The Legislative Process / Stages

Reinstatement of Government bills from the previous session: discrepancy in the electronic versions of a bill

February 23, 2004

Debates, pp. 932-3

 On February 13, 2004, Peter MacKay (Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough) rose on a point of order with respect to an alleged discrepancy between the English version of section 19(2) of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence, and the corresponding section of the English version of the same Bill (then numbered C-34) from the previous session. He stated that section 19(2) of Bill C-4 contained the expression “office of the Senate Ethics Officer”, whereas section 19(2) of Bill C-34, in the same place, contained the expression “office of the Ethics Commissioner”.^[1] The Deputy Speaker (Bob Kilger) took the matter under advisement. On February 16, 2004, Loyola Hearn (St. John’s West) rose on a point of order with respect to a discrepancy in section 19(2) between the electronic PDF and HTML versions of Bill C-4 on the Web site. Reminding the Speaker that the Bill must be in the same form as at prorogation, he asked him to declare the proceedings on the Bill null and void.^[2] The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

On February 23, 2004, the Speaker delivered his ruling on both points of order. He declared that the Bill was corrected administratively pursuant to the longstanding practice whereby the Law Clerks of both Houses agree to correct manifest printing or clerical errors. With regard to the discrepancy between the electronic versions of the Bill, he explained that it was due to human error. The Speaker advised Members that he had directed the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House to inform him henceforth by letter of any such corrections to the text of proposed legislation, which letter would then be tabled in the House to keep Members informed. He concluded that the two Bills were in the same form as in the previous session, given that the administrative correction did not affect the form of the Bill and had been correctly incorporated before prorogation.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on two points of order: the first one was raised on Friday, February 13 by the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough regarding an alleged discrepancy between Bill C-34 from the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament and its reinstated version during the current session, Bill C-4; and the second one was raised by the hon. Member for St. John’s West regarding the electronic PDF and HTML versions of the Bill.

The Member claims that Bill C-4 is not in the same form as Bill C-34 at the time of prorogation because the English version of clause 12 of the reinstated Bill contains at page 14, lines 25 and 27, the expression “the office of the Senate Ethics Officer or office of the Ethics Commissioner” whereas Bill C-34 referred to the expression “office of the Ethics Commissioner or office of the Ethics Commissioner”. Because Bill C-4 includes the words “Senate Ethics Officer” in replacement of the first occurrence of the words “Ethics Commissioner” in that subsection, it is the contention of the Member that the Bill is not in the same form as Bill C-34 at the time of prorogation.

The Chair has looked into the matter and consulted with the officials of the House responsible for the preparation of bills.

I would ask the House to bear with me as I explain the process whereby the change came to be made and render my decision regarding the validity of the point of order before us.

There is a longstanding practice between the Law Clerks of the two Houses that they will administratively correct errors in bills when they both agree that they are faced with an obvious printing error. This is an authority that they exercise with extreme care, in rare cases, and only after they are satisfied that the error is a manifest error. Let me explain the specific circumstances of this case.

I have been informed that indeed the words “Senate Ethics Officer” were added in replacement of the words “Ethics Commissioner” to the electronic version of Bill C-34 following an agreement between the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate and the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House to the effect that the absence of those words in the subsection rendered the text unintelligible and constituted an error that could be fixed administratively.

On October 30, 2003, when Bill C-34 was in the Senate, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate advised the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House that Bill C-34 contained, at page 14, lines 25 to 27 of the English version, the expression “office of the Ethics Commissioner or office of the Ethics Commissioner”. After careful analysis of the surrounding text in both the English and French versions of the Bill, he contended that this redundancy constituted an error that could be fixed administratively if the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House came to the same conclusion. I note here that this error appeared in the first reading version of the Bill as drafted by the Department of Justice and had until that point in time remained undetected.

The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House did indeed reach that same conclusion. His reasoning can be summarized as follows, and there are five reasons.

First, the expression “office of the Ethics Commissioner or office of the Ethics Commissioner” in the English version is a repetition that in itself is nonsensical.

Second, the English version thus refers only to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner for the House of Commons whereas the French version of that same subsection refers to both the Offices of the House Ethics Commissioner and the Senate Ethics Officer, that is the “bureau du conseiller sénatorial en éthique” [and the]^[3] “commissariat à l’éthique”.

Third, when the English and French versions are looked at as a whole, it becomes evident that the absence of the words “Senate” and “Officer” in the English version of subsection (2) renders the meaning of the English version uncertain, whereas the French version is clear and unequivocal.

Fourth, in subsections (1) and (3) of the section amended, as well as in clauses 9 to 18 of the Bill, one notes the consistent use of the terms “Senate, House of Commons, Library of Parliament, office of the Senate Ethics Officer or office of the Ethics Commissioner”. Only in subsection (2), which is the one under review, are the words “Senate” and “Officer” absent.

Fifth, the insertion of the words “Senate” and “Officer” in subsection (2) reconciles the two versions of the Bill, and achieves consistency of meaning within the English version itself.

In summary, then, the Law Clerks applied two very rigorous tests to the situation: first, they were satisfied that the error was a manifest printing error; and second, they agreed that there was only one way to correct that error. Therefore, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House prepared a new parchment copy of page 14 where the words “Senate Ethics Officer” were inserted in replacement of the first occurrence of the words “Ethics Commissioner” in subsection (2), and forwarded it to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate.

On October 31, 2003, the electronic PDF version of Bill C-34 was also corrected to reflect the change agreed upon. This took place before the prorogation of the House on November 12, 2003. Unfortunately, because of human error, the HTML version remained erroneous.

When Bill C-34 was reinstated during the present session, the PDF electronic version of Bill C-34 served as a source document for the preparation of Bill C-4. This explains why Bill C-4 contains the expression “office of the Senate Ethics Officer”, as pointed out by the Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough.

After a careful review of the facts, the Chair is satisfied that the administrative correction of this clerical error by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House was consistent with the long-standing practice of the Law Clerks of both Houses relating to the correction of obvious printing or clerical errors.

Although such corrections are relatively rare, I believe that for greater clarity there should be a mechanism for informing Members of these changes. Accordingly, I have directed the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House to inform the Speaker of any such changes by letter that I will then table in the House for the information of all hon. Members.

By so doing, I believe we will ensure that the time of the House or its committees is not wasted on correcting manifest clerical or printing errors, while nonetheless ensuring that Members are aware of any change, however minor, made to the text of proposed legislation before them.

So, to turn to the matter of the point of order, it is the opinion of the Chair that Bill C-4 is indeed in the same form as Bill C-34 in the Second Session. The administrative correction described above did not affect the form of the Bill; it was correctly incorporated as part of the Bill before prorogation of the last session and so is appropriately included in the Bill as reinstated in this session.

I thank the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough and the hon. Member for St. John’s West for their vigilance. Their raising this important matter has given the Chair an opportunity not only to clarify the situation with regard to Bill C-4 but to set down a protocol for better dealing with such issues in the future.