Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think those are great points for consideration, because, in principle, a bill is a bill is a bill.
I know that one of the things that this Parliament has dealt with, prospective changes to the Canadian anthem, went through very quickly. I think Canadians were just kind of jumping on to the fact that this was happening, right when it was finishing up in the House of Commons. Obviously, particular circumstances were involved there, but it was a very important piece of legislation. It's the kind of thing for which you would to have sufficient time for public awareness, discussion, and consideration.
Part of the problem is that now we hear arguments from the government, in response to private members' bills recognizing the reality of more limited time available for the debate, that actually try to de-legitimize the private member's bill channel completely.
There was a bill that I spoke on recently from my colleague, Steven Blaney, dealing with drunk driving. Basically, the parliamentary secretary said, and I'm not quoting him exactly but something to the effect of, “Well, this is a very complicated area of law that requires engaging with the provinces. Therefore, a government-led initiative is more appropriate here.”
It's troubling to me that something could be rejected that is, in my view at least, a good bill. It was supported by the government at second reading but rejected on the basis that, “It's complicated so it should be a government-led initiative.”
I think private members should be able to bring forward complicated, legislative changes that deal with important areas of law. There should be time for debate on those. Of course, with private members' bills, the structure doesn't allow us the flexibility to recognize that some types of initiatives need more debate than others. We recognize this with government bills.