Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I am rising on a point of order with respect to a situation we find ourselves in with the bill that Senator Dalphond was just talking about, Bill S-241, known as the Jane Goodall Act, and Bill S-15, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act.

As you may recall, Your Honour, in a second reading speech on Bill S-15, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Klyne, said, “. . . Bill S-15 is essentially a piece of Bill S-241 . . . .” This was not news to anybody in this chamber, but the fact that he acknowledged it was appreciated. He went on to say that Bill S-241 “. . . contains the policies in Bill S-15 . . . .” and:

I understand the government is open to some changes —

— to Bill S-15 —

— with the benefit of evidence presented on this bill and Bill S-241. . . .

And then, later in his speech, Senator Klyne said that, “. . . the government is open to potential amendments with the benefit of evidence presented on Bill S-241.”

Your Honour, that places this chamber in an unusual position, where the same senator has introduced two bills of which the second is a piece of the first, and yet he has not withdrawn the original bill. His reasoning is because this will permit committee testimony on Bill S-241 to inform amendments to Bill S-15.

According to rule 10-9, it is not permissible to introduce a new bill in the Senate with the same object as a bill that has already been passed or rejected during the same session. Bill S-15 and Bill S-241 have the same object as noted by the sponsor when he said in his second reading speech that Bill S-15 is essentially a piece of Bill S-241.

Similarly, rule 5-12 deals with texts of motions that are identical and reads:

Except as otherwise provided, a motion shall not be moved if it is the same in substance as any question that has already been adopted or defeated during the same session, unless the decision has been previously rescinded by motion following a notice of five days.

Bill S-241 has been adopted at second reading, while Bill S-15 is still at that stage. I understand it is not clear if rule 10-9 and rule 5-12 refer to the decision at third reading when they mention the term “decision of the Senate.” However, I mention these rules because I firmly believe the underlying principles of both of them demonstrate that the situation we have before us should not be permitted.

Rules 5-12 and 10-9 are designed to prevent redundancy in Senate business, uphold the integrity of the legislative process and ensure the orderly conduct of our deliberations.

Rule 5-12 focuses on motions within the Senate and prevents the Senate from revisiting the same issues repeatedly in a single session, ensuring that the Senate’s time and resources are used efficiently and that its proceedings move forward constructively.

Rule 10-9 prevents a new bill with the same objective as one that has been either passed or defeated from being introduced in the Senate again for the same reason. This would be an inefficient use of the Senate’s time and resources.

Even if you would rule that the duplication we find before this chamber today in Bill S-15 and Bill S-241 does not fall within the specific application of rule 5-12 or rule 10-9, I believe they should be governed by the same principles of preventing redundancy, upholding the integrity of the legislative process and ensuring the orderly conduct of our deliberations.

Allow me to briefly explain. Firstly, the strategy of maintaining a focus on Bill S-241 for the sole purpose of informing amendments to Bill S-15 raises significant concerns regarding procedural efficiency and redundancy. The core of the legislative process in any parliamentary system is to deliberate and advance laws that address the immediate needs and interests of society.

When a bill such as Bill S-241 is kept active without any intent of direct advancement, it not only diverts the attention of senators from more pressing matters, but it also misallocates valuable resources. This inefficiency becomes more pronounced when considering that the Senate’s time and capacity of its committees are finite with each bill requiring a considerable investment of time for discussion, testimony and analysis. Consequently, insisting on using Bill S-241’s committee hearings as a mechanism to indirectly amend Bill S-15 will impact the progress of other bills.

While the purpose behind parliamentary scrutiny of every other bill is to determine whether it should become law, that purpose does not exist with Bill S-241. The sponsor has openly admitted that the bill has been superseded by Bill S-15. This, Your Honour, is like an old car which is only good for used parts. The sponsor wants the committee hearings to see if there is anything we can unbolt from Bill S-241 and attach to Bill S-15. This is not acceptable parliamentary practice.

Committee hearings are crucial for scrutinizing the details of legislation, calling upon experts and hearing stakeholder testimonies to ensure the proposed laws serve the public interest effectively. Since both Bill S-241 and Bill S-15 cover similar ground, holding separate hearings for each will unquestionably result in redundancy. Witnesses will be called to testify twice on the same issues, committee work will be duplicated with members needing to review similar evidence twice and staff will spend additional time preparing for hearings and treading familiar territory.

With respect, this is an absurd way for this chamber to conduct its operations. It not only strains the resources of the Senate but also those of the individuals and organizations involved, potentially detracting from the thorough examination of other legislative matters that require our attention.

My office has already had to field a number of inquiries from stakeholders who are confused about what is going on. They do not know if they should be speaking to Bill S-15 or Bill S-241 or both. They don’t understand why they are going to have to make their case twice and what happens if they only testify to one bill and not the other. They don’t understand, and, Your Honour, I don’t understand. It simply makes no sense.

