The Legislative Process / Form of Bills

Omnibus bills: request to divide

September 20, 2001

Debates, pp. 5328-9

On September 20, 2001, Vic Toews (Provencher) rose on a question of privilege with respect to Bill C-15, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001. Mr. Toews maintained that it was an omnibus bill containing several unrelated principles which impeded the ability of Members to debate or cast their votes responsibly and intelligibly. In his view, it was appropriate that the matter be resolved through a question of privilege, because the work of Members as legislators was being threatened. He suggested that the Bill could, with some justification, be broken down into five general subject areas. Claiming that the views of the opposition could not be properly heard, Mr. Toews appealed to the Speaker to use his authority to divide the Bill. Other Members intervened on the matter.^[1]

The Speaker ruled immediately. He indicated that the matter was not a question of privilege, and that he would therefore treat it as a point of order. He noted that almost every amendment in Bill C-15 dealt with the Criminal Code of Canada, adding that there was no precedent for the Chair to split such a bill. Citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000, he reminded the House that Canadian practice did not permit the Chair to divide a bill because of its complexity or composite nature. Accordingly, the Speaker concluded that it was not for the Chair to divide a bill in the House.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair has carefully weighed all the arguments put forward by hon. Members this morning. I thank them for their interventions.

In my view this issue is not a question of privilege. At best it is a point of order and I will treat it as such. I do not believe the privilege of the House is involved in the discussions on this matter.

I can only note that Bill C-15, which is before the House, deals with amendments to the Criminal Code and other Acts. The other Acts are pretty consequential. There are minor, slight changes but almost every amendment in this voluminous Bill deals with the Criminal Code of Canada.

I can only imagine what a nightmare it would be for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to be studying the whole Criminal Code if that were the Act before the House for passage.

One day it was. One day the Criminal Code was adopted in the House. It dealt with far more issues than are dealt with in Bill C-15 and it apparently got through somehow.

There were no invitations extended to the Speaker that we know of to divide that Bill into chunks. If such arguments were put forward they were ignored because there has not been a single precedent cited to the Chair where the Chair has in fact split a bill. I note that in all the arguments this morning. I have asked for this kind of citation and have found none because I submit there is no precedent for the Chair to split such a bill.

I can only refer, as the Government House Leader did in his argument, and he got there before I got to it, to the sections of Marleau and Montpetit to which I had reference after receiving the notice of the question of privilege from the hon. Member for Provencher yesterday. I cite again from this work:

It appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms, for a bill to amend, repeal or enact more than one Act, provided that the necessary notice is given, it is accompanied by the royal recommendation (where necessary), and it follows the form required. However, on the question of whether the Chair can be persuaded to divide a bill simply because it is complex or composite in nature, there are many precedents from which it can be concluded that Canadian practice does not permit this.

The citation referred to in support of that contains, for example, the rulings of Madam Speaker Sauvé which were referred to in argument in which she refused to divide the Bill then before the House, which caused such trouble and the bell ringing incident.

Then of course there was the decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser when he was asked to divide the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. That was in June 1988, and I know the hon. Government House Leader may have been arguing the point in June. If he was suggesting that someone I knew more personally was involved he is incorrect. I was not elected to the House until November 1988 and I was not part of that argument. In any event, the argument was lost and Mr. Speaker Fraser said this:

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.

I have to rule with reluctance that it is not for the Chair to divide a bill in the House. The argument I think would be stronger were this what could be called an omnibus bill, that is one dealing with a myriad of amendments to many different Acts, as was the case, for example, with the Free Trade Implementation Bill, rather than a bill which seeks to amend one Act of the Parliament of Canada.

In my opinion, this is not a point of order, and we can get on with debate.