Omnibus

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Questions Related to Content of Bills / Omnibus</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>May 6, 1971</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2803_117_01/484?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 531-2</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_06/39?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 5585-6</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">On May 4, when beginning the consideration of the motion for second reading of Bill C-244, an Act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, Mr. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar), on a point of order, claimed that the bill contained two distinct proposals and should be divided. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard), having heard Members' comments, suggested that the matter be referred to the Speaker for consideration and for a ruling which might affect similar bills in the future. This ruling was in fact given by the Deputy Speaker two days later.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Must a bill containing separate proposals be divided?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">No. In this case the bill is acceptable.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">While the matter is not free from doubt, there is, however, a relationship between clauses singled out by Members and the remainder of the bill. Although no specific set of rules or guidelines govern the content of a bill, the parts of a bill should be relevant to each other, and relevant and limited to the terminology in the long title of the bill. It is, of course, in each case, a matter of judgement as to when a bill offends to the point that it should be ruled unacceptable because it contains disparate matters; but that is not the case here. </p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Journals, January 26, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2803_117_01/259">pp.283-5</a></p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, May 4, 1971, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2803_05/1040">pp.5488-90</a>.</p> </div>