Honourable senators, I would like to register my thoughts and concerns with the adjournment that just occurred and the catalyst behind this adjournment.

I would like to note that I first introduced this bill in the Senate at first reading on September 19, 2023, with my second reading speech occurring on September 21, 2023. In the year-plus that has elapsed since my second reading speech, there has not been a single other speech that has occurred on the matter prior to Senator McPhedran’s speech this afternoon.

I would also like to contest that I have been deferential throughout the Senate process of Bill S-274. To this point, I have twice written to the four leaders and their deputies on September 13 and October 7, requesting that the second reading vote be allowed to occur following Senator McPhedran’s remarks. To quote from the October 7 letter, I stated:

While Senator McPhedran will provide additional reflections on the bill, I acknowledge that there is little more that can be added in further speeches that would not be a regurgitation of the facts and insights provided within these two speeches. As such, I again request that the vote please be enabled to occur following these remarks in the hopes that deeper understanding of the importance of this reconciliatory bill can be garnered through a committee study.

This constitutes a month and a half’s worth of notice that I had given in advance of my request for a vote to occur on this bill, which has been stagnant on the Order Paper for over 13 months.

I am left to ask why the request for a vote has been denied and why adjournment was taken, specifically by the Conservatives. My assumption and the only logical rationale would be because a critic has not delivered a speech. Your Honour, this is the heart of my point of order, which I request your ultimate ruling on.

The Rules of the Senate are quite clear and absolutely explicit that a critic does not have to speak to a bill before it comes to a vote, nor does a bill require a certain unspecified period of time on the Order Paper or require a specific number of speakers on the matter before a vote can occur. Yes, I concede that this practice surrounding the critic’s speech has become something of a norm and the expected practice; however, that generalization does not equate to a must.

There is a prevailing myth and misunderstanding perpetuated by some, quite convincingly, that being the critic grants this individual with the fantastical and authoritative power to veto, delay, dictate or derail the progress of a bill. This is simply not the truth. However, it has been perpetuated for so long that I fear many senators are under this misrepresentation and have accepted it as factual when it is certainly not.

Incidentally, the same is true for a senator who may have the item adjourned in their name. Holding adjournment gives that senator precedence to speak on debate to the bill, yes, but it does not afford them special control to impede progress in the event the question is called. In short, while I do not agree regarding our view that the usual practice is to expect the critic will speak and that the sponsor is expected to exercise deference to provide time for them to speak, I assert, first, that there is no absolute necessity or requirement that the critic must speak prior to a vote. This myth has formed into the conveyance of an authority that does not exist and to which this chamber is not beholden. Moreover, this so-called requirement as well as the requirement that a bill must hang around the Order Paper for an unidentifiable and arbitrary length of time are both only enforced when it is deemed suitable by the majority.

I would also like to reiterate my deferential approach to this bill as second reading debate has sat dormant for over a year. My two letters requesting a vote, which represent an explicit request for over a month and a half, also represent utter deference.

Going back to the role of the critic in the Senate in reviewing the Rules of the Senate, the critic is only mentioned twice in its entirety. Rule 6-3(1)(d) specifies that the critic can speak up to 45 minutes at second reading and third reading. Additionally, the definition section defines the critic of a bill, specifying simply that while the critic is often the second senator to speak to a bill, this is not always the case. It says nothing beyond that in regard to speaking rights.

In a further and closer look at the sister document to the Rules of the Senate, the Senate Procedure in Practice affirms what is found in the Rules, yet that simple affirmation of the Rules is all that it provides. Senate Procedure in Practice does not afford or stipulate any further role, authority or power that the critic may hold.

To synthesize this argument in a nutshell, the critic does not have the right to veto or dictate progress on a bill, regardless of whether they have spoken or not. While it may be the usual practice for a critic to speak to a bill, a review of both the Rules of the Senate and Senate Procedure in Practice confirms that a critic does not have such fantastical powers that a bill cannot receive a vote unless they have spoken. That would be akin to legislative hostage taking.

If a senator is able to point to where in either of these documents such an authority is established, I would be happy to hear of it. Moreover, I urge any senator to do so, as it would be a good learning opportunity for all of us here. Conversely, if any senator is unable to highlight exactly what rule or section it is that legitimately grants this profound authority, perhaps a concession is in order that such a power does not actually exist and that no individual senator holds that authoritative power to dictate the progress of any bill in this place.

It is also critical to note that the so-called requirement for a critic to speak is seemingly arbitrarily applied. For example, this past spring, 10 different bills were voted on with a negligible number of speakers and with only a minimal amount of time spent before the Senate. Bill C-281 received its second reading vote on May 29, 2024. Senator Housakos, the sponsor, was the only individual to speak to this bill; there was no critic speech. Bill S-259 received its second reading vote on May 30, 2024. The sponsor, Senator Loffreda, and one other Independent Senators Group senator spoke to it; there was no critic speech. Bill C-320 was moved at second reading on May 30, 2024. After two speeches, it received its second-reading vote the same day, with no other debate.

Bill C-321 was also moved on May 30, 2024. After two speeches, it too received its second-reading vote the same day, also with no other debate.

Additionally, that same week, there were another two bills that received a vote with only two senators speaking to them, Bill S-17 and Bill S-260, while another bill was passed with only three senators having spoken to it, Bill S-279.

In a more recent instance, colleagues in this chamber will likely recall what happened with Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Coming out of committee study on this bill, both myself and one of our colleagues, Senator Prosper, had let our intentions be clearly known that we wished to speak to this bill at third reading. However, our right to debate was dismissed in favour of third reading, which occurred in a single sitting.

It is glaringly apparent that the arbitrary and uneven application of procedural conventions constitutes a severe disadvantage for some in this chamber, especially those who do not hold positions of power or authority. If more senators are allegedly interested in speaking to this bill, why are they afforded the right to defer endlessly after a year of stagnation when other senators are disallowed the right to speak to another bill when requesting to do so by merely adding a second day of debate? It makes no sense.

Your Honour, I respect and defer to your diligence and wisdom in this important matter. However, I urge you to rule on this point of order now if you feel that is agreeable. I am sure that a very quick conferral with the procedural gurus we are blessed to have will yield a swift confirmation of what I am advocating, thus paving the way for us to progress accordingly here today. Thank you.