“I want the House to pass this motion to give the government a majority of seats on all parliamentary committees. We have a majority of seats in the House, and committee seats should match that. We are adding government members instead of removing any opposition members.”

“moved: That, for the duration of the 45th Parliament: (a) Standing Order 104(1) be amended by replacing the words “consist of 10 members” with the words “consist of 12 members”; (b) paragraph (a)(i) of the order adopted on June 5, 2025, be rescinded, and Standing Order 104(2) be amended by replacing the words “consist of 10 members” with the words “consist of 12 members” and by adding after the words “12 members” the following: “which shall be composed of seven members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québecois, except for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which shall consist of 10 members and be composed of five members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois, and for which the lists of members are to be prepared, except as provided in section (1) of this standing order, shall be on:”; (c) for greater certainty, the membership of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be increased by two members of the House of Commons from the government party and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations be increased by one member of the House of Commons from the government party; (d) the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders, including to the marginal notes; (e) paragraph (a) of the order adopted on November 20, 2025, be amended by replacing the words “11 members of the House of Commons, including five members of the House of Commons from the government party,” with the words “12 members of the House of Commons, including six members of the House of Commons from the government party,”; (f) paragraph (b) of the order adopted on February 13, 2026, be amended by replacing the words “10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party,” with the words “12 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including seven members of the House of Commons from the governing party,”; (g) notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the whip of the recognized party affected by the above changes to the composition of committees submit his membership changes to the Clerk of the House following the adoption of this order, and these changes be effective immediately; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has adopted this order, and inviting Their Honours to concur in the changes made under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this order. He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Government Motion No. 9, which addresses the composition of committees of the House and joint committees. This is an important matter because it strikes at the very heart of how our Parliament performs its duties. The question is simple: Should a party that has a majority in the House of Commons also have a majority in parliamentary committees? I believe the answer is clear, it is undeniable, and it is yes. It should have a majority in committees. This is one of the very principles that underlie the work of this place. It is a long-standing tradition of our Parliament, and moreover, it is basic logic. A majority in one place, the House, clearly translates to a majority in another place, the parliamentary committees that are an extension of the House. For all of these reasons, I call on fellow members of Parliament to take a reasoned and reasonable approach to this motion as they participate in this debate. I want to start my remarks by stating the obvious. Parliamentary committees are the workhorses of Parliament. Committees receive their mandates from the House and carry out studies, review bills and conduct investigations relevant to their mandates. Not only are committees the proper forum for detailed consideration of bills, as the House only debates the principles and scope of bills at second reading, but they are also the proper forum where government members can engage with members of other parties to reconcile their differing perspectives for the benefit of their constituents, and more broadly, for Canadians. These are very challenging times. These challenges include dealing with the development of trade irritants and relationships with our partners and navigating in a very uncertain geopolitical landscape. Although we spend time in the House of Commons debating these issues and discussing important strategies and policies to address these challenges, the true work of developing detailed and constructive solutions often falls to committees. The Prime Minister has been clear. He expects to see a Parliament that delivers results for Canadians, and he expects Liberal MPs to work collaboratively with their colleagues on all sides of the House. We need to move ahead with a House of Commons that works together on the many challenges of our times. We need to move ahead with committees that work hard to closely scrutinize legislation to make it better while holding public hearings on a range of critical policies where Canadians are demanding action. Let me turn to the proposal contained in Government Motion No. 9. This is a routine motion that should not be seen as controversial. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons establish the number of members on each standing committee, and as such, any change to the numbers requires the House to adopt a new motion. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, makes it clear on page 819, where it states, “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” There is an undeniable, long-standing principle in Parliament. A party that has the majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees. This is at the core of our Westminster system of government. The motion proposed by the government would do just that. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states on page 790, “Party representation on committees reflects the standings of recognized parties in the House”. At the beginning of a Parliament, at the beginning of a new session of Parliament or, in some cases, from time to time, motions respecting the composition of committees are agreed to in the House in collaboration with the parties, without any debate. For those members who might take umbrage with Government Motion No. 9, I want to point out the counterfactual. If, by some turn of fate, a government were to lose its majority over the course of its mandate, opposition members would surely want the memberships of committees to reflect party standings and the composition of the House. This point is beyond debate. In fact, I would assert that if this scenario were to play out, I would fully expect that, without agreement of the parties to proceed, an opposition party would simply use an opposition day motion to implement a change in the composition of committees to reflect the standings in the House. That would result in one day of debate on an opposition day motion, a