The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

April 1, 1992

Debates, pp. 9147-9

On March 30, 1992, Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) rose on a point of order respecting Bill C-63, An Act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies. Mr. Dingwall raised concerns over the Bill’s omnibus nature which, in his view, involved six different proposals as it sought the dissolution or termination of various government agencies. Mr. Dingwall argued that the bill did not allow for Members to properly engage in a debate on the specific aspects of the Bill. He also stated that the long title of the Bill should have included reference to each of the organizations affected by name. After hearing comments from Members on both sides of the House, the Acting Speaker (Hon. Steven Paproski) took the matter under advisement.^[1] On April 1, 1992, the Speaker rendered a decision which is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Monday, March 30, 1992, the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond rose on a point of order relating to the omnibus nature of Bill C-63, An Act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies. During consideration of this matter, the honourable Members for Kamloops (Mr. Nelson Riis) , North Island—Powell River (Mr. Ray Skelly), Ottawa—Vanier (Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Albert Cooper) also made contributions. The Chair is grateful for their interventions. I have reviewed the matter and am now in a position to rule on the procedural arguments made against this bill.

The purpose of this bill is to wind down six government corporations or agencies: the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the Economic Council of Canada, the International Centre for Ocean Development, the Law Reform Commission of Canada, and the Science Council of Canada. The honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond has objected to this bill because it is asking parliamentarians to pronounce themselves on several important issues in one single question. He has argued that the bill lacks relevancy in so far as its substance is not linked to its long title and argues further that it would be extremely difficult to debate six principles at second reading or to move amendments at report stage.

Before addressing each of the issues raised by the honourable Member, it would be useful to briefly review what an omnibus bill is. As I mentioned in my ruling of June 8, 1988, there is no precise definition for omnibus bills (); the most exact definition the Chair could find and agree with is that given by the honourable Member for Windsor West, which is found at page 15880 of Hansard for May 30, 1988:

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.

Clearly one of the purposes of omnibus bills is to group together multiple statutory amendments so that discussion in the House may be focused. As the Government House Leader (Hon. Harvie Andre) in his former role as opposition critic explained on March 1, 1982 at page 15482 of Hansard in relation to the Canada Post [Corporation] Bill:

…[Bill C-42] amended 14 other statutes to make them consistent with the new statute dealing with the post office. It is clear that grouping these is an aid, not a hindrance, to proper parliamentary discussion and decision.

Although omnibus bills are sometimes welcomed by both sides of the House, several objections have arisen to their use

The honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond identified a number of them. He argued that the long title of Bill C-63 should properly indicate the purpose of the bill—that is to say, the termination of specific agencies—by naming the affected acts, thus establishing the relevancy between the different sections of the bill. To illustrate the lack of relevance between the various sections of the bill, he quoted from Citation 626 of Beauchesne Sixth Edition

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.

In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader argued:

The umbrella of this particular legislation was made very clear in the budget. It indicated very clearly that the government planned to dissolve or terminate a number of corporations and other bodies for a central theme, being the ability to cut government expenditures and, therefore, as much as possible relieve the burden on the Canadian taxpayer.^[2]

As to the question of the long title, I wish to refer all honourable Members to my ruling of June 8, 1988 on page 16257 of Hansard:

A further point raised…was the insufficiency of detail in the long title of the Bill because it does not list all of the statutes being amended therein. Honourable Members might wish to consult [Driedger’s] The Composition of Legislation, Legislative Forms and Precedents for information on this point. This work may not have the same weight as Beauchesne or Erskine May, but it is a respected authority in legislative drafting. On pages 153 and 154 there is an explanation of Canadian practice as it relates to long titles, which clearly demonstrates that every Act being amended need not be mentioned in the title and that the Canadian practice has evolved differently from British practice by the use of generic language. If honourable Members feel, however, that such a course is necessary, I suggest that they should proceed by way of amendment and not by a decision of the Speaker to reject the Bill.

The principal objections of the honourable Members for Cape Breton—East Richmond, Kamloops, and Ottawa—Vanier are that this bill espoused six principles dealing with disparate elements such as employment and immigration, ocean development, science policy, economic issues and so on. They contend that it would be difficult to debate the full complexities of the affected areas at second reading and to come to a single decision. To this general argument, we can turn to the reply of Speaker Lamoureux on January 23, 1969 at page 618 of the Journals:

The vote on second reading is less a vote on the principle of the bill and more a decision of the House to send the bill on for further consideration at subsequent stages of proceedings. If this interpretation is correct, it seems it should be even less difficult for honourable Members to vote either for or against the main motion, since such vote would not constitute either approval of, or opposition to, the principle of the several propositions contained in the omnibus bill.

In a lengthy ruling on May 11, 1977, Speaker Jerome brought greater explanation on pages 5522 to 5524 of Hansard:

…there can be no doubt that a motion containing two or more substantive provisions is quite distinct from a procedural motion or a motion which is generally described as having only the effect of dealing with the progress of a bill. The practice in respect of substantive motions has never been extended to those motions which relate to the progress of a bill. The use of the omnibus amending bill is well enshrined in our practices, and I really can find no reason to set aside my predecessor’s very clear and resounding reasoning, or the practice. Nor can I find any authority which would support an order of the Chair at this second reading stage that the bill be divided…

This still leaves, as it has in the past every time this kind of argument has been put forward, some very deep concern about whether our practices in respect of bills do in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint of the honourable Member that a bill of this kind gives the government, under our practices, the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related subjects…

I think an honourable Member of the House ought to have the right to compel the House to vote on each separate question…

Therefore, while I carefully guard the specific rulings on the contradiction between the principles of the bill and the motions that might be put forward until the actual stage arises, because we are speculating as to what the cases may be, it seems to me in advance that in a bill of this sort…a Member ought to be able, if he wishes, to attempt through motions to delete under Standing Order 75(5) to isolate those sections which he feels ought not to be amended or that ought to be voted upon separately, without offending the principle of the bill. I think that would give the honourable Member and other honourable Members an opportunity that they should enjoy, to put their positions on the record, which I think ought to be known, and also to require others in the House to vote in respect of that position.

In the same vein, Speaker Sauvé also expressed her opinion on June 20, 1983 at page 26538 of Hansard in this manner:

Thus, 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.

The Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons has not been given any specific authority over the form or content of omnibus bills. From time to time, suggestions have been put forward by the Chair on how honourable Members may voice their positions on various sections of omnibus bills. As Speaker Jerome indicated, for example, report stage motions to delete certain clauses may be one way of proceeding.^[3] As I stated on June 8, 1988 at page 16257 of Hansard:

Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus bills, the Chair’s role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.

In conclusion, under the circumstances I cannot accept the objections made to this bill to divide or set aside the progress of Bill C-63, An Act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.

I thank all honourable Members for their contribution.

F0508-e

34-3

1992-04-01