Questions Related to Content of Bills / Discrepancy

Texts

Journals pp. 322-3

Debates pp. 2538-9

Background

On January 16, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-144, an Act to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada ..., Mr. Fortin (Lotbinière) rose on a point of order to suggest that the use of "and" in the English text of the preamble and of "ou" in the French text could lead to problems of interpretation that might eventually undermine federal-provincial relations. He urged the Deputy Speaker to take the issue under advisement. After hearing comments from other Members, the Deputy Speaker agreed to the suggestion. On January 19, the Speaker made a ruling.

Issue

Can the Speaker by his own authority seek to resolve any apparent discrepancy between the English and French versions of a proposed bill?

Decision

No. "... it is not the duty of the Chair to interpret the language of a measure when one text appears to be at variance with or different from the text of the other official language."

Reasons given by the Speaker

It would appear that there is a difference between the two texts of the proposed bill. However, in this particular case it seems that the difference is more of form than of substance. Nonetheless, it is not the duty of the Speaker to settle such questions. If it were, there would be the significant problem of deciding which version reflects the real intention of those who drafted the bill. A possible solution to the problem, as suggested during discussion on the point of order, would be to consider it during committee stage, "when the question could be submitted to the Minister's advisers". This would be more logical, practical and efficient. Nevertheless, a solution to this question could not be proposed at the stage of second reading by way of an amendment. To amend the preamble or any clause at this stage would be contrary to the rules. Moreover, "a private Member cannot move an amendment to the preamble of a bill".

Sources cited

May, 17th ed., p. 548.

References

Debates, January 16, 1970, pp. 2497-9.