Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon respecting an error in Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (COVID-19 response).
While it is unfortunate that the English language in subclause 239(2) contained an error, the French language in subclause 239(2) is indeed the correct version. The government intends to address this inconsistency at committee.
In his intervention, the member refers to Standing Order 68(3) respecting blank or imperfect bills. This Standing Order, which dates back to Confederation, was added to the rules of the House to address extreme situations where a blank or imperfect form is in possession of the House. I can assure the House that while there is an error in subclause 239(2) in the English version, the bill was in its final form when it was introduced and read a first time.
I would like to draw to the attention of members a Speaker's ruling respecting imperfect bills. In January 1987, during a point of order, it was alleged that there were two imperfections in a government bill, specifically that a blank occurred where a sessional paper number should have appeared and that a memorandum of understanding was not contained in the bill. The Speaker ruled that these anomalies did not render the bill imperfect with respect to Standing Order 68(3).
I suggest to the member that anyone would be hard pressed to name one government that could claim to have an immaculate legislative agenda that did not contain any errors. In fact, the House has a process to correct these errors in statutes. The miscellaneous statute law amendment program, which was established by the Department of Justice in 1975, is a periodic legislative exercise administered by the legislation section of the Department of Justice. It is used to correct anomalies, inconsistencies, outdated terminology and errors in federal statutes. The reason this program was established is that mistakes happen.
In the case before the House, this error was identified during the second reading stage, and as a result, it can be fixed during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at committee. That is what the government intends to do.
The proper course of action in these situations is to report an error of this nature to the minister responsible or to the parliamentary secretary responsible. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The member making a comment to a government member during the debate does not suffice.
In conclusion, I submit that Bill C-19 is in proper form and that the government will address the inconsistency during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at committee.
