63, but concerned the mechanics of implementing a decision to divide a question, which he argued are unaddressed by the Standing Orders. In particular, he raised issues relating to amendments to the second and third reading motions, referral to committee, report stage and consideration of Senate amendments.

Yesterday, in response to a point of order from the hon. opposition House leader, I delivered a first ruling concerning the new Standing Order 69.1 on omnibus bills. This Standing Order empowers the Speaker to divide the question on the motion for second and third reading of a bill in circumstances where the bill contains a number of unrelated provisions.

The matter before us today concerns paragraph (2) of that Standing Order, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills. That paragraph reads as follows:

69.1(2) The present Standing Order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The question for the Speaker, then, is whether or not the measures identified by the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby correspond to provisions announced in the budget.

Let me first say that establishing such a link is not always obvious. The budget document itself is almost 300 pages, while the supplementary tax information represents another 100 pages. The Chair has done its best to review the material in arriving at this decision.

Let me first deal with the measures in the bill relating to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The hon. member for Carleton acknowledged that these measures were indeed announced in the budget. The only issue is whether or not the variance in the amount invested is sufficient to sever this relationship.

In my view, the spirit of the Standing Order was to provide for a separate vote when new or unrelated matters were introduced in the budget implementation bill. The fact that the amounts are higher, though I admit the variance is considerable, does not, in my opinion, make the matter of the AIIB markedly different from what was announced in the budget.

I believe it is understandable that, in between the time the budget is presented and the time the budget implementation bill is introduced, a change in circumstances could produce such a variation. I do not believe it is necessary to insist on an identical amount when the overall policy initiative is substantially the same. Therefore, I do not believe it would be appropriate to have a separate vote on this matter.

Let me turn now to the other issues raised by hon. members. I am willing to accept the arguments from the hon. parliamentary secretary that division 5 of part 5 regarding the Bank of Canada and division 11 of part 5 regarding judges’ compensation flow out of measures announced in the budget. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate that those measures be included in the general vote at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

However, in relation to the other matters raised by the hon. members for Carleton and New Westminster—Burnaby, I have been unable to find a link between them […] and what is contained in the budget documents. The parliamentary secretary did not refute the contention that these matters were indeed new and unrelated to the budget.

Accordingly, I believe that I can and should exercise the powers granted to me in the Standing Order to divide the question at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading.

Having come to this conclusion, the question is, how to effect such a division? The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby argues that the entire bill should be subject to division. Since it does not solely implement measures announced in the budget, he believes the exemption in Standing Order 69.1(2) no longer applies.

As I stated earlier, I believe the purpose of the Standing Order is to allow such a division in relation to those matters which are unrelated to the budget, accepting that the purpose of the remainder of the bill is to implement the budget.

The measures relating to agricultural and fisheries co-operatives are contained in clause 48. Those concerning changes to the GST/HST rebate for public service bodies are contained in clauses 139 and 163. Part 3 of the bill deals with amendments to the Excise Act in relation to beer made from concentrate. Clauses 165 to 168 make up this part. Finally, division 13 of part 5 deals with changes to the Financial Administration Act in relation to the discharge of debt. This measure is contained in clause 261. Each of these initiatives will be the subject of a separate vote at second reading and, if necessary, at third reading. All remaining elements of the bill will be combined in a single vote, which will be taken last. This means there will be five votes when the debate at second reading concludes.

I wish to underscore that the Chair has not ordered that each of these measures become the subject of a separate bill, or the object of a separate referral to committee. The Standing Order is clear that the Speaker has the power to divide the question at second reading, and at third reading for the purposes of voting only. There remains a single debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-63.

In response to the questions raised by the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, the motion for the second reading of the bill is still subject to the usual amendments: a hoist amendment, a reasoned amendment, or an amendment to withdraw the bill and refer the subject matter to committee.

I do not believe the Standing Order allows me to create five separate second reading motions for the purpose of debate, each individually subject to amendment. When the debate concludes, I will put the question on each of the five groups of clauses as described above. Those groups that are adopted will constitute the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance. Those that are rejected will not be referred to committee and will no longer form part of the bill. In such a case, I will also order a reprint of the bill for the committee’s use.

When and if the Committee reports the bill, assuming no other instruction from the House, it will form the subject of a single report, with or without amendments. Members will then be free to submit report stage motions to amend the bill as they see fit. I will rely on the usual rules at report stage in relation to the selection and grouping of motions for debate and voting, though the groupings may indeed reflect the divisions I’ve announced today. That’s a decision I will come to when I see what motions have been submitted. The vote at third reading will be conducted in a similar way to the vote at second reading, assuming all of the identified elements are still part of the bill by the time it reaches that stage.

I appreciate this is a new practice for the House, and I thank hon. members for their attention and patience as I explained how I intend to implement it.