Exactly, focus is important in life.
After third reading is complete, often you will see the member stand up for the vote. The first thing you happen to notice is that the members around that member will applaud. Virtually everyone applauds the member, especially from their respective caucus, for finally having their bill voted on. It's the member who first stands up. It doesn't start from the back corner and go down the different rows. The member who introduced the bill will stand up. Then after he stands up, it will go to the back row, and it continues to go through.
But the point is, Madam Chair, you have this wonderful bill—how one might be voting will determine whether or not it's wonderful or if it's bad, but from the sponsor's perspective it's a wonderful bill. They have their bill. They've been applauded. They're feeling good about it. The vote occurs, and typically if it's a government private member, a backbencher, there's a very good chance it will pass. If it gets to third reading there's a very good chance the bill will pass.
One of the things I didn't comment on, Madam Chair, is what a private member will do. It's not as if they had this idea and this is where the idea came from. Usually there is a plan in place. The member of Parliament will want to ensure they build up support, that they've consulted. I don't want to prejudge exactly what Mr. Shory would do, that would be most inappropriate. Having said that, I would like to give an example, and I'll use my own private member's bill as the example, Madam Chair.
I think you will find that most members of Parliament do this. This is why I caution members, when you think of the idea that's been generated, I don't believe members take their idea, bring it to second reading, pass it out of second reading, only to be met at committee stage with a minister wanting to take over the bill and change its scope.
I wouldn't want that of my private member's bill, Madam Chair, because chances are I would have done a lot of work in the lead-up to it, and I give you an example. I made reference to a private member's bill, my only one thus far, which I'm quite proud of. As much as I would like to take 100% credit for the idea, the idea originally showed up in a discussion at a local McDonald's.
We had this discussion. The concern was the impact of negative ads, among many other things. What can we do about negative ads? It led to another discussion, and we came up with the idea of why not...because you don't want to censor. You can't tell a political party or a leader you can't have a negative ad. I think that would be wrong. If a party wants to do it, great, let them go nuts, spend whatever they want. The last negative ad probably made our party a little money, but we can't count on that happening all the time.
The point is that the idea itself usually comes not just from the member. If you check with Mr. Shory, and if you like, Madam Chair, I have his comments on second reading over here, and he probably made reference to it at the beginning, because it's the same principle.
This is a quote from the member:
I would like to start by thanking my family for putting up with the crazy hours and travel schedule of a member of Parliament who is also a husband and a father. I thank my wife.... I also thank the staff and volunteers who have helped me work on this legislation....
This is the point, Madam Chair. Here is what Mr. Shory said, and I give him full credit for it:
I also thank the staff and volunteers who have helped me work on this legislation....
This isn't just some thought that came through his mind and then all of a sudden it appears on the order paper. He obviously would have consulted with people. He's making reference to it. He's acknowledging the work of his staff and volunteers. So he says, “I also thank the staff and volunteers who have helped me work on this legislation, men and women whose creativity, insight and hard work have helped make the second reading of this legislation possible today.”
Well, I can sympathize with him, and I'm a little bit envious. Your private member's bill has come this far. I'm hoping mine gets to be voted; I'm 150th on the list. The point is that you have come up with an idea, and that idea is something you worked on, you developed—much as I did with constituents of mine—and then you took the idea to the legislative counsel.
I admire the phenomenal work that our lawyers here on the Hill do, or here in Ottawa. I don't know exactly which building they are in, but they do a phenomenal job, whether in preparing amendments or, in this case, private members' bills.
We come up with the legislation, we come up with these ideas believing, because it is a private member's bill, that they are going to stay relatively close to the form in which we introduced them. If Mr. Shory, for example, were to work with individuals who might have assisted him with this bill, or if he were to talk to others and say, “Here's what the government wants to do: they want to take away citizenship in this situation, or they want to create a two-tier citizen, or whatever it might be, which really dramatically changes the scope...”.
We know this. I'm not exaggerating. Even the government itself argues that the legislation is going to change the scope. In fairness, and out of respect for Mr. Shory and his efforts, and the efforts of those who were involved in bringing forward this legislation, I think it is important for us to acknowledge this.
One of the reasons I think it is important is that when we look at the motion we have before us and see that it makes reference to scope, we need to think twice before we allow something of this nature to take place. Even if, Madam Chair, Mr. Shory agrees with changing the scope of the legislation, he might be sympathetic to it now, but it's no longer just Mr. Shory's legislation. This is a bill that ultimately, I would suggest to you, Madam Chair, has a much larger ownership, which is broader than the private member. Even though the sponsor of the bill might be comfortable with the changes that are being imposed upon him, we don't know why, how, or whether there will be a negative vote if in fact he doesn't accept the changes. We don't know that. We don't know what has been told in the back room about the bill.
But even if Mr. Shory is doing it 100% on his own and is in full compliance and says, “Yes, I want the government to change the scope of my legislation”, we still shouldn't be changing the scope of the legislation, because it is entirely different from its original form. That is why I say you have to factor in other circumstances, other concerns, in making a substantial change of this nature, Madam Chairperson. That's why I think it is important that we have this discussion.
So you look at it, and we get back to where the bill was last—it gets third reading, it passes.... Chances are that the individual private member is going to want to let the stakeholders, the individuals who participated, be made aware of it. Quite often you'll see that a private member's bill will even generate media interest. For good reasons they'll often generate media interest, and that's a good thing.
Whether it's Mr. Shory or any other private member, it's always encouraging when we have a private member who brings in a piece of legislation and is able to attract some media coverage. We need to recognize that when you have a good story that comes out of the House of Commons from a member of Parliament, all of us indirectly benefits by that. I don't think there are enough good stories out there, so it's a positive reflection on all of us when it happens.
I had a number of interviews when advertising my private member's bill—and I just gave it first reading the other week, Madam Chairperson. I was asked what I thought about other parties and whether the Leader of the New Democratic Party would support it, and what about my own leader and so forth.
