Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 201, which seeks authorization for the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee to pre-study Bill C-71, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act (2024).

Colleagues, when Senator Gold gave notice of the motion last week, I got a sense of déjà vu. Here we are again. The Trudeau government trying to get the Senate out of the way as quickly as possible.

For Motion No. 201, there are two contexts to consider: the legal and the political. First, the legal context began in December 2023 when the Ontario Superior Court ordered the federal government to amend the Citizenship Act in the case of the “lost Canadians.” It initially gave the Trudeau government six months — until June 20, 2024 — to pass legislation. On May 23, 2024, less than a month before the first extension, the government finally put forward Bill C-71, An Act to Amend the Citizenship Act. Unable to meet the June 20 deadline, the court agreed to give an extension to August and then to December 19, 2024.

But how did we get to the current political context today? While the current deadline imposed by the Ontario Superior Court is December 19, 2024 — just a few days down the road — the government had since last December to pass a bill in the House of Commons, a year ago.

A responsible government would have followed the court-ordered deadline and put a bill forward as quickly as possible. It already had the blueprint with the study on Bill S-245 by the House’s Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. So why did it not propose Bill C-71 sooner?

The answer, colleagues, is quite simple. While this government has just lately decided to say it is focused on Canadians, the Trudeau government has never been more focused on its survival. Last spring, all the efforts of the government were made towards maintaining a deal with the NDP, keeping it alive, by prioritizing the passage of Bill C-50, Bill C-58 and Bill C-64 through Parliament, but not the court-mandated legislation on lost Canadians.

If this government had instead prioritized Bill C-71 and not Bill C-64, we probably would be wrapping up our study on Bill C-71, while Bill C-64 would most likely still be in the House of Commons. We wouldn’t be in this self-imposed predicament by the Trudeau government’s own ambition to stay in power.

As you all know, colleagues, the House of Commons has been in a gridlock for close to two months. No legislation has moved, and until either the government gives the requested documents unredacted or a political party is willing to support the government in ending the gridlock, Bill C-71 will not leave the House. As things stand today, it is highly doubtful the bill will move before we rise for Christmas.

Colleagues, why would we need a pre-study motion when the probability is so low for Bill C-71 to move before the deadline?

That’s how I got a sense of déjà vu that brought me back to spring 2022. At that time, Senator Gold presented Motion No. 41 and Motion No. 42 to pre-study Bill C-13 and Bill C-11 respectively.

Pre-studies are typically used for such things as budget implementation bills to solicit amendments prior to passage in the House of Commons or to answer a deadline imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Both bills met none of those requirements. The pre-study was used for one reason only, and that, colleagues, was to get the Senate out of the way for political expediency.

Today, with Motion No. 201 to pre-study Bill C-71, Senator Gold is again using the legitimate tool of a pre-study but for the wrong reason. While it is to meet a court-imposed deadline, the government waited less than a month before the deadline to propose a pre-study motion. If the pre-study motion had been presented in September, it would have been easier to see it as a sign of good faith by a responsible government.

Instead, we received the notice of motion at the last minute, and, to me, it is not the sign of a responsible government. It is the sign of a government wanting to put aside the Senate to get its bill through.

With Motion No. 201 in front of us, do we have any indication when we will receive Bill C-71 or if any amendments will be adopted? No, we do not, colleagues. All we know is the government gave two notices of motion for closure on Bill C-71 in the House of Commons, where it would deem the bill adopted as it is — no committee studies and no third reading, but straight to the Senate.

Last week, at the eleventh hour again, the Leader of the Government set the table to ram Bill C-71 through the Senate and bypass sober second thought by misusing the tool of a pre-study.

When done right, a pre-study can add to the debate and have a positive impact. In this case, it is used as a tool for expediency due to pure incompetence by the Trudeau government, which prioritized their claim to power over governance.

Instead of pushing back on the Trudeau government’s ineptitude, it is disappointing but not surprising that the independent Senate wants to go along. When the Senate accepts the government’s request like Motion No. 201, it allows the government to face less accountability for the bills it introduces. While a court deadline can be justified for a pre-study, it should not be used to put the Senate between a rock and a hard place, as Motion No. 201 tends to do.

For us senators in the Conservative caucus, when we see the government abuse the tools at its disposal, we cannot stay silent.

Too often, we have seen the threshold lowered for important tools like a pre-study and time allocation. We raised our concerns two years ago when the government used a pre-study for Bill C-11 and Bill C-13 when there was no need for it.

We raised our concerns when the government used time allocation last April to impose changes to our Rules.

And today, we raise our concerns again because there is no need for a pre-study of Bill C-71.

But sadly, this is what Justin Trudeau thinks of the Senate, where sober second thought is becoming more and more of an afterthought. A bill like Bill C-71 — amending our laws on how a person obtains Canadian citizenship — should receive the benefit of a sober second look by our chamber. It looks terrible on our institution to use the pre-study in this fashion for a bill dealing with Canadian citizenship to be expedited without careful consideration. What is our purpose if it is not to bring a sober second look to a bill that amends our citizenship?

While we don’t support a pre-study motion, we realize it will most likely be adopted. The closure motion in the House means that Bill C-71 would not receive consideration at committee or at third reading. In the instance of the closure motion being adopted, we would be the only chamber to study the impact and consequences of Bill C-71.

Therefore, already expecting that this will pass, we hope that our Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee will seize the opportunity to do a thorough pre-study.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the Government for presenting an amendment that, at least, gives the committee possibly a day more or maybe two days more.

Especially if the Ontario Superior Court grants an extension, the urgency of the passage of the bill would not hinder their study. The committee and our chamber could therefore have the necessary time to do our constitutional duty of sober second thought.

To conclude, colleagues, the Trudeau government created this mess themselves by prioritizing their political survival over governance. With Motion No. 201, it is looking to bypass sober second thought to expedite the bill as soon as it gets here, whenever that is. That’s why we hope the pre-study will be meaningful and in-depth. Because believe me, colleagues, if the Ontario Superior Court grants another extension, the government will again be back at the last minute — mark my words — pleading with us to pass the bill without delay, thanks to the pre‑study already done.

In this Parliament, the Trudeau government has used pre-study motions to get the Senate out of the way, and we simply cannot agree to that. We cannot support Motion No. 201, and we will be voting against it.

Thank you, colleagues.