Questions Related to Content of Bills / Omnibus

Omnibus

Journals pp. 283-5

Debates pp. 2767-8

Background

When second reading of Bill C-207, Government Organization Act, 1970, was called, Mr. McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) rose on a point of order to object to the motion because the bill contained too many distinct proposals or principles. He claimed that Members were being asked to provide simple answers to complex questions, in contradiction to the practices and traditions of the House. Mr. McCleave requested that the Speaker order that the omnibus bill be divided, thereby allowing Members to have a chance to make a decision on each proposal. Before making its decision, the Chair heard extensive arguments from Members.

Issue

Can an omnibus bill be considered by the House or should the Speaker order that it be divided?

Decision

The bill can receive second reading in its existing form.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Government has followed a practice that has been accepted rightly or wrongly, in the past. The bill will be allowed to proceed despite the possible difficulties presented by omnibus legislation. Although a legitimate complaint or grievance can be raised with respect to omnibus bills, it is not clear that a legitimate procedural argument can be made. One solution might be that it "should be the responsibility of the Chair when such a bill is introduced and given first reading, to take the initiative and raise the matter for consideration of the House byway of a point of order ... " The House should note, however, that there is a third reading stage and that at that stage any clause or part of the bill may be brought into question by way of an amendment proposing that the clause or part of the bill be referred back to the committee.

References

Debates, April 2, 1953, pp. 3550-1; December 10, 1953, p. 797; February 11, 1954, pp. 2019-20; October 15, 1964, pp. 9086-9; January 26, 1971, pp. 2760-7.