Secondly, the strategy of keeping Bill S-241 active, even though it has been superseded by Bill S-15, poses significant challenges to the integrity of our legislative proceedings. Clarity and transparency are foundational pillars of democratic governance, ensuring that the legislative agenda is understandable and accessible to both members of the legislative body and the public they serve.

When a bill is publicly acknowledged by its sponsor as having been replaced by another bill but is still studied in committee hearings, it introduces ambiguity into the legislative process. This ambiguity creates confusion about the legislative priorities and the status of various proposals, potentially undermining the confidence in the legislative body’s ability to manage its agenda effectively and transparently. Maintaining an active focus on Bill S-241 for the indirect benefit of Bill S-15 complicates the legislative landscape by blurring the lines between the objectives of distinct bills.

This obscures the direct roots of legislative action, making it more difficult to follow the progress of specific legislative initiatives and understand their potential impacts. It leads to a more convoluted legislative process where the direct line of sight between the legislative intent and the legislative action becomes obscured.

Finally, Your Honour, the decision to use Bill S-241’s committee hearings as a platform for influencing amendments to Bill S-15 sets a potentially problematic precedent for future legislative processes. This approach introduces a mythology where the primary function of a bill can extend beyond its direct legislative intentions to serve as a tool for affecting other legislation. In fact, for Bill S-241, this is the only purpose. There is no parliamentary precedent for this, and I find this troubling, Your Honour.

While this strategy might seem tactically advantageous to Senator Klyne right now, it could lead to long-term implications for the Senate’s operational norms. Future senators might see this as a validated tactic and lead to an increase in bills introduced not solely on their own merits but as strategic instruments for other legislative goals. This will inflate the number of bills in committee, further congesting the legislative agenda and complicating the prioritization of genuinely urgent legislation. The cumulative effect would be a legislative environment where the clarity of legislative intent and the directness of legislative action are diminished, as bills could increasingly serve dual purposes and extend beyond their explicit objectives.

Your Honour, it is well known that I am the critic of both Bill S-15 and Bill S-241. However, I trust that you will understand that my point of order is not motivated by my opposition to these bills — although I readily admit that I oppose these bills. It is motivated by my opposition to bad parliamentary practice and precedent, which has become more and more common.

To be clear, Your Honour, I am also not questioning the sponsor’s right to introduce Bill S-15. In fact, after the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that Bill S-241 was going to require the Department of Environment and Climate Change Canada to undertake activities outside of its existing mandate, which would impose additional costs on the public purse, it was clear — and, I’m sure, to Senator Klyne — that Bill S-241 would, in fact, require a Royal Recommendation. The sponsor needed to do something. So he chose to go the route of convincing the government to introduce a government bill — and good on him. I take no quarrel with this decision.

However, permitting Bill S-241 to simultaneously continue as a lame duck piece of legislation — which has no purpose other than to try to influence another bill before the Senate — is a harmful and dangerous precedent. It should not be permitted, Your Honour. It hinders the orderly conduct of Senate business. It introduces redundancy into our deliberations, and erodes the integrity of the legislative process. This is further compounded by the fact that Bill S-241 was referred to three different committees.

While the Senate has not, to my knowledge, faced a similar situation, the House of Commons had to deal with this issue a few times. I refer you to the Speaker’s decision on May 11, 2022, when he said:

Therefore, the question for the Chair is, should Bill C-250 be allowed to proceed further in the legislative process at this time? In the Chair’s opinion, it should not be allowed. The House should not face a situation where the same question can be cited twice within the same session, unless the House’s intention is to rescind or revoke the decision.

Government and private members’ bills belong to different categories of items and are governed by different sets of rules and precedents. Standing Order 94(1) provides the Speaker with the authority to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business”.

Applying this authority, I am ordering that the status of Bill C-250 remain pending and that it not be called for its second hour of debate. This leaves open the possibility that Bill C-250 could be reinstated in the next session, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, should by any chance Bill C-19 fail to be enacted in this session.

In a following decision on September 20, 2022, after Bill C-19 was adopted, the Speaker ordered the similar Bill C-250 to be discharged. I believe that Chapter Two of the Rules of the Senate gives you, Your Honour, the same power and authority to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Senate proceedings.

Your Honour, I am, therefore, asking — in order to address this unprecedented situation, and ensure that the Senate can perform its work in a straightforward, efficient and productive manner — that you order that either Bill S-241 be discharged from consideration by the committees and withdrawn, or Bill S-15 be withdrawn. Alternatively, if you rule that you do not have the power and authority to order the withdrawal of a bill, I would ask that you suspend all committee work on Bill S-241 until a final decision — at third reading — is taken by the Senate on Bill S-15, and that, should Bill S-15 be adopted, Bill S-241 be discharged and dropped from the Order Paper.

Thank you, Your Honour.