It's not that long, and I won't even try to read footnotes. I'll just read what's here, Chair, and see where we are. This is the explanation of the tool available to the House of Commons after a bill is read for the first time. Rather than send it to second reading, at which we lock into our political positions in large part, and then send it to committee, this allows the opportunity to send it to committee first, in the hope that politics is left outside the door and will only re-enter after you've had a good, honest go-around without any politics.
I am reading from page 742, chapter 16. It is titled, “Reference to Committee Before Second Reading”.
Traditionally, adoption of the motion for second reading amounts to approval by the House of the principle of the bill. This effectively limits the scope of any amendments that may be made during committee study and at report stage. In order to provide more flexibility in the legislative process, the House amended its Standing Orders in 1994, instituting a new procedure that allows Ministers to move that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading. This empowers Members to examine the principle of a bill before second reading, and enables them to propose amendments to alter its scope. The procedure also applies to bills based on ways and means motions.
When the Order of the Day is read for second reading of a government bill, a Minister may, after notifying representatives of the opposition parties, propose a motion that the bill be forthwith referred to a committee before second reading. The Standing Orders are silent as to the manner in which the representatives of the opposition parties are to be notified.
Boy, you could get yourself into trouble on that one, but....
The current practice is for the Government House Leader to give such notice during the Thursday Statement, although it is not uncommon for a Minister to inform the House of the government’s intention at the time of the introduction and first reading of the bill. The motion to refer forthwith the bill to a committee is not subject to amendment, and debate is limited to five hours. At the end of the five hours, or when no Member rises to speak, the Speaker puts the question. If the motion is adopted, the bill is referred to a standing, special or legislative committee for consideration.In general, during clause-by-clause consideration of a bill, the committee follows the same rules and procedures as those that apply to the consideration of bills in committee after second reading. It may hear witnesses and receive briefs. However, the scope of the amendments that may be made to the bill is much wider, given that the committee study is not limited by the principle of the bill, the principle not yet having been approved by the House— which is what you do at second reading. As it hasn't happened yet, politics hasn't entered the process formally yet.
At the conclusion of its study, the committee reports the bill to the House, with or without amendment. The report stage of the bill may not commence prior to the third sitting day following the presentation of the report. After the committee has reported the bill to the House, the next stage essentially fuses report stage and second reading. Members may propose amendments, after giving written notice two...days prior to the bill being called. When consideration of report stage is concluded, a motion “That the bill (as amended) be concurred in at report stage with (a)...stage and read a second time” is put and forthwith disposed of by the House, without debate or amendment. Once concurred in at report stage and read a second time, the bill is set down for third reading and passage at the next sitting of the House.
I'm done.
I won't attempt to make the arguments over again, but I am underscoring that this would have been a very legitimate, positive, helpful approach. The government still maintains control all the way, because they have their secret weapon: the majority vote. You get the best of both worlds.
They could have given every opportunity for wide discussion and input, disagreement, amendment—quite similarly to the process, Chair, that we followed over the course of those two Parliaments when we studied the recommendations that came from the Chief Electoral Officer three years ago, or four, I guess, when we started. It would have allowed us to use that as a starting point. We wouldn't be having these kinds of debates, because we'd be so far removed from them.
Now, to be fair, Chair, those kinds of debates could still happen under that process. I'm not suggesting that it's all milk and honey just because we make the referral from first reading. But I am suggesting in support of my motion—and then I'll move along—that the motion wouldn't even have to be here if the government had shown some sincerity and had agreed with us to send it after first reading. It would have arrived here with no politics, nobody having said they were in favour or opposed. It would just be: here it is; let's start. Then we'd start going through it.
We can still do that. I don't sense any desire on the part of this government, but certainly procedurally and theoretically it can be done. Since we moved it the first time....
I see some brows over there crossed. I wonder whether the government would just acknowledge that the politics wouldn't be in it, and if they started to creep in, as I've already said, they have the majority and could have gotten away from that.
You can still do it, for the simple reason that by unanimous consent we can do anything that's constitutional. The committee, quite frankly, can do anything within its mandate by unanimous consent. We can set aside the existing rules and replace them with brand new ones specific to the moment. It happens all the time. I mentioned the Ukrainian vote last night. That's a perfect example of unanimous consent.
By unanimous consent we could reset this and be back here doing this the right way, which is to give an honest hearing and airing of the issues that are before us. I don't sense that this is going to happen.