“The Liberals say we should follow parliamentary tradition, but they are not doing that with committee seats. By tradition, committee seats match election results. I want to know if my colleague thinks the Liberals really believe their own spin on this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North refer to parliamentary tradition when asking my Conservative colleague whether he thinks we should follow parliamentary tradition. My colleague just answered the question, but I find that quite rich considering that parliamentary tradition would require, say, that the composition of committees follow the composition of the results of the general election that kicked off the current legislature. I would like to ask my colleague something. Does he think that our Liberal colleagues have fallen for the spin, as we say in proper political parlance? Did they drink the mystery Kool-Aid and now genuinely believe that the Liberal government’s current actions respect parliamentary tradition regarding the composition of committees?”

“The Prime Minister promised to work with the opposition, but the government is doing the opposite today. They are ignoring Parliament and not listening to the opposition. I want to know if my colleague is also worried about this behavior.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find today’s debate rather odd. Just a few days ago, by-elections were held in three ridings, one in Quebec and two others in the Toronto area. The next day, the Prime Minister said that he would continue to work with the opposition because that is what Quebeckers and Canadians wanted. What is happening today is the exact opposite of that. We are concerned about increased arrogance and contempt for the parliamentary process and the workings of Parliament, which require an opposition that makes its voice heard and that, when necessary, works with a government that is willing to listen, take into account the concerns raised by the opposition and address them. Let us be clear: The 343 members of the House represent citizens who have a right to be heard. To follow up on what my colleague just said in answer to my previous question, I would like to know what he thinks of this approach. Is he also concerned about the approach we are beginning to see from this Liberal government?”

“The Liberals have been blocking committee work and stopping votes for two weeks. Now they want to change who sits on committees to take control, not to work together.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I also commend her on remaining, at least so far, true to her convictions and not crossing the floor, unlike many other members of Parliament. As far as today’s motion is concerned, I have noticed in committee that the Liberals have been blocking our work for the past two weeks. They have been filibustering. That is the term that is often used. They are doing everything they can to prevent votes from being held and to disrupt the proceedings. Now, we are considering a motion that specifically aims to unilaterally change the composition of the committees. Rather than being motivated by a desire for co-operation, as mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, we wonder whether this motion might instead be motivated by a desire to take control and operate in an authoritarian manner, as we are seeing with the closure motion.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 →

“Debating motions when our time is cut short is not good.”

“Mr. Speaker, again, when we debate motions under time allocation, we cannot exactly say that it makes us—”