Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
During the course of debate today, numerous times, numerous Liberal members made reference to Bill C-2, which was named the strong borders act when it was introduced in June. The trouble, and I will try to be succinct, is that Bill C-2 cannot be put forward for a vote. It is in violation at this moment. It would only be acceptable for it to sit on a shelf covered in dust until the government removes all the sections that have already been carried in C-12 and are identical to those still in Bill C-2. This would encompass, in Bill C-2, parts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. This is because the rule in this place, known traditionally as the same question rule, prohibits any government or any member from bringing forward legislation that is substantially the same.
In this case, we know Bill C-2 came forward in June. I thought, when I saw Bill C-12, that the government would remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper. I was informed later by the minister responsible that the intention was to reintroduce Bill C-2 with only those sections that related to warrantless access, as the rest of Bill C-2 had been put into Bill C-12.
As such, I would like to direct the Speaker to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, 2025, in which he will find on this particular issue of concern, the same question, that a bill adopted “cannot be revived in the same session.”
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please consider the matter and direct the government to immediately remove Bill C-2 from the Order Paper until such time as it can reintroduce it with only those sections that have not yet been adopted, the warrantless access sections.
I also draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime called for Bill C-2 to be passed. That violates the same question rule.
Even worse is the part the Speaker will find in Hansard. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asked for unanimous consent to pass Bill C-2 immediately. Fortunately, I said no. Otherwise, the government would have found itself in error and contravening all our rules. Should the member have happened to achieve unanimous consent, the government would have violated the same question rule.