My motion clarifies the situation, because at the present time, it is at the discretion of the Speaker. The Speaker has created precedents. An independent member can virtually never ask questions and virtually never be present, but an independent member who is always present will be able to ask more questions if he or she is a member of a caucus. This is why I have suggested this change, which was the object of a discussion. It was not a decision-making body, but when we had other problems to discuss with regard to the whips, my whip colleagues were made aware of the problem.
If members of a given political allegiance, who belong to one of the 21 or 26 parties recognized by Elections Canada... I will give you an example. Let us suppose that the Green Party sees its leader and two other members elected. The Standing Orders provide that the members of a party with fewer than 12 members are considered to be independents. Therefore, it is possible to be an independent member but to belong to a given banner. Here is Mr. Hill's concern. If, let us say, the two other independent colleagues of the leader of the Green Party allow him or her to put questions in their name, the leader is free to do so and would not fall under the one question or one statement per week limit.
This explains the second element, which I introduced at Mr. Hill's request:
For the purposes of Standing Order 31.1(1), members of political parties not officially recognized in the House are not considered independent members.
They would therefore have that right.