Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The first problem that this motion raises is how it was presented. Mr. Calandra presented it by saying that he wanted to give more authority to independent members of the House. How he presented it is all fine, but in concrete terms, the motion before us does not give the independent members of Parliament more power. It does exactly the opposite by taking a very important power away from them, namely, the ability to suggest amendments at the report stage in the House of Commons. That means that they would not have the right to explain their amendments to the House of Commons. More significantly, they will not be able to vote when their own amendments are brought to a vote, because they obviously do not have the authority to vote in committee.
When an independent member of Parliament sends a letter to indicate that he or she wants to suggest an amendment, the MP can provide explanations. However, the MP will not even be able to vote when his or her own amendments are brought to a vote. We obviously don't know details about every position of the independent MPs. But we will be required to vote on amendments that they themselves suggested, that will reflect their thinking and that will show their desire to represent their constituents, while they themselves will not be able to.
The second problem with this motion is that it fundamentally changes how the House of Commons operates. As my colleague, Mr. Angus, mentioned a few times, the legality of this motion is seriously questionable. This committee cannot change the parliamentary process, which is based on the Westminster system. It does not have this power, and I highly doubt that this respects the procedures and Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
The government claims that this motion gives the independent members more power by allowing them to submit a letter to explain their amendments but it's the opposite: it is taking power away from them.
What this government is doing today is particularly contradictory. When the big omnibus Bill C-60 was tabled, independent MPs wanted to attend the committee meeting and be heard. We know that the government loves omnibus bills and that it has very little respect for democracy. The government prohibited independent parliamentarians to sit on the committee and attend the meeting. Instead, the government told the official opposition and other opposition members that if they wanted an independent member to be present, they had to give up one of their own seats.
In the past, the government never wanted to give the independent members any power or give them the right to sit on this committee. Today it claims it wants to give them more power. In concrete terms, that is exactly the opposite of what is going to happen. The independent members will no longer have the power to suggest amendments at the report stage, a fundamental power that has always been granted them in our parliamentary system, which is based on the Westminster system. What the government is actually presenting here makes no sense.
I would like to again quote from page 1019 of O'Brien and Bosc:
... It is the House, and the House alone, that appoints the members and associate members of its committees, as well as the Members who will represent it on joint committees. The Speaker has ruled that this is a fundamental right of the House. The committees themselves have no powers at all in this regard.
I repeat: we have no power here to decide how the House of Commons operates. Another committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, might be able to, but this is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Why are we debating an issue that would change how the House of Commons operates? It's really out of line, Madam Chair.
I would like to point out something else, since our motion to oppose meeting in camera was just defeated. The clause-by-clause study of bills is usually done in camera. Therefore, the independent members are now going to submit letters and they might get a quick minute to explain their amendments, but they will not even be seen by the public. The constituents of these MPs will not know what the MPs have presented. This aspect is very important. It explains why we are so opposed to this motion. The independent members already have very little power in the House of Commons, and we want to reduce it even further.
This is the only place they can give an opinion on a bill or show their constituents that they have stood up to defend an important issue for them. We are suggesting they submit a letter and then appear for a quick minute to talk about the reasoning behind their amendments, but that will be done in camera. Basically, the MPs' constituents will not know whether they oppose it. These members will not even be able to speak about the fact that they submitted amendments. I find that fundamentally problematic. They will no longer be able to rise in the House to say that they are submitting amendments and show that they are standing up for their constituents. They already have so little opportunity to do so, not counting voting when their own amendments are brought to a vote.
I would also like to point out, as my colleagues have already, that our Westminster-based system includes rules and procedures that are not always clear. They often depend on our interpretation of them. It is largely the responsibility of the Speaker of the House and the committee chairs to ensure that the standing orders are interpreted correctly.
Having said that, there are precedents. I quoted O'Brien and Bosc in that respect. In this case, we would be changing a fundamental principle of the tradition and operation of our Parliament, which operates based on the Westminster system. As my colleague mentioned, will that create a precedent? Once other countries see that Canada's House of Commons committees have taken away the ability of independent MPs to submit amendments during report stage in the House of Commons, will they say that they can as well? There would be a precedent. I think all members of this committee should be extremely concerned about the idea of creating a precedent as significant as this.
I don't want to impute motives, but I sincerely wonder whether this motion is a way of punishing former Conservative MPs who left because they were being very controlled by the Prime Minister. I sincerely wonder. If that is the case, I think it is really sad. That is not an appropriate way of doing things. It does not reflect a willingness to co-operate, to consider how things are done or to respect the members and former colleagues of the Conservative Party.
Madam Chair, I have already given the example of Bill C-60, which prevented independent MPs from participating. However, we often see that this government is changing how things are done, for example, presenting closure motions to limit debate or going in camera. The government regularly shows a lack of respect for democratic processes.
This is another example that shows us that these Conservative members have no respect for democracy or parliamentary procedure and regulations, which are fundamental for the functioning of the House of Commons and the way we do things.
We should be seriously concerned seeing such a motion. It will change how we do things and the House of Commons procedures. Basically, it will take away a very important right from independent members.
Furthermore, the independent members of Parliament are not here today and do not have the right to speak. We are discussing their rights, their future and how they will represent their constituents, without even having them present. I highly doubt that the Conservative members who moved this motion consulted them. I highly doubt that any independent members of Parliament were consulted about the content of the motion and said they were in favour of it. Can we stop deciding how other members of Parliament are going to represent their constituents? We are in the process of taking away that essential power.
So I invite my Conservative colleagues to consult the independent members of Parliament to see what they think of the motion. Since they aren't here, they can't vote against the motion or say that it will take away a fundamental right and influence how they represent the Canadians who elected them. I doubt they support how things are being done in this committee and how this motion was presented. We are claiming that we are giving them more power, but that is not true. We are in the process of taking away a fundamental right, and in its place, letting them submit a simple letter and speak for one minute to explain why they are suggesting amendments, which will probably take place in camera in any case. As a result, no one will know that these independent members spoke about an important matter.
Mr. Chair, I issued an invitation to the members of the Conservative Party. I invite them to consult their former colleagues and the other independent members of the House of Commons to see what they think about it. We cannot make a decision about their future and how they are going to represent their constituents.
Moreover, I emphatically demand that we get a legal opinion on this, because I highly doubt that this motion is in order. As members of this committee, we cannot decide how the House of Commons will operate nor can we fundamentally change the Westminster tradition here, in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That is not our role. That would exceed our mandate. I highly doubt that it is in order. So I ask you to seek a legal opinion.
I again invite the Conservative members of the committee to go and ask their former colleagues and the other independent members of Parliament what they think about the motion. I guarantee you that they will take issue and will not see it as a way of giving them more power. It is exactly the opposite. They will see it as taking away a fundamental right, the right to express their opinion at the report stage of a bill, to submit amendments to the House of Commons publicly, and to debate and vote when their own amendments are brought to a vote.