The Legislative Process / Stages

Second reading: admissibility; copies of bill containing incorrect pagination

May 2, 2012

Debates, pp. 7469, 7472

On May 2, 2012, Scott Brison (Kings—Hants) rose on a point of order with regard to Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. Mr. Brison stated that the version of the Bill distributed to opposition Members following its tabling in the House differed from the version distributed to Members in the mail and posted on the Parliament of Canada website in that the two versions had a different number of pages. Therefore, he suggested that it was unclear which version should be used, thereby impeding Members’ ability to debate the Bill properly. Other Members also spoke to the matter.^[1]

Resolution

The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that the pagination between the two versions of the Bill was slightly different but that they were otherwise identical. The Speaker explained that this was due to the fact that software used by the department introducing the Bill, the Department of Justice, was different from that used to print the Bill used by the House of Commons. Later that day, the Acting Speaker (Bruce Stanton) confirmed that the Bills were indeed identical.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I think I can shed some light on where we are. When the Bill is brought to the House, it is printed first by whichever department is introducing it, which in this case was the Department of Justice. Standing Order 70^[2] says, “All bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages”. I have been told it is a question of pagination based on the different software that is used when the department prints its version. Then it is transmitted to the Law Clerk’s office, at which point it is then printed for distribution to Members. I am prepared to allow debate to proceed. The pagination that is being used for the debate has 425 pages and it is properly before the House in that respect.

If there is any further confusion, I can come back with a more thorough explanation of how that happens, but the Bills are identical. It is simply a matter that when they are printed by the House of Commons, the slightly different software results in a different pagination.

Editor’s Note

In order to provide additional clarification on the Speaker’s ruling, the Acting Speaker (Bruce Stanton) delivered the following statement later that day:

The Acting Speaker: Before we go to questions and comments, I want to bring to the attention of the House that arising from the point of order brought forward by the hon. Member for Kings—Hants and with subsequent interventions by the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and the hon. Member for Wascana, I am pleased to report to the House that the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel responsible for the printing of bills can confirm that the text included in the version of Bill C-38 tabled in the House on April 26, 2012, is identical to the text found in the copy printed after first reading of the said Bill, as distributed to all Members of the House.

The version of the Bill distributed to Members on April 26 was a photocopy of the secret copy of the Bill prepared by the Department of Justice. The version distributed to Members after first reading is produced by the House administration—in particular, the Office of the Law Clerk—and the difference in text and number of pages is due to the electronic preparation of the Bill in House software.

The text is identical and has been reviewed by legislative editors working in the Law Clerk’s office. Except for a few pagination differences, it is identical in all respects.

I thank hon. Members for their interventions on this matter.

Postscript

In October 2012, the Government took up the practice of adding a notice on the advance copies of bills, stating that these copies are to be formatted and reprinted by Parliament.