mechanism that would obviate any amendment unless the party proposing the motion agreed to it, followed by a vote. I would further assert that the government has taken an approach with Government Motion No. 9 to ensure that no party that is eligible to sit on committees would lose any members on those committees. This was a deliberate decision on our part. We could have proposed to closely mirror a membership structure of previous majority governments, which would have required removing members of the official opposition from committees. We chose not to do this. We chose the inclusive approach. We chose the collaborative approach. The reason we did that is that we are serious about our intention to work constructively and collaboratively with other parties to advance an agenda that is delivering for Canadians right now. It is not a political talking point. This is something that we see as important, if not paramount, at this time for our country. I will now go back to the practical effects on committees and the important work they do. An important aspect of committees is that they provide a mechanism for members to cultivate and refine their parliamentary skills and enhance their political expertise in the areas within the mandate of these committees. Not only does being a member of a committee help develop parliamentary expertise in legislative matters and policy development and analysis, but committees can and should be a forum where members work together to address issues and promote the interests of Canadians. Through this work, members build relationships that may be a little less partisan and lead to more productive conversations on policy issues important to their constituents and to Canadians. I believe that Government Motion No. 9 is a reasonable proposal, consistent with long-standing practices of the House and other Westminster parliaments. Our government fully believes in the productive functioning of the House and its committees. I see the motion as an opportunity not only to deliver on this promise to Canadians but also to reset our comportment and to refocus our combined efforts to deliver real and meaningful results for Canadians. For those members who claim that the motion would lessen their ability to hold the government to account, I say this: Not a single opposition MP would be removed from any committee. Their ability to propose motions, studies and amendments to legislation would remain intact. Their ability to have different MPs from their caucus participate in committees as associate members or substitutes would remain intact. Their opportunity to make a persuasive case for their proposals would remain intact. Ministers would continue to testify at committee and be held to account. Government officials would continue to testify before those same committees. Furthermore, the opposition gets 45 minutes each and every sitting day in question period to hold the government to account. Opposition members have 22 opposition days a year to move motions on issues of importance to them. Members will continue to have a variety of ways to obtain information from the government to hold it to account. There are the formal mechanisms I have mentioned, such as having ministers appear at committees to testify and to answer questions on a range of issues, such as legislation, studies and, obviously, the estimates. There are also Order Paper questions, petitions and late shows in the House. Further, I suggest that there are the informal mechanisms, such as speaking with ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries about issues of interest or concern respecting their portfolios, and obtaining technical briefings from departmental officials. These are effective accountability and transparency measures that I would continue to encourage members to leverage. My fear is that some members across the aisle are more interested in scoring political points and creating divisions for their own partisan gain, at a time when we really need to co-operate and collaborate in good faith to deliver on issues of critical importance for our country. Collaboration is the approach to politics that Canadians tell me, and I know they tell the opposition, they want in this place for all elected representatives. They do not want partisan gamesmanship. Let me make one thing clear. The Conservatives have said they will bring forward an amendment to the motion that would leave three of the opposition-chaired committees as they currently are: with a majority of opposition MPs. Our view is that this amendment is not proper. We would oppose it. Let me repeat the reason for this. There is an undeniable long-standing principle in Parliament that a party that has the majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees, not just in some committees but in all committees. There are not two tiers of committees in Parliament, and the principle applies to all of them equally. We are proposing to adjust committee membership proportionally to reflect the party standings in the House. It is as simple as that. There are no games, no untoward tactics and no strategies here. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the government believes that the party that has a majority of seats in the House of Commons should have a majority of seats in parliamentary committees. This concept is as old as our parliamentary system itself. We want to bring Canadians together in a time of unity. Our government has worked, and will continue to work, with all provinces and territories—regardless of their political leanings—to build Canada strong. The House of Commons will always be the people’s House of Commons. Our government will be accountable to the House and to Canadians for all our actions. This motion does not call that objective into question. I will return to what we have proposed. Our government has a majority of seats in the House. All we are asking of the House is that the structure of committees reflect this reality. We have committed to the parties and to Canadians that we want Parliament to work for Canadians, and we have committed to doing this work constructively and in collaboration with other parties. We have been doing just that, and it has been delivering results for Canadians. We have proposed a model for committees that would not reduce the number of opposition members on committees, for two reasons. The first is that we believe that committee work makes better parliamentarians, and the second is that we believe in the productive and collaborative power of committees when they come together to do the hard work to improve government proposals. We believe in these things because we believe in the power and integrity of our institutions, and those institutions become strong, resilient and effective when those who question and oppose certain proposals are seen and heard in the process. That is how we build resilience and collaboration, and in doing so, we show Canadians that even when people disagree on certain points, we can all agree that Canada has immense potential. That is what makes Canada strong.”

