Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you to other committee members, I have a couple of comments based on what I've heard.

I've heard that this amendment is an infringement on democracy. Quite frankly, I think it is just the opposite. It increases our democracy by allowing independent members, who have never been given or had the right to make amendments before committees where items are discussed, to do so.

There was also mention made that they don't know what we've done on committee so how could they possibly put amendments, because they don't have the information the committee has. Well, to the best of my knowledge, all the business of the committee, with the exception of that which is in camera, is readily available to members of the public through the blues. They would almost within 24 hours be privy to the information the committee had and can, if they wish, be in the body of the room when witnesses appear, if that particular independent member has a desire to be fully apprised of what the committee is saying, or what witnesses have to say, or the dialogue that goes on between members of the committee.

I've heard also that the committee doesn't have the authority to do what we are about to do. Well, my comment on that is that I've heard the Speaker say ad infinitum that committees are masters of their own domain. The committee can do a great many things, and the only arbitrator as to whether or not the committee can do it in the end, I would suggest, is Parliament itself and/or, depending on the circumstances, the Speaker.

I don't think this restricts an independent member's ability to exercise his or her democratic right as a member of Parliament. I think it expands on that by allowing them a venue which they didn't have before to put forward their opinions or amendments, or even have a dialogue. When I say that, this permits that at the committee level.

It was also mentioned that if someone comes here with all these amendments, using the example of 200 or 400 amendments, the committee will sit too long. Well, in actual fact, the House sits a long time when these amendments come up, so irrespective of who is sitting a long time, eventually you are going to sit a long time to discuss them. I might add, at this particular time these amendments are generally grouped by the Speaker, so we could as a committee group them and exercise the same duties that the Speaker does when he's dealing with these amendments. In that way we could somewhat shorten the time the committee meets. I disagree that it restricts an independent member's ability. I think it expands it.

Mr. Rousseau wondered what the real intention is. I think the real intention is quite obvious. The real intention is to expand the rights of independent members and not restrict them. When Mr. Rousseau mentioned that he is prepared to sit at two in the morning, he has sat actually longer than that. He sat for almost 48 hours, or for however long we sat before in the House of Commons. I don't have a problem with that. I used to work double shifts.

I won't belabour the debate by quoting Mr. Churchill's statement, but I'll paraphrase it, that in a democracy, action is one of the most cumbersome, terrible things, but there is nothing better that we have come across so far. Sometimes democracy can be a little on the ugly side, and we are prepared, as I know Mr. Rousseau is—when I say “we” I think I can speak for most Conservative members—to ride the bumps and blemishes and warts of democracy, because in the end that's the right way to do things.

When we talk about independent members having the ability to put forward their motions in both official languages, yes, each of us is limited by our budgets, but we have something that's very valuable. Our analysts work for the Library of Parliament, and I know for a fact that independent members have access to the Library of Parliament to make sure that the linguistic requirements of this Parliament are upheld.

We talk about the blocking of amendments. We have the same democratic rights at committee in many respects as a member of the House of Commons, so once again I do think that this expands rather than restricts the ability of an independent member.

I know that the opposition always is fearful that the evil government is doing something bad, and the government thinks that whatever the opposition does is bad. At this committee, many times I've heard people say that this isn't a partisan issue. Everything that happens in this place is partisan. If somebody blinks an eye, someone is trying to have a partisan slant to it or they're doing something, so let's not go down the road of “we're the true saviours of democracy”, because we all have our partisan coats on when we're in this place.

I do think that this motion actually expands the right of independent members and gives them and the people who elect them even more stature here in the House of Commons.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Rick Norlock

Transcript

Discussions (0)