“I oppose this motion. The government is trying to stop the opposition from criticizing them. In the past, committee oversight has uncovered scandals like ArriveCan and billions in wasteful spending. Parliament needs the power to question the government and hold it accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am happy to finish the second half of my speech concerning Motion No. 9. As I mentioned earlier, the Liberals view the House not as a House of Parliament, it seems, but more as a theatre for themselves, where they tolerate no criticism and all they expect from people in the House are gratitude and cheers for their empty, performative politics. They very much live by Jean Chrétien’s attitude of “It’s called question period, not answer period.” There is a former Liberal MP from the House named John Stewart, who actually went on to the other place to be a senator. This is not the Jon Stewart whom the current Prime Minister loves so much. Senator Stewart stated about proceedings in the House, “slipping things through the house may seem smart in the short run. In the long run it works to discredit both the government and parliament.” I could not agree more, and Motion No. 9 discredits both Parliament and the government. I am going to go over a couple of examples of how oversight has exposed some of the corruption, some of the issues, with the current government. In the 42nd Parliament, when I was first elected, Liberals, when they had a majority with the current government House leader as their lead on the operations committee, brought through what was called the “vote 40 slush fund”. This was a $15‑billion slush fund set by the government, which presented it with no backing of what the money would be spent on. Again, I go back to King Edward when he formed the Model Parliament in 1295 and said, “what touches all should be approved by all”. The government seems to think that what touches all should be just approved by the Liberal government. The slush fund was $15 billion. When we asked one of the Liberal officials what the money was for, he said that it was presumptuous that the government would explain to Parliament what that $15 billion was for before we approved the spending. Vote 10 of the Treasury Board is normally about $200 million or $300 million. In the 42nd Parliament, under a majority, the government ran that up to $1 billion a year. For decades, it had been in the low ten millions, 20 millions or 30 millions of dollars. The government moved it up to $1 billion a year. It rammed it through because it had a majority. What happened in 2019 when the Liberals lost the majority? They backed away from the vote 40 slush fund, and it has not raised its ugly head again. In the operations committee, we were able to expose the ArriveCan scam that the government desperately tried to cover up. People remember that the Liberals tried to say that it was a life-saving measure and that it cost only a few million dollars, but of course, it cost well above $60 million. There was the GC Strategies scandal, in which two people working out of the basement of a house racked up $15 million, $20 million or $30 million in billing to taxpayers. With McKinsey & Company, another one, $120 million from the government was paying off its friends and insiders. We were able to expose that because we had an ability to keep the committee going and not be shut down by the government. Billions of dollars was spent by the government on management consultants at the same time as the Privy Council came to us and said that actually there were people within the government who could do the work, but it was still going out to McKinsey and other management companies to spread Canadian taxes around. Of course, there was the millions of dollars spent on the New York consul general’s apartment on Billionaire’s Row. The government desperately tried to shut that down. We were able to expose the spending because we had the ability, and they did not have the Liberal numbers to shut it down. In the public accounts committee, on which I sat, there was the issue of green slush fund, which of course had been approved by the then industry minister, who is now the finance minister. There was the Trudeau Foundation scandal. We were able to force ministers to actually show up. Of course in ethics, there was the WE scandal and there was showing the current Prime Minister and his conflicts. There was also the “other Randy” issue. I want to finish with a couple of quotes from Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker. Pearson said he recognized that the health of Parliament has to rely on the opposition’s “right to oppose, attack and criticize”. Diefenbaker said, “freedom always dies when criticism ends.” That is what Motion No. 9 is about: ending the criticism of the government. Again, the Liberals want solely an audience, not an opposition to stand up for taxpayers.”

