The argument we are being given is that people need to receive the benefit as soon as possible, and we all want that, of course. In a democracy, part of the responsibility for the schedule and the order in which things are done falls to the government. The government has now decided to table the bill while we are studying it in committee. Before the bill even gets to our committee for study, a question has come up, and that is that the government is asking us, the parliamentarians, to trust it while we have a blank page in front of us. The government is saying that if the proposed regulation needs to be referred back to the House for the approval of parliamentarians, it will slow down the process and it will take longer to begin paying the benefit.
In a democracy, there is usually a process to be followed when making a regulation. The idea is not for us to make a regulation that would examine and re‑examine decisions that have already been taken. The government can deal with part of the regulatory process, and this generally pertains to the administrative side of things. It is nevertheless very unusual to decide that the implementation of a benefit or any other bill should be done strictly through regulations, without being adopted by the House.
We're being told that it could slow things down by three or four months and that we could end up with a shortened session of Parliament. I don't accept this excuse, however. There is no reason why we should not make members of Parliament aware of the regulation that will have been prepared, to ensure that the work being done complies with the principles in the bill that apply to things like revenue or methodology. What we are now debating is nevertheless a crucial measure for the future, and I believe that basically, parliamentarians are entitled to know about it. It may indeed delay the work somewhat. On the other hand, if everything proceeds apace and the regulation does not present any problems, it will go quickly. In our view, it's the least we can do.