“A committee chair should not have to break a tie on every vote. That is why we added two government members to committees without taking seats away from the other parties.”

“Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker of the House of Commons is not called upon to break a tie on every vote here in this chamber, we also do not believe that a committee chair should systematically be called upon to break a tie. That is why we added two members from the party in power, without diminishing the Bloc Québécois’s or the Conservative Party’s representation.”

“Think about the opposite situation. What would happen if a majority government lost members to the other party? What rule would we follow then?”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to do a thought experiment. What would happen if this were the opposite situation, if a government that was in a majority lost members to the opposing party? What would be the principle at work then?”

“If a party wins most of the seats in the House, it should also have most of the seats on all committees. If a government wins only a minority of seats, committee seats should be divided differently.”

“Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this at length in my speech. The principle is the same: A majority in the House of Commons means a majority on all House committees. A minority situation for a government in the House of Commons would obviously require a re-evaluation and a re-ordering of those committees.”

“We will keep letting opposition members lead three major committees. Those committees will still be able to call witnesses, ask for documents, and study whatever issues they choose.”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was in your chair at one point. He knows that over the years the House of Commons has decided to give three committees, the government operations, public accounts and ethics committees, the ability to be chaired by an opposition member. We of course will be continuing that practice, and those committees, guided as they are by opposition members of Parliament, will be able to continue to call witnesses, call for documents and examine any issue that they choose in their wisdom.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the Bloc Québécois to support the rule that the majority in the House should also hold a majority on committees. Our changes do not reduce the Bloc's seats on committees.”

“Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois cares about the rules of the House. That is why it is rather disconcerting that the Bloc Québécois is not saying whether it will abide by the principle that dates back to the very origins of our parliamentary system, namely, that a majority in the House of Commons is recognized in all its bodies, including House committees. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support that principle in its remarks and in its official position. I would also point out to my colleague that we have not made any changes to committee membership as far as the Bloc’s representation is concerned, so I do not know what we would have had to negotiate with them.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 42 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The committee that decides funding for parties made its choice, and that has nothing to do with what we are debating. Every member of this House is equal. We all have one vote and the same rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy, which makes the decisions, has decided on a funding formula, indeed, for parties of the House, which has no connection to the item at hand. I would simply say to my hon. colleague that we are all equals in the House. The member and I, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister are all equals when we meet in this place. We all enjoy one vote each. We all enjoy the same privileges and the same ability to compel accountability, to vote on budgets and to govern in the best way possible.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 88 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Has there ever been a time in Canadian history when a majority government did not have a majority on parliamentary committees?”

“Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of any point in Canadian history when a majority government has not had a majority on committees, and is he aware of any time when certain committees have had a different composition, where the majority government has not had a majority on those few committees but not on others?”

“We looked through history in Canada and Britain. We could not find any example where a party had most of the seats in Parliament, but did not have a majority on other parliamentary bodies.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We have searched the annals of history, not just in Canada, which, of course, goes back to 1867 and our House of Commons, but indeed in Westminster Parliaments from time immemorial, and we are unable to find an example where members from one party constituted a majority of the seats but did not constitute a majority in the other institutions of that House of Commons or that Parliament.”

“We have a majority government now, so we get to have a majority on parliamentary committees. Canadians just voted for Liberal members in three byelections. If the Conservatives ever win a majority, will the member promise not to take a majority on committees?”

“Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my hon. colleague’s faux-righteous indignation. As much as I enjoy that, I think we need to put some facts on the table. The fact of the matter is that there is now a majority government here in Ottawa. With that comes the ability to have a majority on parliamentary committees. In those three by-elections that we had just last week, Canadians overwhelmingly voted for Liberal candidates. In fact, Conservative votes went down, incredibly. I have a very simple question for my hon. colleague. I think he should be able to answer it. I would like to know, if ever the Conservatives have a majority in Parliament, given their argument right now, will he commit and will he promise to Canadians that Conservatives will not have a majority on committee?”

“The Conservatives are exaggerating. We are not taking away members' rights. We are acting as a majority because we have a majority. If the Conservatives ever win a majority government, I want to know if they would promise not to take majority control of committees.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have been here for over 10 years and I have seen a lot of theatrics in this place, but the drama coming from that last speech was a bit much even for that hon. member and the Conservatives. Speaking as if we are taking away members’ rights and their opportunities to be representatives is over the top. In fact, every member in this House has an important role to play. What the government is doing is acting on the fact that we now have a majority. I will put this to him because I did not actually get an answer from his House leader when I asked. If the Conservatives should ever, and we will see if that ever happens, find themselves in a situation where they have a majority government, will he commit right now to ensuring that the Conservatives do not hold a majority on committee?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 34 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“A majority government brings stability and gets things done for Canadians. I do not understand why the opposition fears a majority instead of putting the country first.”

“Mr. Speaker, having listened to my colleague, I understand that he feels vulnerable. We know full well that a majority means stability and action for Canadians and Quebeckers, moving beyond partisan deadlocks. Why is the opposition so afraid of a majority when the national interest should take precedence over political calculations? That is the question I am asking myself.”

“I want to clarify what the member said. Would the Bloc Québécois support these changes if the Liberals had six committee members instead of seven?”

“Mr. Speaker, naturally, I will adopt the same tone as my colleague, because I like the collaboration we have with the Bloc Québécois and all the partners in the House. Did I understand what the hon. member said correctly? If the number of Liberal members on committees were set at six instead of seven, the Bloc Québécois would agree with the proposed changes?”

“Historically, the party with the most seats in the House also gets the most seats on committees. I want to know if the member supports this tradition, and if it should apply to both federal and provincial governments.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can speak to the principle of parliamentary tradition throughout the years where, when there is a majority in the House, there has consistently been a majority on the standing committees. That is what we have seen historically. There is a valid argument for the reason that takes place. Does the member support that principle and would he not agree it would be universally applied, whether it is at the federal or provincial level?”

