Point of Order
May 2, 2012
Second reading: admissibility; copies of bill containing incorrect pagination
Hon. Andrew Scheer
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
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.
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..
[1]
Debates, May 2, 2012, pp. 7467–69.
[2]
See Appendix A, "Cited Provisions:
Standing Orders of the House of Commons ", Standing Order 70.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"A discrepancy in pagination between a bill's advance copy and the official version printed by the House does not render the bill out of order for debate, provided the content is identical."
AI Summary
The Speaker ruled that a bill with different pagination between its departmental and House-printed versions was in order for debate as the content was identical.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High