Mr. Chair, again I want to respond to Tom's comments. When I moved the amendment, it was an attempt to ensure that there would be opportunities for all members to be treated equally in a process that I think is very important. If we're saying to some members of the House that we want them to provide amendments, or be afforded the opportunity to be provided amendments at the committee stage, I really do believe that it would be a mistake for us not to acknowledge all members of the House not having that same opportunity.
If you want to look at it, for every bill that comes before the House of Commons, an independent member could say, “Well, I would like to give an amendment on these eight or nine bills after going through them”. You're denying that same opportunity to members who happen to belong to a caucus. You can say, “Well, you can go through your caucus infrastructure”, but quite frankly I think that you would get members from all political parties who would say that it is still not fair, it won't work.
At least it's the principle that we're talking about here. Whether or not party members choose to use that, or some individual members who belong to caucuses choose to use it, is completely up to them. They might prefer to go through the caucus infrastructure, if I could put it that way.
I just don't believe fundamentally, in principle, that we should be singling out a half-dozen, or ten, or whatever that number of independents is, and saying, “Look you have the right to introduce amendments,” when in fact there are others who do not have that right. I can recall a speech that was given inside the House by a member who indicated very clearly that he had been punished and told that he would not be able to issue any sort of statement going forward.
It would be great to have this discussion after we've all been afforded the opportunity to have some dialogue with some of our caucus members or other members, to even to reflect on it, to talk with the clerk's office, or get a better understanding of the eventual outcome of a rule change of this nature. That would be wonderful. If we're not going to be given that opportunity, I do believe that in order to make this a better, more universal rule that the motion itself, or the amendment that I'm suggesting, is worth supporting.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair.