Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, I just want to say a few words on the motion before us with respect to pre-study.

Pre-study has been used in this chamber appropriately, in my view, and this is not a bill I would instinctively oppose. However, I think it’s worth reflecting on the nature of our relationship with the other place in terms of dealing with legislation. I, for one, am of the view that we should emphasize our second reading reflection on bills that come to us from the other chamber. I believe that reflection is best done, in most cases, by waiting for the bill to arrive here in full.

I believe pre-study is entirely appropriate for supply, for budgets and for bills that reflect a judicial time frame by which Parliament must act. Those bills are unique in their relationship with the other place and, in the case of judicial time frames, with the courts themselves.

I would encourage restraint in broadening pre-study to bills that are, in the normal course of matters, being dealt with in the other place or are coming here for reflection.

Let’s face it: The bill before us has had a five-year pace. It arrived here five years ago almost to the day and was caught up and not dealt with because, at that point, it was not a priority of the government. It has been reintroduced in two parliaments and is in the other place. I would encourage us to exercise restraint, to encourage a dialogue with the other chamber with respect to legislation we get and preserve pre-study for that which is necessary. If we go too far, I’m afraid we will erode our capacity for pre-study when it is appropriate.

On a related matter — I’ll take the opportunity of being on the floor — I would encourage restraint on Senate bills as well. Senate bills are a useful tool for legislation that is, in a sense, non-controversial in its origin, and it can be useful to use the time in the Senate to advance a bill for consideration in a bicameral parliament. However, I would not encourage Senate bills that are in themselves somewhat controversial as we would forego the opportunity to provide sober second thought because we have, in a sense, exercised our first thoughts.

With those comments, I would urge you to reflect and consider this broader context as to whether to adopt this motion.