Discussion · Government Orders
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal
“We should vote on this bill all at once, not split it up. It is about only one topic, which is medically assisted dying. Committee is the right place to study the details and make changes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-41, the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. Bill C-41 proposes substantive amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with medical assistance in dying. As a result of these amendments, other acts of Parliament would be amended as a consequence for the sole purpose of the amendments made to the Criminal Code respecting the medical assistance in dying regime. Paragraph 12.50 of the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states in relation to the division of an omnibus bill, “The Standing Orders define an omnibus bill as a bill intended to modify, repeal or enact more than one law with no common thread or which concern unrelated topics.” The stated bill, Bill C-41, deals with the singular issue of medical assistance in dying and no unrelated topics. The member has clearly acknowledged this in his intervention when he stated, “I recognize that these matters concern medical assistance in dying.” To demonstrate how closely intertwined the two medical assistance in dying matters addressed in the bill are linked, I would draw the attention of members to subclause 5(9), which states, “A mental illness is not an illness or disease in respect of which an advance request may be made.” The bill clearly deals with medical assistance in dying as a common element and theme and contains no unrelated provisions dealing with unrelated matters. Taken to its logical end, if what the member is proposing were to be accepted, each and every bill the government introduces that contains a common element and deals with no unrelated matters could be subject to multiple votes at the second reading and third reading stages and would put the Speaker in an awkward position to classify bills according to how strongly some members feel about the subject matter contained therein. I submit that the appropriate place for members to consider the clauses of the bill is at committee where, unlike at second reading, members may propose amendments or simply vote against clauses they oppose. I conclude that Bill C-41, for which the substantive proposed amendments relate to the medical assistance in dying regime in the Criminal Code, does not in any way constitute an omnibus bill and, therefore, the application of Standing Order 69.1 does not apply. I would encourage the House to expeditiously refer the bill to committee where members can examine, consider and propose amendments to the individual clauses.”
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-41, the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. Bill C-41 proposes substantive amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with medical assistance in dying. As a result of these amendments, other acts of Parliament would be amended as a consequence for the sole purpose of the amendments made to the Criminal Code respecting the medical assistance in dying regime. Paragraph 12.50 of the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states in relation to the division of an omnibus bill, “The Standing Orders define an omnibus bill as a bill intended to modify, repeal or enact more than one law with no common thread or which concern unrelated topics.” The stated bill, Bill C-41, deals with the singular issue of medical assistance in dying and no unrelated topics. The member has clearly acknowledged this in his intervention when he stated, “I recognize that these matters concern medical assistance in dying.” To demonstrate how closely intertwined the two medical assistance in dying matters addressed in the bill are linked, I would draw the attention of members to subclause 5(9), which states, “A mental illness is not an illness or disease in respect of which an advance request may be made.” The bill clearly deals with medical assistance in dying as a common element and theme and contains no unrelated provisions dealing with unrelated matters. Taken to its logical end, if what the member is proposing were to be accepted, each and every bill the government introduces that contains a common element and deals with no unrelated matters could be subject to multiple votes at the second reading and third reading stages and would put the Speaker in an awkward position to classify bills according to how strongly some members feel about the subject matter contained therein. I submit that the appropriate place for members to consider the clauses of the bill is at committee where, unlike at second reading, members may propose amendments or simply vote against clauses they oppose. I conclude that Bill C-41, for which the substantive proposed amendments relate to the medical assistance in dying regime in the Criminal Code, does not in any way constitute an omnibus bill and, therefore, the application of Standing Order 69.1 does not apply. I would encourage the House to expeditiously refer the bill to committee where members can examine, consider and propose amendments to the individual clauses.