House Publications

[ Table of Contents ] The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 10, 2026, by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands regarding the similarities between Bill C-2 , an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, and Bill C-12 , an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. Bill C-2 is currently at second reading in the House, while Bill C-12 is currently under consideration by the Senate. In raising the point of order, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands argued that Bill C-2 should not be debated, voted on or even remain on the Order Paper because it is in violation of the same question rule, which prevents the House from considering legislation that is substantially the same. In her intervention, the member contended that parts 1 to 3 and 5 to 12 of Bill C-2 are identical to those already adopted by the House in Bill C-12 , and she requested that the Speaker direct the government to remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes also intervened on the matter. He argued that Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 are very similar in substance and that Bill C-2 should not proceed in its current form. The member further argued that Bill C-2 must be placed in abeyance while Bill C-12 continues its progress through the other place. If Bill C-12 receives royal assent, the member suggested, the order for consideration at second reading for Bill C-2 should then be discharged and the bill dropped from the Order Paper. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons also offered remarks on the matter. He stated that parts 4, 11 and 14 to 16 of Bill C-2 do not appear in Bill C-12 and that therefore the bills do not seek to accomplish the same objectives by the same means. Based on his interpretation of a ruling made by Speaker Rota on February 18, 2021, the parliamentary secretary argued that a high degree of similarity must exist between two bills for them to be treated as substantially similar questions, a threshold not reached by the two bills in question, given the broader scope and additional measures contained in Bill C-2. (1800) [ Translation ] Precedents set out key considerations for the House and the Chair to assess similarity, including the following: first, the Chair looks at whether the principles and scopes of the two bills are substantially identical. The Chair does not base its judgment solely on overlapping clauses or numerical comparison. Second, a broader bill may render a narrower bill problematic if the broader bill were adopted first, particularly where the narrower bill is duplicative or substantially identical in purpose to a part of the first bill. Third, the Chair considers whether duplication or incoherence in decisions could result by the House occupying itself with a similar question. In a ruling regarding similar bills, one of which had a broader scope than the other, my predecessor concluded, on December 12, 2023, at page 19979 of the Debates, that: To be clear, when a government bill and a private member's bill or when two private members' bills are substantially similar, only one of them may proceed and be voted on. Once one of the two has passed second reading, a decision cannot be taken on the other within the same session. Where bills are only similar in part, the effect of adopting one might have a different impact on the other depending on their principle, scope and, of course, which bill is adopted first. [ English ] A comprehensive review of Bill C-2 confirms that it does contain many provisions also found in Bill C-12 as adopted by the House. Parts 1 to 3, 5 to 10, and 12 and 13 of Bill C-2 are, indeed, substantially the same as what the House has adopted in Bill C-12. However, Bill C-2 is broader in scope and also contains a variety of measures not included in Bill C-12 , namely parts 4, 11, 14, 15 and 16. From this, the Chair can conclude that the two bills, though overlapping, are not substantively identical. Further, given that the narrower Bill C-12 was adopted first and that there are substantial provisions in Bill C-2 that the House has not yet debated and considered, it is difficult to argue that the House is being asked to pronounce itself again on identical provisions. That said, the Chair is admittedly concerned about the extensive similarities between Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 , which could potentially create duplication or incoherence in the House's decisions as both bills continue to move through the legislative process. Moreover, the situation currently before the House is somewhat different than the precedents reviewed by the Chair, both in the extent of the overlap and in that Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 are government bills. [ Translation ] The government's prerogative to introduce legislation and to determine when it is called for debate means that there are different mechanisms available to it than are available for the consideration of two private members' bills, or a private member's bill and a government bill. For example, the government could choose to introduce a new bill without the overlapping provisions, or Bill C‑2 could be amended in committee during clause-by-clause consideration to achieve the same end, thereby avoiding the concerns raised. Nevertheless, given the principles outlined previously, the Chair's close review of both bills leads the Chair to conclude that Bill C‑2 is broader in principle and scope than Bill C‑12 and that, as a result, the question the House would be asked to decide at second reading for Bill C‑2 is substantially different than its decisions on Bill C‑12. I thank members for their attention.