The Legislative Process / Stages

Introduction and first reading: admissibility; bill argued to be in imperfect shape; summary

February 10, 2014

Debates, pp. 2803–4

On February 6, 2014, Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley) rose on a point of order with regard to Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts. Mr. Cullen, citing contradictory information in the English and French versions of the summary of the Bill, stated that it was in imperfect shape and that the order for second reading must therefore be discharged, in accordance with the Standing Orders. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House) rose to argue that as the summary is not considered to be part of the Bill and as the Bill as introduced in the House and on the website was correct, the Bill was in fact in its proper form. Having heard from other Members, the Acting Speaker (Bruce Stanton) took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On February 10, 2014, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the inconsistency in the summary of the Bill was found only in the advance copy and was corrected in the official version of the Bill tabled in the House and available on the Parliament of Canada website. The Speaker also confirmed that the summary is not, strictly speaking, part of the Bill. Reminding the House that an incomplete Bill is one that has only a title or the drafting of which is incomplete, he was satisfied that Bill C-23 was in proper form.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 6, 2014, by the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition, regarding the form of Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts.

I would like to thank the hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue for their comments.

The Opposition House Leader claimed that a significant error had occurred in the tabling and the drafting of the Bill, namely that there was contradictory information provided in the French and English versions of the summary of the Bill. More specifically, he explained that the notion of exemption, though central to that section of the summary, was absent in the French version.

In claiming that the Bill is, therefore, in imperfect form, the House Leader for the Official Opposition invoked House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which states on page 728 that:

In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.

As well, he noted that Standing Order 68(3)^[2] states that, “No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect shape” and asserted that the correction of errors on websites or through reprints of bills does not remedy such cases.

The hon. Government House Leader countered that the summary of a bill is not, in fact, considered to be a part of a bill and, thus, even grievous errors in the summary would not constitute grounds to find a bill to be in improper form. He cited precedents to demonstrate that previous Speakers had withdrawn bills only when they were not finalized or even drafted, and he noted that, on May 17, 1956, Speaker Beaudoin determined that a bill has to have blanks to be considered to be in imperfect form.

The hon. Government House Leader also noted that the wording was correct in both the version now before the House and in the version found on the Internet.

In drawing the attention of the House to the inconsistency found in the summary of the advance copy of the Bill, the Opposition House Leader has reminded us all of the importance of proper drafting. This is recognized in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, on page 720, which states:

The enactment of a statute by Parliament is the final step in a long process that starts with the proposal, preparation and drafting of a bill. The drafting of a bill is a vital stage in this process—one which challenges the decision makers and drafters to take carefully into account certain constraints, since a failure to abide by these may have negative consequences in relation to the eventual interpretation and application of the law and to the proper functioning of the legislative process.

It is therefore comforting to know that Members take their responsibility seriously and scrutinize the bills that come before the House.

Having said that, I must inform the House that in the official version of the Bill, the one printed and found on our website, the concept of exemption has not been omitted. In other words, the inconsistency the Opposition House Leader noticed has been caught and corrected in the version of which the House is officially seized. On that basis, it would seem that the issue has been resolved.

But, I also want to take the time to add that the summary of a bill is not, per se, considered part of a bill. This is quite clear in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, on page 733:

The summary is a comprehensive and usually brief recapitulation of the substance of a bill. It offers “a clear, factual, non-partisan summary of the purpose of the bill and its main provisions”. The purpose of the summary is to contribute to a better understanding of the contents of the bill, of which it is not a part.

In addition, procedural authorities and precedents have provided us with a clear understanding of what constitutes an incomplete bill. O’Brien and Bosc, on page 728, states:

A bill in blank or in an imperfect shape is a bill which has only a title, or the drafting of which has not been completed.

In the present circumstances, the Chair is satisfied that Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, is in proper form.

I thank all hon. Members for their attention and I trust the references provided will assist Members as they proceed to study the Bill as it wends its way through the legislative process.