Questions Related to Content of Bills / Discrepancy

Provisions of the resolution

Journals pp. 567-8

Debates pp. 5486-7

Background

During debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-178, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada, Mr. Baldwin (Peace River) raised a point of order, claiming that some parts of the bill may not be properly before the House because they are not included in toto in the resolution. The Speaker heard Members' comments and ruled later that day.

Issue

Does the resolution cover all parts of the bill sufficiently to validate the consequent statute if the bill were passed? Does the establishment of a new department proposed in the bill imply a charge on the public funds?

Decision

The resolution in its present form is procedurally sufficient. There is no new charge not already authorized by existing legislation.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"... a resolution preceding a bill is not designed for the purpose of explaining the contents of the bill in any detail, but solely for the purpose of giving notice to the House that the Government intends to introduce a measure which involves a tax on the people or a charge on public funds." Further, the resolution of this bill covers the general subject of reorganizing government departments, if not this specific department, and that is sufficient.

Sources cited

British North America Act, 1867, s. 54.

Standing Order 61.

May, 17th ed., p. 780.

The King V. Irwin (1926), Ex. C.R. 25, pp. 127-8.

References

Debates, May 24, 1966, pp. 5427-8; 5447-50.