"Honorary" members certainly won't get any recognition from the government. But they don't under the current version either. I don't believe this version would "ban" a caucus deciding to allow them anymore than the previous one would.
I wouldn't interpret it that way either, but I could see how someone would. I don't want (not that it matters unless this bill stays here for three more weeks
) a bill to pass that includes a point that could reasonably be interpreted to mean that, especially when it could say something like:
that would effectively mean the same thing as what you are arguing for but cannot be intepreted to mean something else.