The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Introduction of Bills: Government Bill; explanation of purpose at time of introduction; practice of providing explanatory material to opposition critics

December 1, 1987

Debates, p. 11344

On December 1, 1987, the Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada) sought leave to introduce Bill C-93, respecting the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. The House having given leave for the Bill to be introduced, the Minister then proceeded to give a short explanation of the purpose of the Bill. Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) rose on a point of order to indicate that he thought the Secretary of State had risen to make a statement. He claimed it was not usual for Ministers to make statements of that nature when introducing bills, and then inquired whether it was going to be a new practice that when Ministers introduce bills they explain what is in the bill. The Minister and Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West) both addressed the issue raised. Mr. Marchi indicated that he had no problem with the Minister’s comments on the Bill, but would have appreciated if the critics for the proposed piece of legislation had been given the traditional one or one and one-half hour notice. After hearing further remarks from the Minister,^[1] the Speaker ruled, addressing both issues.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: It seems to the Chair that the Bill which was introduced has, at least in principle, support on both sides of the Chamber. Unless any honourable Member feels a terribly burning urge to make further comment, perhaps the Chair could settle this matter by reminding honourable Members of Standing Order 107(2) which states:

A motion for leave to introduce a bill shall be decided without debate or amendment, provided that any Member moving for such leave may be permitted to give a succinct explanation of the provisions of the said bill.

The honourable Minister said that he had an indication that he had some 60 seconds. I want to assure the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier that the message I sent to the Minister was that he had 30 seconds.

However, it is important to note that it is the case that any Member introducing a bill can speak succinctly, as the rule states, and I shall be very firm in making sure that it is succinct.

I believe the honourable Member for York West is only expressing what Members on both sides of the House, depending on where they sat at different times, have always wished to be the practice. I think the honourable Minister has given some explanation for that.

Again, as always, I would urge Ministers to do everything possible to be sure that information is given as soon as possible, especially to the opposition critics. I think it was made quite clear by the Minister that he understands that tradition and does in fact honour it.

F0322-e

33-2

1987-12-01