Honourable senators, I wish to raise a point of order regarding the amendment proposed by Senator Plett to Motion No. 474.

Simply put, I would argue that Senator Plett’s amendment is out of order.

At the outset, I want to make clear that I present this point of order purely as a matter of procedure. I believe it would produce a negative precedent which would allow senators to use procedural tactics to derail motions that seek the creation of special committees to study public policy issues of importance to Canadians.

Senate Procedure in Practice at page 90 identifies six factors that govern the receivability of amendments to motions. One of these is that an amendment cannot be negative to the core of the main motion. As our speaker stated in his ruling on the receivability of an amendment to Senator Smith’s Motion 435, which has now been withdrawn, “an amendment that can be understood as effectively a rejection of the main motion is cause for serious concern.”

The original motion, moved by Senator Pratte, proposes the creation of a special committee on prosecutorial independence. Indeed, the very heart and core intent of the original proposal is the creation of this special committee. It is provided for in the very first line of the motion. Speeches made on debate by Senators Pratte, Miville-Dechêne and Batters focus on the creation of this special committee.

A review of the Hansard shows that Motion 474 is identified as, “Motion to Strike Special Committee on Prosecutorial Independence.”

In short, Senator Plett’s amendment removes the pillar of Motion 474, because in its pith and substance the amendment seeks to change the motion so that the Senate does not create a special committee on prosecutorial independence. Senator Plett’s amendment amounts to a rejection of the core feature of Senator Pratte’s proposal. Indeed, “. . . Beauchesne and House of Commons Procedure and Practice state that a proposal contrary to the main motion or one that is essentially a new proposal should not come before the Senate by means of an amendment. It requires separate notice.”

Honourable senators, even assuming that the amendment was not seen as an expanded negative or as an outright rejection of Motion 474, it is still out of order because it undermines the principle of Motion 474 and because it falls outside its scope.

On this point, His Honour recently noted as follows in his ruling of April 4, 2018:

The issue of the receivability of amendments usually arises in terms of proposed changes to bills, where issues of principle, relevancy, and scope have been examined with some regularity. As noted in a ruling of December 9, 2009:

It may generally be helpful to view the principle as the intention underlying a bill. The scope of the bill would then be related to the parameters the bill sets in reaching any goals or objectives that it contains, or the general mechanisms it envisions to fulfil its intentions. . . .

Even if the amendment is not seen as an expanded negative, however, other Senate precedents show that amendments to add significant new elements to a motion have been found to be out of order. I would, for example, refer honourable colleagues to the decision of September 9, 1999, dealing with an amendment to expand an investigation about actions by the Canadian Forces in Somalia to include Croatia, as well as a decision of September 19, 2000, which would have tacked on to a proposal to establish two new committees elements relating to the size of all committees and the process by which members are chosen.

The intention underlying Motion 474 is for the Senate to strike a special committee on prosecutorial independence to study certain issues identified in the motion. Furthermore, the parameters that Motion 474 sets in reaching its goals and objectives, or the general mechanism it envisions to fulfill its intentions, squarely involves the creation of a special committee. By removing the creation of the special committee on prosecutorial independence from Motion 474 and transforming it into an order of reference to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Senator Plett’s amendment undermines the principle of Motion 474 and falls well outside the parameters that are set to reach its goals and objective. It should therefore be ruled out of order.

Let me illustrate this with a few more recent examples. Earlier in this Parliament, the honourable former Senator Watt moved to strike a special committee on the Arctic. His motion stated:

That a Special Committee on the Arctic be appointed to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic, and impacts on original inhabitants;

Would it have been in order to remove the heart of Senator Watt’s motion, delete the proposed creation of a special committee on the Arctic and instead transform the motion into an order of reference to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples? I think not. It would have been out of scope and against the very principle of Senator Watt’s motion.

Earlier in this Parliament, our esteemed colleague Senator Mercer moved to strike a special committee on the charitable sector. His motion stated:

That a Special Committee on the Charitable Sector be appointed to examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other similar groups; and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada;

Would it have been in order to delete the proposed creation of a special committee on the charitable sector and instead transform that motion into an order of reference to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance? Again, I believe that such a manœuvre would have been found to be out of order.

I firmly believe that Senator Plett’s amendment to Motion No. 474 eliminates the original proposal regarding the creation of a special committee on prosecutorial independence, thereby transforming the motion into an order of reference to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

I am therefore convinced that Senator Plett’s amendment is entirely out of order. Thank you.

Senator Housakos, before I call on you, I want to say this: Honourable senators, in debate, I’ve said many times that we give lots of latitude to debate topics, ideas, legislation and presentations. I caution senators not to assign motives to senators who speak. Let’s stay on the topic and talk about whether this point of order is, in fact, valid.

I will try to do exactly that, Your Honour.

Procedures and rules of Parliament are designed in order to allow caucuses and senators to be able to conduct their business, and to try to set objectives in terms of the political discourse and arrive at certain results. Yes, at times, procedures are used to prevent attempts to get votes done, as Senator Plett referred to.

But we have to be very careful, because the reality of the matter here, Senator Ringuette, is that you’re rising on a point of order and going after the amendment of Senator Plett as being out of order. But the reality is that you’re the one who put forward an amendment to Senator Plett’s motion that is completely out of the realm of what Senator Plett was proposing and out of the realm completely of what Senator Pratte was proposing.

