Mr. Speaker, I would like to rebut some of the points brought forward by the government whip. She stated that Parliament should not be constrained unduly. However, because the House voted on the ways and means motion, in essence we put a circle around that bill, a very definite circle.
I would like to refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Commons Debates , page 962, dated February 7, 1994. It is about three paragraphs. It states regarding the adoption of the standing order change:
There is, however, an important additional benefit to be gained. The broad role of standing committees with regard to a bill dealt with in either of these two new processes could substantially reduce the quasi-proprietary attitude of ministers and their officials toward their legislation. By the time such a bill is ready for second or third reading, it could be as much a committee's bill as it is that of the sponsoring minister. It has been suggested that a vote on second or third reading of such a bill could as a consequence of this be more difficult to describe as standing by itself, a confidence issue. Members on all sides of the House could find themselves freed more often of constitutional implications in voting and would be able to depart from the party position without concern about defeating the government.
In other words, the suggestion has been made to me that these two new legislative routes could be one way of increasing the number of so-called free votes.
The new procedures can also help avoid situations that all governments face from time to time. They result from bills being developed within departments without sufficiently broad and open public consultation. As a consequence, things could be overlooked and governments as a result are embarrassed, to say the least, when the bill must be dramatically changed or even withdrawn in the face of a strong expression of negative public opinion after the bill has been introduced.
This all points to the fact that a bill going to committee before second reading allows a process whereby major fundamental changes can be made, the principle of the bill can be changed and before the House has expressed its opinion in a vote.
In this case we have had two votes, one on the budget and one on the ways and means motion. Those in essence are first reading of this bill. The House voted and said that is it. We cannot allow this
to go to committee before second reading. This motion is out of order.