“I want the House to pass this motion to give the government a majority of seats on committees. In our parliamentary tradition, whichever party holds a majority of seats in the House also holds a majority on committees. This does not take away the rights of the opposition.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and maybe add some value to the discussion we are having this afternoon on a very important motion. I advise members opposite to not necessarily be too fearful from the perspective of being in opposition. In my political career, I have actually spent more time on the opposition benches. I understand the important role members of the opposition play when it comes to debates, motions and all the things that take place, whether it is in a provincial legislature or here in the country’s national Parliament. I understand the value of the tools that are provided. I hope to give a couple of good, tangible examples that would maybe assist people who might be following the debate or the discussion in having an understanding, at least from my perspective, as to why it is so important that we continue to move forward with this motion, which has been presented by the government House leader, and in fact, why every member should ultimately be in support of it. I do not say that lightly, because I suspect there will be many MPs on both sides of the House who would say that they are parliamentarians first and foremost, and that they are very passionate about the country we represent here in the House of Commons and the constituents we are here for. If we believe in those two issues, or those two agenda items I just put forward, let me expand on it a bit. In the history of our nation, every time there has been a majority government, there has been a majority on our committees. We have not heard the representative from the Bloc or the two members from the Conservatives, one of whom is a former Speaker of the House, provide an example where there was a majority government, a majority in the chamber and a minority in the standing committees. I would pose the question as I did to my friend from the Bloc: Do they support the parliamentary tradition and principle that recognizes that, if a party has a majority of seats in the House, it should continue to have a majority of the seats in the standing committees? It was interesting listening to a couple of the questions that were posed to the Conservative members when they were asked whether, if at some point in time in the future the Conservative Party across the way or some newly branded Conservative Party was to be in a majority government, it would surrender a majority on the standing committees. We will notice that, on both occasions, they did not even answer the question, because that has been an absolute given. Then, if we take a look at it, I believe Canadians did get an opportunity to speak. Prior to the by-election night, when we had three by-elections, we did not have a majority. We had 171 seats. In order to have a majority in the House of Commons, we needed 172. Had we not won those by-election seats, we would not have a majority today. We will find that the response Canadians gave the Prime Minister and the government was very encouraging. We won all three of the by-elections. At the end of the day, it put us into the position of having a majority government. I can recall the Conservatives make reference to individuals who, for reasons I would suggest are reasons of building a stronger and healthier nation and wanting to be part of a government that is aggressively taking a team Canada approach in dealing with the important issues our nation is having to face today, made a decision to be part of the government caucus. It used to be the absolute opposite. Stephen Harper, and even other Conservative leaders post-Stephen Harper, did not have a problem with individuals walking over to their political party. I think the Conservatives are trying to diminish the principal argument that I am putting forward, which is that parliamentary tradition and the history of our nation, in fact the Commonwealth, is very clear that a majority of seats in the House dictates a majority of seats in our standing committees. That is exactly what this motion is proposing. As I indicated, while in opposition and in government in the House of Commons, and I remember standing up when we were the third party, I would talk about the frustrations of a filibuster from opposition because of issues such as concurrence back then. I believe the record would show that I made reference to the need for time allocation as a legislative tool to ensure that legislation was able to pass, but it does not mean that we are going to have a default position, which Stephen Harper had with Peter MacKay. While I sat in my chair, he would bring in a bill, open up his desk and read the closure or time allocation motions with absolutely no discussion or debate, and that happened well over a hundred times. The Prime Minister and the government have been very clear. We want to be able to produce in a very real and tangible way for Canadians, and we will work co-operatively with opposition when the collaboration is there to do so. The previous speaker, the member from the Bloc, made reference to the supply management issue. I remember the discussion. I was a part of the House leadership team, and we ensured that it happened. We can go back to when it was being discussed, the discussions that were taking place and the concerns, whether it was in the province of Quebec or Manitoba. I am passionate about supply management. I was glad to see the motion. The Prime Minister did not say, “Well, it’s a Bloc initiative. We don’t want anything to do with it.” At the end of the day, we were able to come together, in a collaborative way, and get the legislation passed, but that is somewhat rare. I hope we will see more collaboration in the future. The motion before us would not take away any of the fundamental rights that any opposition party has been using for the last 15-plus years I have been here. There would be no effect on things like opposition days. Opposition days provide the official opposition and other political parties the opportunity to bring forward opposition motions on the issues of the day. Now, I disagreed with a lot of the issues, as there were a lot of more relevant issues that they might have brought forward, but that is my opinion. I respect the fact that they often