Your Honour, in order to come to a fulsome review of this point of order, I suggest we review the speech from Senator Pratte when he tabled his original motion. I would caution anybody — if you can rise in this chamber and tell me that anything in Senator Pratte’s motion resembles anything close to what the amendment of Senator Ringuette’s motion is of Senator Plett’s amendment. Senator Plett’s amendment is simply strengthening Senator Pratte’s motion.

Senator Pratte, in his speech, was clear that his attempt was to have — no. Senator Pratte. I’m going back to the original motion. It was to have an investigation on the SNC-Lavalin affair, and he wanted to be more wholesome. He wanted to be more detailed. He wanted to review the DPA and the Justice Department, and how the Justice Department reviews DPAs. He wanted to set up an independent committee. That was pretty much the theme of Senator Pratte’s motion. He talked about it in this chamber. He talked about it in the media. He was pretty consistent.

Senator Plett’s amendment to that motion takes it a step further and gives it more validity by having it go to a standing committee of the Senate. The justice committee gives it a lot more teeth and credence than setting up a special committee. That is only normal. It doesn’t, by any means, take away from what Senator Pratte wants to achieve.

We also wanted to get into more of the details of the SNC‑Lavalin scandal. According to Senator Pratte’s speech, that was the objective of his amendment.

Your Honour, when senators are accusing other senators of tearing apart the original motion, I call upon Your Honour to look at the original motion of Senator Pratte, his speech and that of Senator Plett. I think you will find there are parallels where Senator Plett’s amendment is trying to strengthen Senator Pratte’s original motion, and get quicker with more legitimacy at the objective of what Senator Pratte himself set out in his original motion.

That’s all I’d like to share with the chamber.

Your Honour, I agree with what Senator Housakos has said in that I do not feel that Senator Plett’s amendment is in any way out of order in that the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is a long-standing committee that has members with expertise in regards to matters that would be related to prosecutorial independence and other related matters. It seemed like a logical place that such topics could be looked at carefully by one of our standing committees, rather than creating a new special committee that would require staffing at a time when we’re already trying to figure out where committees can meet, because we have additional meetings due to so much government legislation and other priorities. It seemed like a logical amendment.

The one thing I wanted to add is that when Senator Ringuette was referring to the other two special committees that we have created, one on the Arctic and one on the charitable sector, the difference I draw between those committees and the one Senator Pratte suggested in his motion, which really did surprise the chamber — it wasn’t expected in that we had already been looking at the two motions related to the SNC-Lavalin. It was a topic that was very much foremost in our minds, and it became quite heated in this chamber.

The difference between the special committee that Senator Pratte is proposing in his motion and the two we have is that we actually took these proposals to each of the caucuses and groups, we discussed it at length and we discussed it at scroll. There was a process where we all decided — and many of us around our caucus table were concerned about creating any new or special committee. These committees take on a life of their own, and we already have such limited time. We carefully examined it separately before we had the debate in the chamber, and we went to the question.

Senator Pratte’s motion that proposes a special committee was something that came outside of any of the discussions we may have had as groups and caucuses. It was in the moment. I do not think it’s a reasonable parallel to compare this proposal to the Arctic Committee and the Charitable Sector Committee, the second one, on which I do sit, and I know really good work has been done by those committees. So without mentioning them, I feel that this amendment to send the matter to an existing standing committee is perfectly in order.

Senator Ringuette has raised a point of order on Motion No. 474 and, in particular, Senator Plett’s amendment to Senator Pratte’s motion.

At the same time, Senators Plett, Housakos and Martin have argued and made comparisons to Motion No. 470. There is no point of order on Motion No. 470. I would submit, as a member of this chamber, we should deal with Motion No. 474, and if the side opposite chooses to call a point of order on Motion No. 470 on Senator Ringuette’s amendment, that is their prerogative.

Mr. Speaker, honourable senators, I have been in the Senate for almost 16 and a half years and, out of respect for the Rules of the Senate, whether to draw the attention of this chamber to a topic or to raise a point of order, at no time have I ever made disrespectful remarks about a member of this institution. I would hope to be shown the same respect.

I may be dreaming in technicolour, but I would point out that the Rules of the Senate and the precedents found in our various reference documents — I refer you to page 90 of the Senate Procedure in Practice, where it outlines the various practices relating to the receivability of amendments.

I must note that Senator Plett’s amendment arrived yesterday evening and perhaps because the document was presented in English only, we didn’t get a copy. It wasn’t until this morning when I was in my office rereading yesterday’s Debates of the Senate that I became aware of the amendment that was proposed.

Again, I am convinced, and you may disagree, Mr. Speaker, but I am convinced that this motion is absolutely procedurally out of order. It is out of order because it removes the intent of the motion, which is to strike a special committee.

On that, Mr. Speaker, I leave my point of order in your hands. Thank you.

If I may add one more point since Senator Ringuette mentioned that the pith and substance of this motion is to strike a special committee. Is that the pith and substance, or is it to study prosecutorial independence? It could be done in a special committee or at the Legal Committee.

I would argue that the amendment that Senator Plett has moved does not change the pith and substance, which is to look at the very important topic and issues surrounding that.

If the amendment had said to strike a special committee to study some completely unrelated and random topic, that would change the pith and substance of the motion. I would argue that the amendment does not do that. We would still be studying the very topic, and issues surrounding it, in the Legal Committee.

I thank all honourable senators for their input into this debate. I will take the matter under advisement.