Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Some of you around this table may be wondering why you're bringing this motion in. What's its purpose? If you're imagining for a moment its purpose is to give members of Parliament such as myself belonging to parties of fewer than 12 MPs in the House greater access and greater rights, I'm here to make sure you understand that is not the purpose of this motion. The purpose of this motion is to take away the rights that smaller party members have or independent MPs have under our current rules, under O'Brien and Bosc rules of parliamentary procedure. I have the right, until you pass this motion, to bring forward substantive amendments at report stage, which gives the House as a whole the opportunity to consider an amendment brought forward by a member who is not part of a larger party.
Given that members of parties with fewer than 12 MPs are not allowed to sit on committee, this—I think it's really parliamentary chicanery—was invented by the last majority in Parliament to deprive particularly me of rights to bring forward amendments at report stage. What it does is create something that I would regard as a fake opportunity to present amendments because I can only provide, as the motion says, brief representations. I can't move the motion. I can't vote on the motion. What I specifically will not be able to do once this passes is present a substantive amendment to any bill from this committee at report stage. Since every committee is being asked to pass an identical motion, this will effectively deprive me of any abilities to present substantive motions and amendments to any bill at report stage.
I've lived with with this since it was first passed in the previous Parliament in the fall of 2013. It is very difficult on a very personal basis. It is impossible to get to two clause-by-clause meetings that are happening at the same time. I've prepared amendments and run to a committee in the last Parliament only to find that they had finished clause-by-clause because I was at clause-by-clause in a different committee and can't be in two places at once.
I know that you've been told to vote for this, but I thought I would try to see whether or not the words of the mandate letters that went to the government House leader are meaningful at all. These said that we're going to respect other parties, opposition members of Parliament are going to be respected, that there will be a spirit of generosity, and that there will be a willingness to let members of committees vote independently of being told how to vote by their party higher-ups.
That's what's at stake here, and I'd be very grateful if this motion did not pass.