Steven MacKinnon, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
“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of 10 members” with the words “consist of 12 members”; (b) paragraph (a)(i) of the order adopted on June 5, 2025, be rescinded, and Standing Order 104(2) be amended by replacing the words “consist of 10 members” with the words “consist of 12 members” and by adding after the words “12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.”
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.
