Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) introduced Bill S-16, An Act respecting the recognition of the Haida Nation and the Council of the Haida Nation.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you, Senator Plett, for raising the point of order. In my respectful view, Your Honour, the two bills are different and, therefore, do not engage either the rules or the principles to which my honourable colleague referred. As has been mentioned on several occasions, Bill S-15 takes a very different legislative approach than Bill S-241 does.

Colleagues, there have been over 80 bills introduced in this chamber that are sponsored by senators since the start of the Forty-fourth Parliament. And there are many good ideas contained in these bills. It would be against our practices to prevent a government bill — that seeks to advance an idea that has been proposed by one of our colleagues — from being properly debated, studied and ultimately voted on in this chamber.

As we know, many senators have introduced bills here with the purpose of encouraging the government to bring forward its own legislation that addresses the important public policy issues that are contained in Senate public bills. For example, Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bail reform), which received Royal Assent on December 5, 2023, included provisions from Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders), sponsored by Senator Boisvenu. That has passed the Senate and is now before the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

During the Forty-second Parliament, Bill S-238, sponsored by Senator MacDonald, on the importation and exportation of shark fins, was at the report stage in the other place. The government determined that this merited support, and it was incorporated as part of Bill C-68, which deals with amendments to the Fisheries Act. This amendment essentially copied the exact language from Senator MacDonald’s Bill S-238.

To turn now to the specific procedural question, which is part of what is generally considered the similar question principle, I respectfully submit that Bill S-15 takes a substantially different approach to creating a framework for protecting animals in captivity. Indeed, the government has been working diligently on this for some time now. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change’s mandate letter included a specific commitment to introduce legislation to protect animals in captivity.

As we know, our colleague Senator Plett — in an article published in The Hill Times on October 4, 2023 — expressed his reservations about Bill S-241, and called upon the government to bring forward its own legislation after “. . . proper consultations with zoos, provincial animal welfare authorities, and stakeholders.” I appreciate his comments that he does not take issue with the fact that the government did this.

The Government of Canada closely followed this chamber’s deliberations on Bill S-241. The government has heard some of the concerns that are related to that bill, including from the stakeholder community. As a result, the government responded with a different approach in Bill S-15. Specifically, Bill S-15 addresses the concerns of some senators around the constitutionality of Bill S-241 with respect to the federal government legislating in provincial jurisdiction. Bill S-15 creates a permitting scheme that is delegated to provincial and municipal officials in a manner that reflects the division of powers in our Constitution.

Second, Bill S-15 takes a narrower application of the number of species that are governed under the scheme in order to address the concerns that were addressed by several stakeholders.

This alone, I submit, adequately demonstrates the substantive differences between Bill S-15 as compared to Bill S-241 in terms of the legislative approach that is being taken.

Now, procedurally, the principles to which Senator Plett referred relate to two substantially similar questions being before the chamber at the same time.

A Speaker’s ruling from June 18, 1985, explained that the text of motions must be identical for the same question rule to apply. Referring to rule 5-12, the Speaker ruled that, “Our parliamentary jurisprudence requires that we have in hand identical texts for rule 47 to apply.”

Another Speaker’s ruling from November 19, 1998, further clarified this point when it was decided that the same question rule would be applied because the motion was, “. . . virtually word-for-word identical . . . .”

The precedents clearly shows that a substantially similar question has been defined as accomplishing the same objective in the same manner.

I submit that Bill S-241 and Bill S-15 are not substantially similar, and Bill S-15 should not be found to invoke the rule of anticipation, nor should Bill S-241 be deemed similar — notwithstanding the arguments of Senator Plett — and, indeed, this is a practice that is rarely invoked, as experienced colleagues will know, in the Senate or indeed in the other place. Bill S-15 should clearly be allowed to proceed. A finding otherwise would put a chill on the ability to legislate in this chamber on any matter that is addressed in any of the 80 bills sponsored by senators that are currently before this chamber or in the other place.

As you remind me regularly in Question Period, colleagues, the government does not have a monopoly on all good answers or good ideas. It stands to reason, therefore, that the government should be able to bring forward legislation to address matters sponsored by senators providing that they take a different approach to address the subject matter of a Senate public bill. Any other approach would run counter to our long-standing practice of allowing fulsome debate in this chamber. Therefore, Your Honour, I would submit that Bill S-15 should be allowed to proceed on the Senate Order Paper and that Bill S-241 remain as well. Thank you very much.