have an opinion that is different from mine. At the end of the day, we are not looking to ban concurrence of reports with this motion. I am anticipating that we are going to see concurrence of reports. Whether it is a majority in the committee, a majority in the House, or a minority, that is not going to change. I might prefer to see that debate occur the odd time outside of Government Orders so that we can have more debate on government bills, but again, that is a personal preference. I can assure members that, whether there is a minority or a majority in the chamber or elsewhere, we are still going to see political tactics such as the official opposition standing up to move for someone to speak, which would then cause the bells to ring. I believe we are still going to see members opposite stand up to attempt to move adjournment for the day. There are all sorts of tools. The only change we would see from today would be to recognize our parliamentary heritage and tradition. That is the only thing that would be affected today. I hope it would ultimately lead to more opportunities to build on relationships between parliamentarians. I have personally found that we often get relationships that develop in a different way in majority situations at standing committees. Even in a majority situation, we have accepted amendments. Obviously, we have had amendments in minority situations in a standing committee. It is not the party that dictates whether the idea is ultimately going to pass. As the opposition party would say, it should be the majority of the House of Commons, which now passes on to the standing committees. If it makes sense to bring forward an amendment, and the majority feels that is the way to go, then it will pass. I want to give a specific example. The reason I want to use this example is that we were talking about it earlier today, and it is with regard to Bill C-11. The government has been working on trying to get sexual assaults out of the military court system and into the civil justice system for a number of years. The Prime Minister made the decision early on that we were going to invest in our Canadian Forces. We have already committed 2% of the GDP to this. We had 7,000 people apply to be members of the Canadian Forces in the last fiscal year. This is not to mention the drive to build an industrial military regime that complements Canada’s security. Part of dealing with the military issue is addressed in Bill C-11. It is why we have brought it forward. What would Bill C-11 do and why is it important to recognize this? It is because, when Bill C-11 went to committee, the opposition made substantial changes to the legislation. Before Bill C-11 went to committee, things were clear. There was the Justice Arbour report. If someone wants to google Justice Arbour, they will see she has an incredible background in dealing with sexual harassment and all forms of sexual offences. She sat on the Supreme Court and was recognized worldwide, to a certain degree, on issues dealing with human rights. She did a report for the House of Commons after working with and meeting with people publicly, and off the record, no doubt, talking to thousands of individuals. In that report, her recommendation was that we, as a Parliament, establish the changeover from a military justice system to a civil justice system when it came to sexual assaults. The Conservatives and the Bloc members united as one and told us what they wanted to see, and it goes against what the government believes is important with respect to listening to what Justice Arbour had to say. We have the debate today in the chamber, and they have made it very clear they do not support a change to the civil justice system. Both the Bloc and the Conservative Party have made it very clear. Here is a flashback to two years ago, when the veterans affairs committee was meeting. Representatives from the Bloc and the Conservative Party sat on that committee and actually came up with a recommendation on the very issue that Bill C‑11 deals with. It said to transfer the jurisdiction for investigating sexual misconduct, and prosecuting its perpetrators, to civilian authorities. Today, the opposition has changed its opinion, but the government still believes in the inquiry that was done and the 40‑some recommendations, of which I think close to three dozen have been implemented. The key one is this legislation. Because we have a majority situation, we are now in a better position to be able to pass it, as opposed to compromising on it, because we are listening to the victims. If we look at why it is important, historically, for Parliaments to have a majority, that is one of the reasons. It is not that we are disregarding opposition ideas and amendments. I would compare amendments we have accepted from opposition in a minority situation. I am not talking about Bill C‑11, so members should not get too excited. I am not talking about Conservative and Bloc amendments, only those in a minority situation. If an amendment adds strength and value to the legislation, by all means it should be brought forward. I would like to think that parliamentary committees, and I have argued this in the past, can be the backbone of Parliament Hill and the work that many members do. The opposition House leader talked at length about them with respect to the importance of things like legislation, financial matters, policy-related issues and the opportunity to understand and appreciate those issues that are critically important to Canadians. It is a wonderful opportunity. Personally, I want to look at what is good, sound public policy, as I know every member of the Liberal Party wants to do, and take the actions necessary to support that, whether it is a budgetary measure, of a legislative nature or anything else. Canadians want us to work more co-operatively. Let us collaborate where we can. The motion we are debating today does not take away the rights of members of Parliament. It reinforces our heritage and parliamentary history within the Commonwealth. I would like to think that there is an opportunity for everyone to see the value of legislation from a government perspective, at the very least, such as the suite of crime bills we have, which is such a high priority for Canadians, and we will be able to deliver on those.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 35 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “I will give a specific example.”

