Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask that you divide Bill C-56, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Abolition of Early Parole Act, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1.
Standing Order 69.1 states:
In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.
There are two parts of Bill C-56 that I believe should be separated through the application of Standing Order 69.1. One of those parts would be the section that amends the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. These proposals are meant to address the findings of the inquiry into the death of Ashley Smith, which resulted in a set of recommendations, including the restricted use of administrative segregation. The other part aims to amend the Abolition of Early Parole Act to reinstate the accelerated parole review at one-sixth of the sentence for non-violent offences.
Further, the segregation proposals deal with the introduction of firm deadlines regarding days spent in solitary confinement, as well as the inclusion of oversight or review measures, i.e., independent external reviewers, whereas the one-sixth issue is quite separate and touches on the ability for non-violent criminals to be released on parole and into community much sooner than previously allowed.
Both are related in that they deal with prisons, but they tackle separate issues. In fact, it is my understanding that the Correctional Service Canada would deal with the segregation issue, whereas the Parole Board of Canada would deal with the other.
As you know Mr. Speaker, there is no jurisprudence for the House on this new practice of dividing bills, since the standing order granting you this authority was only adopted in June. Since we do not have any precedents for dividing bills in the manner proposed through Standing Order 69.1, the Speaker has always had the authority to divide motions. Perhaps we can look at these precedents for some guidance on this.
On page 562 and 563 of O'Brien and Bosc, it states:
When any Member objects to a motion containing two or more distinct propositions, he or she may request that the motion be divided and that each proposition be debated and voted on separately.
On June 15, 1964, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton ruled on a request to divide a government motion regarding a new Canadian flag. The Speaker made the following statement:
I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the house contains two propositions, and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them....
The Speaker, in this particular ruling, gave a summary of proceedings in the British House with regard to the division of complicated questions. He gave, for example, a ruling from April 19, 1888, where the British Speaker said:
It may be for the convenience of the house that the hon. gentleman's two propositions should be put together, but if any hon. gentleman objects to their being taken together, they will be put separately.
Another illustration came in a ruling from July 17, 1905. The Speaker said:
A member raised a point of order asking the Speaker to rule as to whether when a resolution contains various different propositions it should not be divided and each put separately. It will be seen that the Speaker decided that, in his opinion, it should be divided.
A ruling from October 8, 1912, was also cited:
If the noble lord finds himself in any doubt as to how to vote upon it I shall be very glad to put it as two questions.
That same year, on November 13, the Speaker said:
...the rule, of course, is that if any hon. member feels embarrassed in voting upon a resolution, that the Chair shall divide the resolution....
While the Speaker in 1964 went on to reference more British examples, such as a case from July 1920 and December 10, 1947, he relied on the ruling of November 13, 1912, when he said:
Taking into consideration the references and quotations just cited, and more especially the view expressed by the Speaker of the British house on November 13, 1912, where he said, “the rule, of course, is if any honourable member feels embarrassed on voting on a resolution that the Chair shall revise the resolution in order that the member may, if he wishes to vote “Aye” on the one part and “No” on the other not be embarrassed by having to vote “Aye” or “No” on the whole of it,”
Accordingly, Speaker Macnaughton concluded:
...the motion before the house contains two propositions, and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them....
The common guidance here would appear to be strong objections, which I am expressing to you in regard to Bill C-56 and the discomfort members would have voting against a motion containing two parts they support, and vice versa.
On April 8, 1991, members argued that a motion to amend the Standing Orders contained more than one proposal, and the option of passing only one vote on the various proposals in the motion posed a problem for some members. Some members favoured certain proposals and were against others.
On April 10, 1991, Speaker Fraser made a ruling more in line with the new standing order regarding bills when ruling on a request to divide a government motion to amend the Standing Orders of the House.
Citing Speaker Fraser, Speaker Milliken said:
Rather than intervening to divide the motion, he ruled that a single debate would be held on the motion, and its components would be separated into three questions for voting purposes.
He continued:
After having carefully examined the precedents and after having reviewed the arguments on both sides of the question, I am inclined to agree that Government Business Item No. 2 does, indeed, present an instance where the Chair is justified in taking some action.
On October 4, 2002, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar raised the matter that a motion for reinstatement of House business contained four separate and distinct parts. She objected to the fact of having only one debate and one vote, when the House was being asked to decide on four subjects, and she asked the Speaker to divide the motion, which he did.
I would argue that the reasons to support the division of the second reading motion of Bill C-56 are the same as those cited from the British House and from the Canadian House in 1964, 1991, and 2002. Members cannot speak for their constituents responsibly by casting one vote that covers various issues. Standing Order 69.1 was meant to relieve members of that impediment.
I suspect that the majority of the House supports the sections of the bill that address the findings of the inquiry into the death of Ashley Smith. I know that a great number of the members disagree with the section in Bill C-56 that reinstates accelerated parole review at one-sixth of the sentence for non-violent offences. Many members, and the constituents who elected them, believe that this would be good news for those convicted of white-collar fraudulent crimes and drug dealers who might get out of prison early.
I believe that Bill C-56 is a good test for Standing Order 69.1, since the division of this bill, along the lines I have described, would address the omnibus nature of Bill C-56 and the problem members have with casting one vote on distinct, separate, and conflicting areas of public policy.
The author of this new standing order, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, should agree with me, since during debate on the motion proposing this change, on June 19, 2017, she said:
We want to ensure that MPs are not faced with the dilemma of how to vote on a bill that is most supportable but contains a totally unrelated clause, a poison pill, that they find objectionable. We want flexibility for MPs in these instances. Under the proposed change, the Speaker would have the authority to divide bills for the purpose of voting for second reading, third reading, and passage of a bill. The Speaker would also be authorized to group a bill thematically. There would be a single debate at each stage, and members would then be able to vote on parts of a bill separately.
The minister's intentions for the use of Standing Order 69.1 are in line with the predicament my colleagues and I are in, with casting only one vote on Bill C-56.
Further, the minister's concerns would appear to echo the concerns contained in the ruling I presented with respect to the Speaker's authority to divide motions, in particular the November 13, 1912, ruling stating that if a member wishes to vote for one part and against another part of a motion, the member should not be embarrassed by having to vote for or against the whole of it.
This new Standing Order was put forward to address the problem of omnibus bills. The fact that it exempts budget implementation bills makes it somewhat of a farce. However, in the case of Bill C-56, there may be some merit in its application.
I look forward to your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
