Thanks, Chair.
I have no qualms with Mr. Reid's comments, other than I didn't see it as diminishing. I acknowledge that it is recognizing the status of recognized parties, but to say that it diminishes.... It's not preventing anyone from coming that otherwise could.
As I understand it, Chair, any member of Parliament can come and sit at a committee meeting, if they wish. They just can't speak unless they're given a spot from their party or somebody gives them the spot, and they're not allowed to vote. Any one of us can march into any committee meeting, sit down, start listening, and even ask questions if our caucus agrees. I don't see in any way that this diminishes their right. They would still have the right to come. In my view, the only difference is that if we were counting for a quorum, they wouldn't be part of that count. But it in no way diminishes their right to be there. Their status is no less than it ever was. Actually, this is a clarification more than anything.
I hear Mr. Reid's point. I have great respect for his thoughts on these kinds of matters. But I would disagree with the suggestion that passing the amendment takes away anything from any member of Parliament. It does not. In my view, it recognizes the importance of caucuses and recognized parties, and that if you're going to count quorum and you need at least one other opposition party there, it ought to be one of the two recognized parties.