Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the point that the Member is raising is fundamentally around the role of Members who are participating in committees such as this one to determine the merits of legislation in a detailed clause-by-clause review and proposed amendments, which is an inherent privilege of Members and an inherent role of the House in exercising its own independence, so the House is allowed to pursue its duties that are important for the passage of laws. To have outside interference either in the form of a consideration that has been raised by a third party that is, in fact, influencing the decision making of a Minister to concur with an amendment raised by committee, which is allowed by our rules but must be carefully balanced with, also, the merits of that. There is a difference between, I think the advice being given to a Minister to reject an amendment that is not in proper form, which is not keeping with the rules of amendment or has a serious public policy concern that the amendment could jeopardize the sound functioning of the law.
In this case, I don't think the justification and what the Member is relying on is something quite different. It is merely that these discussions are taking place at a level outside of this process, and as a result we are unable to make changes or modifications to the bill through the amending process. I think that directly impinges upon, as the Member has said, his rights as a Member to exercise bringing forward amendments and changes in good faith within the realm of our rules and the realm of our privilege.
It just seems to me like these kind of determinations of outside actors, especially in keeping with the spirit of our consensus traditions, those should be freely shared with committee and made explicitly clear, and not just be told the rationale is we cannot change this because we have been told by someone we're not going to do it.
I think that does have serious consequences on the future of legislation that is brought forward. The role of committees is not merely to rubber-stamp legislation. It is to sincerely and solemnly review these things, and that is an inherent privilege. We jeopardize the ability of the House to freely and informally look at these things if those outside contingencies, especially when they are governments, are allowed to be the primary consideration in whether or not the Minister applies his concurrence on amendments, or whether or not the House does, in fact, vote something down for that justification.
I do support the point of privilege. I hope you will consider the merits of the point that has been raised. Thank you.