Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
It actually happens, I think, more frequently in the Senate after it's been through the House of Commons.
Now, prestudies on an issue are one thing. Pre-budget consultations are an example. I'm not looking to say this is entirely new, but the idea of a specific piece of legislation amending a current act without any specific direction.... I will get to why I think this is very important.
I think that you, Mr. Chair, as a lawyer, will actually appreciate this.
As I was saying, when you go to LEGISinfo, which is on the parliamentary website, where you look at the actual text of the legislation—and we are lawmakers; our job is to read and understand what the text of the words on the page of the law are—there's a big tab right beside it that says “Major speeches”. The first of the major speeches is the minister's maiden speech, and there is good reason for it.
Parliament has recognized that the role of that speech provides incredibly necessary context. Just as importantly, from a legal perspective, in any future legal proceedings, that is what a judge will look at: What was the intent by the minister of the Crown, the government, in moving forward with that legislation?
It doesn't matter what Branden across the way says. It doesn't matter what I say. It matters what the intention of the bill was. None of us—no Canadian, no parliamentarian—has seen what that intention is. We could read it in a silo, but that doesn't change our lack of understanding of what the government is trying to do with this legislation.
In my view, the normal process is first reading, tabling, second reading, maiden speech, debate, debate, debate and then it comes to us. The proposal to prestudy this in such a unique and novel way contradicts that process.
I want to underscore my position using relevant case law—