  Said 5 times by 3 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“I want to work together to pass good laws. The opposition delayed the bail reform bill and the lawful access bill for no good reason.”

“Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with saying my desire is to be collaborative. I want to be able to see the advancement of good, sound public policy. Two examples come to mind right offhand. The first is Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever that we could not have passed that legislation at the end of last year. There was absolutely no reason. The reason, ultimately, I would argue, was that the opposition would not let us do so. A second example is lawful access. I have often heard opposition talk about the issue of extortion, yet we have the lawful access bill before us. There is absolutely no reason that lawful access legislation could not have been amended in some form, again, long ago.”

“I want to change the House rules to better schedule our debate time. We have very little time to debate government business. I want to work with other parties to fix this system.”

“Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member’s question, I do not necessarily agree with his overall assessment. If members look at the legislative agenda of the government, there is a very limited amount of time for debate under government business. There is no programming in place. Over the last 15-plus years, there may have been an argument to start talking about programming. I would like to see changes to the Standing Orders. I would be happy to work with members of the Bloc and others, in a co-operative way, to look at ways in which we can improve upon the system. What we have been afforded, I think, is a good opportunity today to reset the dial and, hopefully, to see more people working to build a stronger Canada.”

“The Conservatives delayed an important bill that police asked for. How would changing the committee structure to match the makeup of Parliament help us pass laws like that faster?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech from one of the most knowledgeable members of the House. He spends more time in this room than anybody I know and really does understand how this place works. He mentioned the lawful access bill, which was delayed by the Conservatives until they kind of came around and, I suppose, were convinced, maybe by their constituents or perhaps by law enforcement officials who were asking us to deliver on that. However, they slowed that legislation down. Could the member please inform Canadians and the House how a change to our committee structure to better reflect the composition of Parliament would allow us to advance legislation that Canadians, law enforcement and officials require for their work?”

“This bill helps fight serious crimes like terrorism, organized crime, and child abuse. We should have studied it and passed it, but the Conservatives blocked it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question. I think that is the core of it for me, personally. We have had discussions related to lawful access virtually since last June. It was a priority for the Prime Minister. It deals with things like child sexual exploitation, severe repeat crimes and organized crime. It deals with issues like extortion, public safety and terrorism. There is absolutely no reason we could not have had that healthy discussion in committees and seen the legislation passed out of committee, even in some sort of an amended form, but that was not possible because the Conservatives refused to allow it to proceed.”

“Voters wanted parties to work together in the last election, and the government is trying to do that. The Conservatives have been playing games and delaying our work, but we are going to keep delivering what Canadians asked for.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, Canadians gave a very clear indication that they want to see more collaboration, and we are going to see that collaboration. Since the last federal election, the Government of Canada has done what it can to advance a legislative agenda that truly reflects what we heard from the electors on platform issues in that election. I have had to stand in this very place and shame Conservatives into allowing some of those issues to get through second reading and to the committee stage. I am very aware of the games that take place. The member is not going to fool me on that issue. We have an opportunity, through the mandate that was given to us, to continue to work for Canadians and materialize in a very real and tangible way—”