I see what you're saying. In the beginning, when I first heard it, I was focused on the process of untangling all the bits of an omnibus piece of legislation. How do you group it? How do you do that? That seems very complex. Now that we discuss it, it seems that's probably more the path that is obvious. What's less obvious is who triggers that process
In a majority government, as you say, I guess this is why something has to be in the Standing Orders by which you would have to give discretion to the Speaker, if the Speaker finds that it is in the same way as this. If the majority of the House says yes at second reading, it implies we're accepting the general principles of the bill before it goes to committee. The Speaker has the power that if it's fundamentally changed during committee, if some of the driving principles behind the legislation have been changed—and it has been done; Speaker Milliken did it over back-to-work, anti-scab legislation, I think it was—and it goes against the principles of the bill, the Speaker rules the amendments out of order.
You can't do that. You've already said you accepted the bill in principle, and now you want to change the whole thing.