Omnibus bills: admissibility; long titles

The Speaker: I have a judgment to render. On Friday, December 4, 1992, the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond rose on a point of order relating to the omnibus nature of Bill C-93, An Act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992. I would like to thank him for the succinctness of his presentation. I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Justin Edwards) for his intervention. I have reviewed the matter and am now prepared to rule on the point of order. The purpose of Bill C-93 is to wind up and transfer or merge the functions, and in some cases the staff, of nine government organizations to other government agencies or departments, and provide for the continuation and ultimate dissolution of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. The objections raised by the honourable Member were that the bill not only would wind up some agencies, but it would also make major changes to public policy with regard to the role of government. The House Leader of the Official Opposition stated that if properly drafted, the long title of the bill would indicate its purpose of terminating specific agencies by name, revealing what he felt was the real purpose of the bill. He also argued that it is an omnibus bill and ought to be sent back to the drafters to be divided. These points are very similar to the arguments presented by the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond concerning the omnibus nature of Bill C-63, An Act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, on which I ruled on April 1, 1992. As noted at that time, one of the purposes of omnibus bills is to group together multiple statutory amendments so that discussion in the House may be focused. It was also pointed out that the Speaker has not been given any specific authority over the form or content of omnibus bills. I would refer honourable Members to the ruling of April 1,1992, which dealt in some detail with the very points raised on Friday last by the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond. The arguments presented in relation to Bill C-93, while put forward with skill, have not convinced me that the Chair should deviate from our practice. Accordingly, I must conclude that it would not be appropriate under these circumstances to accept the objections raised. Therefore, the bill is properly before the House. F0509-e 34-3 1992-12-07. [1] Debates, December 4, 1992, pp. 14631-3.