Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm appealing here to my honourable colleague. This committee shouldn't be a joke. We're dealing with a very serious issue that I believe breaches the rights of members within the House of Commons, so I'm going to go through this. Some members might not want to debate it; in fact, I would be surprised if they did want to debate it, because when they're trying to take away rights of the members, they'd certainly want to move it as fast as they could.
In terms of the issue of in camera, that would be part of the regular issues of routine motions, so we were certainly willing to work with them on that. There's a real difference between ensuring accountability and transparency and voting in camera, and using the committee to strip the rights of independent members.
We're going to get to those rights in a moment, but I first want to go through what we're not dealing with, such as working meals and witnesses' expenses. It's reasonable that requests for travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization. Also, under exceptional circumstances, payment for more representatives should be made at the discretion of the chair, including if requested, reimbursement for reasonable child care expenses. I thought we could have dealt with that.
Regarding staff at in camera meetings, unless otherwise allowed, each committee member may be accompanied by one staff person at an in camera meeting. In addition, each party shall be permitted to have one party staff member in attendance. That seems perfectly reasonable. I would have thought we would have had that. As our staff can probably point out, we would all be pretty lost without them, like sailors at sea, even in our in camera meetings.
With respect to in camera meeting transcripts, one copy of the transcript of each in camera meeting should be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultations by members of the committee. That's a routine motion.
What I'm doing for the folks back home is to say that these are the normal things you set up. You set up the ground rules of the committee and then you get into the discussion. What we're seeing is that our colleagues on the government side are not interested in discussing how we set up a working committee, because again, their orders from the Prime Minister's Office—it's no longer Nigel Wright; I don't know who's calling the shots there right now—are to undermine the rights of the independent members. We're going to get to the undermining of those rights.
The notice of motions is another thing we would normally be dealing with this morning: that notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages at least 48 hours prior to the start time of a meeting where the motion may be moved. I would have thought we would have dealt with that by now.
In regard to the rounds of questioning, the order of questions for the first round of questioning shall be as follows: New Democratic Party, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative; during the second round it shall alternate between government members and opposition members in the following fashion: New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, and then Conservative. Based on the principle that each committee member shall have full opportunity to question the witnesses, if time permits, further rounds shall repeat the pattern of the first two, at the discretion of the chair.
You'll notice in this issue of the round of questioning, which is very interesting, independents have no standing at our committees. Independents have no right to question witnesses. Independents have no right to bring motions to our committee for debate. Independents exist in the shadows at the committees. This is a very important issue here.
Independent members of the House of Commons, and there are a number of them now, do not have the right to bring motions, to vote on motions, or to question witnesses. What they're now being offered is to write a letter to the committee if they have potential amendments on a bill. Once they've brought that letter to committee, the committee then decides, and I believe they are allowed to make a brief presentation in support of it. They have no ability to direct the committee. They have no ability to vote in committee. What this government is doing, Mr. Chairman, by sleight of hand, is saying to the independent, "If you have any concerns, write to the committee”, a committee where they have no standing, where they are a shadow person. It strips them of their right as an independent member of the House of Commons to bring amendments for a vote. That's the issue here. They're not being offered anything to come to our committee or to be part of our committee.
It would be a fascinating exercise if my colleagues in the Conservative Party had any kind of democratic notion to allow the independents to participate or bring a motion, if they wanted to. We could debate it. That would be an interesting discussion in democracy, but that's not what they're offering.
They're offering the poison chalice to the independents, saying they'll let them write a letter to the committee. This will strip the ability of an independent member, who is elected by people in this country, to bring forward amendments at report stage in the House. It's just another attempt to steamroll our democracy.
I want to go to the actual problems with this motion and why it's such a poisonous thing to bring forward.