Thank you very much, and thank you for the cooperation on that diversion.
We have some real concerns and some real reservations about the motion being put forward by Mr. Trottier on behalf of the government. I understand his point of view. I take him at his word that his intentions are honourable and that he's trying to represent the best interests of the independent MPs who are not given status at parliamentary committees.
I'm just concerned, and I think I have evidence to indicate—perhaps I'll be asking the analysts to help with some of this as well—that there may be perverse consequences to this. However well-intentioned the idea is, to pass this motion as it stands might actually have the effect of diminishing the opportunities that independent MPs currently have.
The way I will explain that is, yes, it would give the opportunity for independent MPs to come before a parliamentary committee at committee stage and introduce amendments, but it doesn't give them the right to vote unless one of the opposition MPs voluntarily steps aside, I understand; there's a way you could appoint that independent person to occupy your voting space. That provides no real satisfaction, I think, to the independent MP.
But having given them, as I heard the term used, a poisoned chalice, if you will, giving them that opportunity to make representations at the committee precludes the opportunity to move amendments at the report stage. I could be corrected if I'm wrong. That's why I wanted the analysts to be present here, and the clerk as well. We could use the advice from Marc-Olivier.
As I understand it, it's up to the Speaker, always, whether they'll entertain amendments at report stage. But the past practice has been, and recent rulings have been, that if you had the opportunity to introduce amendments at the committee stage—even if you didn't, but you had the opportunity, by virtue of this motion, to introduce your amendments here—you would not be allowed to introduce that motion at report stage.
Now, at least at the report stage, for an amendment moved by an independent member at report stage, they get to vote on their own amendment. Surely that's one of the most fundamental rights that a member of Parliament has—to be able to put forward, defend, and then vote on the position they're bringing to the table.
In this case, I can't see that. I'm very afraid that the consequence of passing this motion would be to deny a fundamental right and deny the privilege, if you will, of an independent MP.
There's a section that I would cite from O'Brien and Bosc. Again, I would invite input or participation from either our clerk or our analysts, who may be able to point out sections that I might have missed here. On page 783 it says this:
Normally, the Speaker will not select a motion in amendment previously ruled out of order in committee, unless the reason for that ruling was the requirement for a royal recommendation or that the amendment moved in committee had proposed the deletion of an entire clause of a bill.
So the Speaker won't allow an amendment at report stage that simply says “delete section 2”.
The section continues:
Furthermore, the Speaker will normally only select motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee.
In other words, whether you introduced it at committee or you didn't introduce it at committee, if you had the opportunity and chose not to, you still couldn't introduce it later on in the House.
To me that makes the case that this is a dangerous move. I think what we're lacking around this table is the point of view of the independents, to see how they feel about it. We're acting on their behalf, or we're acting in such a way that it would have a material effect on the way they're allowed to conduct their business, depending on the outcome of this vote.
I have a letter that was circulated, dated October 29, that's today, signed by Brent Rathgeber, Bruce Hyer, and Elizabeth May.
Do all committee members have this letter? I think it might be worth reading this fairly short letter into the record, or I could summarize at least some of the objections they raise. They seem to have been alerted to the fact that this was going on at these committees, because they went to the trouble of printing this letter up with some of their concerns. We have the background of the current motion, and maybe I'll start in the middle of the letter. They point out that in the fall of 2012, the House leader for the government, Peter Van Loan, asked the Speaker to circumvent the rights of members in Parliament who were not members of larger parties by suggesting a novel process for amendments from independents. He proposed to the Speaker that amendments from such MPs be subjected to a trial vote on one sample amendment. If that amendment were defeated, the suggestion was that none from the smaller, independent MPs should be entertained. That didn't make a lot of sense.
The Speaker's ruling was clear, saying that it “remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure a balance between the government's need to get its business through the House, and the opposition’s responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House”.
He added that “the underlying principles these citations express are the cornerstones of our parliamentary system. They enshrine the ancient democratic tradition of allowing the minority to voice its views and opinions in the public square and, in counterpoint, of allowing the majority to put its legislative program before Parliament and have it voted upon”.
I understand what the government House leader was trying to achieve then, and I think this is probably the origin of the motion that we have before us today. They didn't want a bunch of nuisance amendments, dilatory amendments, just to simply bog down the proceedings of the House of Commons. We've all lived through some of those. There was a bill that Diane will probably remember, where there were, I think, 3,000 amendments. In the Nisga'a bill, they forced a vote on 472 amendments, and having to stand up and vote on every one was ridiculous. That was simply mischief to try to stop a bill, really. It was a last-ditch effort. So all parties agreed, I think, at procedure and house affairs, that steps would be taken where the Speaker would be able to weed out the nuisance motions, or to bundle and cluster them, so you'd have 50 amendments on one vote. Those kinds of steps have been taken.
In the most recent example, we saw the leader of the Green Party, who is actually an independent MP, submit an awful lot of amendments at report stage, which bogged things down somewhat. I'm not here to defend the Green Party, but it is her right to do that, and it's the right of any member of Parliament to advance the issues they feel their constituents sent them here to do.
If we support this motion, I think we would be undermining the rights of at least these three independent members of Parliament. I notice there's at least one other independent MP who has not signed this letter, and that would be Dean Del Mastro. I don't know what his views are on it, but it may well be something to do with this budget bill or omnibus bill. He may have an amendment that he would seek to put forward.
The Speaker ruled quite recently on this matter, and I think upheld the concern that I am expressing, on Thursday, June 6, 2013.
The Speaker was ruling on a question of privilege, I think it was, raised by the House leader for the NDP. Just at the very end of his ruling he said, “In summary, then...I am entirely sympathetic to the procedural consequence of this development”.
Let me just back up a little bit.
During Bill C-60, which was a finance bill, an independent MP did come before the committee and introduced a number of amendments, I believe.
Is that correct?
The member was invited to do so in a special, exceptional “one off”. The House leader for the NDP then made a point of order that the order adopted by the Standing Committee on Finance respecting the consideration of Bill C-60 went beyond the committee's authority as conferred by the House. Specifically, he explained that the committee order invited certain other standing committees to study different parts of the bill and, along with independent members, to submit amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance.
His point was that the Standing Committee on Finance didn't have the right to confer the opportunity for independent MPs to submit their amendments at the committee stage, knowing that their avenue of recourse is during report stage. The Speaker upheld the right of the committee to do that, but also confirmed our concerns that it's a “one or the other” situation.
There is no precedent at all for this. All we can go by is the past practice of numerous Speakers, who state quite clearly that the Speaker will only select motions of amendment that could not have been presented at the committee.
That is the point of my poisoned chalice—I think that's a good analogy. It may seem like a nice idea, and it may seem in the best interests, and it may welcome an independent MP to sit at our committee and move these amendments. It even contemplates offering them an opportunity to make a brief representation in support of their amendments. The question remains how brief and whether it is a dead end once the committee rejects that amendment.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I can't support this, in the interest of fairness—and in the interests of parliamentary privilege, I believe—because I don't think this committee should be able to strip the democratic rights of independent members to vote on the very amendments they are putting forward.
Thank you.
