The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

November 28, 1991

Debates, pp. 5513-4

On November 22, 1991, Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) rose on a point of order regarding Bill C-35, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, which was before the House for consideration at report stage.^[1] Mr. Dingwall stated that part III of the Bill intitled “Bills introduced but not yet assented to” should be withdrawn since it referred to six bills which were in various legislative stages before the House. After hearing representations from Members who offered other suggestions, the Deputy Speaker (Hon. Andrée Champagne) stated that she could not unilaterally withdraw the section from the Bill and suggested that the House proceed to the concurrence motion at report stage and begin debate at third reading but that the question not be put until the Chair rendered its decision.^[2] The House agreed to proceed in this manner and on November 28, 1991, the Speaker rendered his decision.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On Friday, November 22, 1991, as the House was about to begin the third reading debate on Bill C-35, An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond rose on a point of order related to that bill.

The honourable Member sought guidance from the Chair concerning part III of the bill entitled “Bills introduced but not yet assented to” which puts forward amendments in relation to six bills that are at various stages in the legislative process.

Specifically, it proposes to amend under certain conditions Bill C-3, which received third reading in the House on Friday last, Bill C-4 which is on the Order Paper at third reading, Bill C-18 which is now before the Standing Committee on Finance, Bill C-19 which is on the Order Paper at third reading, Bill C-22 which is now before the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations and Bill C-26 which awaits second reading in the House.

The Chair wishes to thank the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond, the honourable Member for Kamloops (Mr. Nelson Riis) and the Parliamentary Secretary and the honourable Member for Cariboo—Chilcotin (Mr. Dave Worthy) for their interventions last Friday and for their cooperation in permitting debate to commence, pending the Chair’s decision on this matter. I am now ready to render a decision.

This is not the first time that Members have raised concerns about a bill before the House appearing to be dependent on other bills still under consideration. On June 8, 1988, the Chair reviewed precedents on the subject, notably the decisions of Speaker Lamoureux of April 20, 1970 and February 24, 1971 as well as Deputy Speaker McCleave’s ruling of February 5, 1973.^[3]

Speaker Lamoureux had found nothing procedurally wrong in having before the House at the same time concurrent or related bills which might be in contradiction with one another either because of the terms of the proposed legislation itself or in relation to proposed amendments. Accordingly, he ruled that second reading motions could proceed as the House was not giving final approval to the bills in question.

Today, however, the House is faced with giving its final approval to Bill C-35 and the Chair must determine whether third reading of Bill C-35 can proceed when part III of that bill amends six bills now at various stages of the legislative process.

In its careful review of the terms of part III of Bill C-35, the Chair has examined testimony presented before the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General on November 19, 1991, when Members sought clarification on the intent of part III from the officials of the Department of Justice.^[4]

Let me first say that I was dismayed to find in that exchange that a ruling of June 8, 1988, has been misconstrued as carte blanche for an interdependent approach to drafting complex legislation with the committee being told : “the Speaker ruled in 1988 that the inclusion of these clauses was perfectly proper”.

A close reading of the June 1988 ruling reveals rather that the Chair permitted second reading of Bill C-130 to proceed despite objections raised to conditional references to Bill C-60 and Bill C-110. As it happens, events overtook those bills. No objections were raised at third reading of Bill C-130 and on dissolution Bills C-60 and C-110 had been assented to while the free trade bill died on the Order Paper.

I want to make it very clear that the situation before us where objections of this sort have been raised at third reading is according to our research unprecedented.

In the ruling of June 8, 1988, the Chair declared “the practice of one bill amending another bill still before the House or not yet given Royal Assent is an acceptable one”. However, in keeping with the earlier warnings of Speaker Lamoureux, the Chair went on to caution that “if at third reading, circumstances exist whereby the bill is amending another bill still before the House, then I would be disposed to abide by Speaker Lamoureux’s decision and hear further argument at that time”.

This is precisely the situation before us today.

Having carefully examined the terms of part III of Bill C-35, the Chair has grave concerns about this manner of proceeding since taken to the extreme it puts the House in the invidious situation of legislating in the subjunctive. For example, clause 157 of Bill C-35 proposes an amendment to Bill C-3 which is intended to deal with an anticipated anachronism. It amends the definition of department in Bill C-3 which rests currently on a reference to provisions in the Financial Administration Act which provisions are being amended by Bill C-35.

If the definition now in Bill C-3 remains and Bill C-35 is assented to without clause 157, Bill C-3 would even on being assented to contain an anachronistic reference to the Financial Administration Act.

That being said, the Chair has some sympathy for the dilemma facing those drafting proposals for the Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act. Testimony before the committee reveals that this is an ongoing and painstaking process and that the very length of the process militates in some measure against its success as a comprehensive exercise. At the time such a bill is enacted, other legislation being considered concurrently by Parliament may require consequential amendments of the kinds included in part III of Bill C-35. In the case of Bill C-35, and this is a key consideration for the Chair, the House is considering the traditional omnibus bill for corrections to certain anomalies and inconsistencies.

The drafters of Bill C-35 have in their zeal placed before the House not only corrective measures for such matters identified in existing statutes but in part III they propose corrective measures for matters which will in all likelihood come into existence in this parliamentary session. Do these proposals offend the procedures of the House of Commons?

It is the duty of the Chair to safeguard the right of Members and the House to make fully informed decisions on the matters before it and in the final analysis the Chair must be guided by what Deputy Speaker McCleave described in 1973 as a matter of how best to achieve the logical progression of companion or interdependent bills through the House.

The legislative process affords ample opportunity for amending proposed legislation during the detailed clause by clause study in committee and again at the report stage in the House.

In the case of part III of Bill C-35, members could have voted against or moved to delete any or all of the six clauses in question. Now at third reading the House has a final opportunity, should it so choose, to recommit Bill C-35 to committee for reconsideration.

Alternatively, the House could decide not to proceed with third reading of Bill C-35 until the six bills touched on in part III have completed the legislative process.

All of these avenues offer Members full remedy to this conditional approach to legislating should they object to it. That decision rests with the House.

After careful reflection on the technical nature of the amendments and their effects and on the opportunities there have been and continue to be for the House to reject part III of Bill C-35, the Chair is not inclined to intervene on procedural grounds in this instance. Accordingly, the Chair rules that part III of Bill C-35 is properly before the House and third reading of Bill C-35 can proceed.

I want to add to these comments of the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond that the point that has been raised is not an easy one. I hope that this is of some assistance to the House. It is a complicated matter and as I mentioned in the judgment, this approach is not altogether satisfactory, and I have had to [do] the best I can with a very difficult situation. I thank the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond for bringing the matter to the attention of the Chair.

On February 6 and 7, 1992, the House resumed third reading debate on the Bill, and on February 7, 1992 the Bill was read a third time and passed. It was passed by the Senate, and subsequently received Royal Assent, and came into force, on February 28, 1992. Four of the bills listed in part III of Bill C-35, namely, Bills C-3, C-4, C-18 and C-19 had received royal assent by the time Bill C-35 was assented to. However, Bills C-22 and C-26 were not assented to until June 23, 1992 and December 17, 1992, respectively.

F0510-e

34-3

1991-11-28