If I could continue in response to a point that Mr. O'Connor made earlier and has repeated again now, he makes the argument that these independent members are really losing nothing because they can bring forward amendments at the report stage the same way as we can. It also goes on to say in O'Brien and Bosc:
A motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance to Members as to warrant further consideration at report stages. For the purposes of debate the Speaker will also group motions....
He pretty much rules out the opportunity to bring up the same motion at the report stage that you tried to get through at committee. The key point here is the motions they move at committee they're not allowed to vote on. I don't think it's fair to ask one of us to step out and not cast our ballot in order to give them the opportunity to vote on their own amendment. It's not satisfactory any way you look at it. I can't help but agree with the authors of this letter that it's a very thinly veiled attempt to muzzle and silence some of the independent members who have been so vigorously exercising their rights that it's become inconvenient and a nuisance. I agree it must be off-putting for the government side to have 200 to 300 amendments at report stage. I also think that the Speaker has enough tools in his or her tool box to rule on that to make sure that it doesn't unduly interfere with the ability of the government to advance its legislative agenda. They bundle things. They rule a lot of report stage amendments out of order. If, in the worst-case scenario, once a year we do have to vote into the night to accommodate the legitimate amendments brought forward by independents, so be it. It's not the end of the world.
I wish the government would rethink this motion because I don't think its intentions are constructive. I don't even think they are honourable when you scratch the surface of them.