Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a bit of a follow-up, if I could, to the beginning of Mr. Redekopp's question, which was a follow-up to Mr. Kmiec's question about suspending until tomorrow.
Because we made more than 40 amendments, Mr. Kmiec referred to our caucus process. That was one of the revelations here when I got elected. I thought the caucus part of the whole process would be two hours a week that I could never get back. It turned out that our process, anyway—I don't know how it is for the other caucuses—is a lot different from what I expected, in the sense that for any motion, issue, bill or private member's bill that goes before Parliament from this place or the other place, the shadow minister has to set up what we call a “caucus advisory committee”, which was referenced. I'm the shadow minister for industry.
It's basically inviting all your caucus members to a discussion on that issue to discuss the bill, the proposal and what the shadow minister may or may not think, and to also have a discussion about what we think our position should be. That discussion then goes through a type of cabinet process. We have shadow cabinet committees, which shadow ministers sit on for various areas—economic policy, social policy. The relevant shadow minister has to take that caucus input on that bill or legislation, as was the case for this one, to that shadow cabinet committee and have yet another discussion about the bill and what caucus recommended.
Sometimes that process reconfirms what the caucus advisory committee wants. Sometimes it modifies it or alters it. It then goes on to a meeting of our leadership team, which is the equivalent of the cabinet's P and P process, so it's like the cabinet committee process. I think it was Rona Ambrose, when she was leader, who set up this process for us, which we still follow.
As discussed at that committee meeting, that P and P process, not unlike the cabinet process, may choose to do something different or to ratify or alter something at that discussion. Then it goes to the full caucus, believe it or not. The shadow minister who presented it originally has to present it to all of the caucus. We then have a caucus discussion and debate about that recommendation and an actual vote. Everything we do goes through that process, including the vote.
When there is a substantial change to what we approved originally, whether it's a private member's bill, a motion or a government bill that happens through the committee process, as shadow ministers we're obligated to bring that back to the full caucus to have a discussion and debate about what we think the caucus and the team—this is a team sport, after all—should be doing.
Because the alterations to this bill are so significant, it would require us.... We're lucky, in that it's Tuesday. We've missed some of the other elements, but we all do have caucus tomorrow. Our shadow minister could make a presentation to caucus tomorrow morning on what has changed and get feedback from the caucus on the position for reporting back and the vote on what our position would be on reporting back to the House and going forward to third reading.
If I recall, Madam Chair, I think that while you may not have said it, you seemed to nod your head when Mr. Redekopp asked if you would consider suspending and following up on Mr. Kmiec's idea that we suspend and come back tomorrow, if possible, after the caucus process. That would mean after question period tomorrow we'd reconvene so that we could have, with our proper caucus of our 118 or so colleagues—I guess I'm not so good at math tonight—less those present, the input of those caucus colleagues and instructions that we could bring back to the table tomorrow, if that were possible.
Madam Chair, I would like to follow up on the two previous comments on whether that nodding was agreement so that we could adjourn until tomorrow—