The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

April 11, 1994

Debates, pp. 2859-61

During Government Orders on March 25, 1994, Stephen Harper (Calgary West) rose on a point of order to object to the omnibus nature of Bill C-17, Budget Implementation Act, 1994, and to request that the Speaker rule the bill out of order. Mr. Harper argued that there was no unifying principle contained in the bill; that it attempted to amend several different existing laws; that the omnibus bill forced members to take one decision applicable to several different issues; and finally that the variety of issues contained in the bill would cause difficulties for the committee charged to study it. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) stated that the provisions of the bill were all linked as they were contained in the recent budget speech and formed a unified policy platform. Moreover, they argued that the committee process would allow members to change or delete numerous sections of the bill. The Speaker then reserved his decision.^[1]

On April 11, 1994, the Speaker gave his ruling. He stated that it is common practice and procedurally correct for a bill to amend, repeal or enact several statutes, and that, on numerous occasions, former Speakers had refused to intervene because of the complexity of a bill. The Speaker had suggested that Mr. Harper and all members could propose amendments to the bill in committee or at report stage and in so doing, express their views and vote on specific sections contained therein.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am prepared to make a ruling on the point of order raised by the member for Calgary West on March 25, 1994, regarding omnibus bills.

I would like to thank the honourable member and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell for the contributions to the discussion.

In his presentation the honourable member for Calgary West contended that Bill C-17, An Act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994, is an omnibus Bill and as such should be ruled out of order and should not be considered by the House in its present form.

He also maintained there is no unifying principle contained in the bill, that the omnibus bill attempts to amend several different existing laws, that such a bill forces members to take one decision applicable to several different issues and finally that the variety of issues contained in the bill may cause difficulties for the committee charged to study it.

The honourable member also cited the January 26, 1971, ruling of Speaker Lamoureux^[2] as well as citation 626(1) of Beauchesne 6th edition in supporting his argument.

Before addressing the issues raised by the honourable member, I would like to do as my predecessors have done in the past and review for the House our practices regarding omnibus bills.

For the benefit of all members, I should start by giving out the definition of an omnibus bill as found in the House of Commons’ Glossary of Parliamentary Procedure. An omnibus bill is defined as: “A bill consisting of a number of related but separate parts which seek to amend and/or repeal one or several existing acts and/or to enact one or several new acts.”

The honourable member is correct when he points out that Bill C-17 is an omnibus bill. However, as has been noted in numerous rulings by previous Speakers and most recently in a ruling by Speaker Fraser on April 1, 1992, procedurally there is nothing in our rules and practices that prohibits the government from introducing omnibus bills.

In his ruling Speaker Fraser, quoting the honourable member for Windsor West, the current government House leader, described omnibus bills in this way:

The essential defence of an omnibus procedure is that the bill in question, although it may seem to create or to amend many disparate statutes, in effect has one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes.

This can be found on page 9147 of the Debates for April 1, 1992.

One of the reasons omnibus bills are introduced by the government is to aid parliamentary discussion by grouping all statutory amendments for the implementation of a policy in the same bill. As Speaker Jerome noted on May 11, 1977, at page 5522 of the Debates, the use of omnibus bills was at that time a well established practice in the Canadian House. This is still the case. In fact, there are numerous examples where legislation to implement budgetary provisions have taken the form of omnibus bills.

Often confusion arises between the Chair’s power to divide complicated motions and the Chair’s past decisions not to divide omnibus bills. Part of the confusion is attributable to our concept of what it means to adopt a motion for second reading of a bill.

Debate at second reading relates to the principle of the bill and not to its specific clauses. The principle may be very simple or quite complex. Since there is not necessarily a unique section of a bill that defines its principle the debate is understood to be general at this stage with detailed consideration at later stages.

However, the question before the House is very simple. It is that the bill be now read a second time and referred to a committee, and not that certain sections of the bill be dealt with in a certain manner. The decision of the House, therefore, is whether to send a bill for further consideration to a committee. The question of the principle of a bill is obviously closely linked to the second reading motion.

The argument presented by the honourable member for Calgary West is: “That the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.”

However, it is the view of the Chair that in the adoption of a second reading motion the House gives approval in principle to a bill and then moves on to the consideration of its specific provisions in subsequent stages.

It must also be remembered that the Chair has ruled that there is nothing procedurally objectionable to a bill containing more than one principle, Speaker Sauvé expressed this in a ruling given on June 20, 1983, and I refer honourable members to page 26538 of the Debates. She stated at that time:

Although some occupants of the chair have expressed concern about the practice of incorporating several distinct principles in a single bill, they have consistently found that such bills are procedurally in order and properly before the House.

Bearing directly on this matter, the honourable member from Calgary West quoted Beauchesne 6th edition, citation 626(1). I will read the citation for the benefit of the House. It states:

Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.

The honourable member has argued that the House is being asked to take one decision on a number of unrelated items. However, in the Chair’s opinion a common thread does run throughout Bill C-17; namely, the government’s intention to enact the provisions in the recent budget, including measures to extend the fiscal restraint measures currently in place.

In their remarks both the parliamentary secretary and the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell also pointed out that the provisions in the bill had arisen out of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance that had already been debated by the House.

As was underlined by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the House heard the Minister of Finance make a statement on the budgetary policy of the government on February 22, 1994. The House subsequently debated the budgetary motion for several days and adopted it on a recorded division on March 23, 1994.

The title of Bill C-17 clearly refers to the original budgetary statement and the bill will simply enact certain provisions contained in that statement.

Bill C-17 is an omnibus Bill but it has a common thread through it and in my view a unitary purpose.

In conclusion, it is procedurally correct and common practice for a bill to amend, repeal or enact several statutes. There are numerous rulings in which Speakers have declined to intervene simply because a bill was complex and permitted omnibus legislation to proceed.

Hence, while I cannot accept the honourable member’s request to divide or set aside Bill C-17, I can suggest to him and to other members that should they so wish they may propose amendments to the bill in committee or at report stage and in so doing have an opportunity to express their views and vote on the specific sections of the bill.

I thank all honourable members for their contributions.

P0501-e

35-1

1994-04-11