Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have two items.
Madame Doré Lefebvre, on the true meaning and the true ability of parliamentarians to get along, I call it the big word “respect”. Thank you for mentioning that. I've been on this committee for going on seven years, and having sat on many other committees part-time and full-time, I can say that you're right. This committee has functioned well because even though we may disagree, at times vehemently, we do treat each other with respect, and I hope we never lose that.
Mr. Chair, this particular amendment has passed other committees, but I think the most important point to make here is, if I recall correctly, when the House of Commons was debating the so-called omnibus bill—I like to call them comprehensive bills—the Speaker did rule because I think there was some disagreement or debate over the independent members’ being able to put forward all the amendments, etc.
If we read the Speaker's ruling, and I'm going by memory so that can be dangerous, he said that it was definitely—if I recall correctly, and I'm paraphrasing—within the power and ability of committees to hear amendments from independent members at committee level. If I remember his ruling correctly, committees—and once again I go back to “we are masters of our own”—make the determination whether they want to hear amendments from independent members.
When we talk about who in the end will have to rule on this, of course Parliament in the end can vote, and I suspect that even when the Speaker disagrees, if Parliament says it's going to do something, it does, but before we get to that stage, the Speaker has ruled that it is within the power of committees to allow this procedure to occur. I suspect very strongly, and I don't want to belabour the exercise of democratic rights, that the Speaker would not have ruled thus if he felt that this in any way infringed on a member's democratic right.
Thank you.