“The government should let Parliament approve its spending. The member opposite voted to let the government spend taxpayers' money without our approval or oversight. That goes against the whole point of Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like the government to respect the parliamentary tradition of “what touches all should be approved by all”. Again, I keep going back to the original Model Parliament’s being called. The very point of having a Parliament is approving such things. The member opposite voted in favour of the vote 40 slush fund. He voted in favour of taxpayers’ money continuing to go out the door without oversight or approval of Parliament, violating the very reason Parliament exists and violating the very reason the Westminster system exists. If the member opposite wants to follow a parliamentary tradition, he should follow the one originally set by King Edward: “what touches all should be approved by all”.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals only follow Parliament's rules and traditions when it helps them. When it does not, they ignore the rules and avoid being open and accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is right. The Liberal members want to respect parliamentary tradition when it benefits them. Anything else they throw in the garbage, along with any sense of accountability, oversight or transparency. That is a Liberal government. The Liberals like parliamentary tradition if it suits them. If not, they dispense with it.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The Prime Minister promised to do politics differently, but he has not. His actions help the Liberal Party, not Parliament or democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he was going to do politics differently. It is clear that he is not. His politics are like the empty, performative politics of every member of the past Trudeau government and the current government. They are just empty, performative politics that suit the Liberal Party and serve the Liberal Party but do not suit Parliament and do not serve democracy or accountability.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this motion. The government is trying to change the rules to take control of committees and avoid accountability. They built a fake majority by convincing opposition members, including me, to switch sides behind closed doors. This goes against what Canadians voted for.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today because what we are witnessing is not just another procedural move in the House. It is something deeper and far more concerning. For the past number of months, we have watched a pattern unfold that points to the reality of our democracy and its being under pressure, yet Canadians are not hearing about it. It is not leading in the national news, and it is certainly not being examined with the seriousness it deserves. Instead, Canadians are being told a different story. They are being told that everything is normal and that this is politics as usual, but it is not. By-elections have been framed as sweeping wins for the government, as validation of a majority, but that all those by-elections did was keep the main election results the same. The majority was secured through active recruitment of opposition members. Canadians elected balance and accountability, and what they are getting instead is a slow erosion of that balance, happening right now in front of them. It is not being resisted by the very institutions that should be asking the hardest questions: How was the majority actually secured, how did we get here and why are the Liberals actively recruiting members of the opposition for power? Inside the House we know exactly what this means. Committees are where accountability happens. It is where the government is tested. Now, through a series of calculated moves, the government is trying to control them. It does not stop there. This majority was secured through the active recruitment of opposition members, members who were elected under one banner, by voters who trusted them to represent a certain set of values and are now being drawn into another. Where is the scrutiny? Where are the questions from the media asking why this is happening? Instead, too often the narrative shifts. The focus turns to blaming Conservatives for raising concerns rather than to examining the actions these concerns created in the first place. Even more concerning is what we have heard from some of the members who have crossed the floor. Most avoid speaking openly about it at all, but one openly admitted discomfort with the democratic process itself, specifically with the election of the Deputy Speaker. Crossing the floor became, in part, a response to that frustration. Let us think about that: a dissatisfaction with democracy, followed by a decision that helps consolidate power in the hands of the government. It is a complete dumpster fire. That should concern every single member of the House, regardless of party. I want to make this real for Canadians. Over the past months, opposition members have come forward to say they have been approached; conversations have happened behind closed doors; pressure, subtle or otherwise, has been applied; and Canadians have not heard about it. These are not rumours. These are conversations taking place behind the scenes, away from public view and away from accountability. I can tell the House that I was one of those members who was approached. I was asked to cross the floor. I was asked to leave behind the people of Kitchener Centre who had elected me as a Conservative, in exchange for aligning myself with the government. That matters, because when elected representatives are quietly courted to change sides, when the balance of Parliament is being reshaped through backroom conversations, we are no longer operating in the spirit of the democratic mandate Canadians gave us. This is not just about me. It is about the people I represent. Kitchener Centre is not just any riding; it is Canada’s innovation capital. It is one of the most dynamic regions in the country, a hub for innovation, arts, culture and creativity. It is a place where start-ups are built, where entrepreneurs take risks and where the future of Canada’s economy is being shaped every single day. The people in my community understand systems, incentives and when something does not add up. When they see a government attempting to reshape Parliament, not through voters but through recruitment, they recognize it for what it is. I want to speak directly to them for a moment. They deserve transparency, accountability and a government that reflects the choices they made at the ballot box. Right now, what is being left out is scrutiny. Recruitment that deserves attention is not being covered. Patterns that raise questions are being dismissed. Democracy does not function on silence. It depends on transparency and on the willingness to ask the hard questions, even when the answers are uncomfortable. That brings us back to the motion before us. What we are seeing is a government that is not content with the mandate it was given, a government that is looking to expand its power not through democracy or the will of Canadians but through procedural control. That is the reality, and it raises a simple but important question. If the roles were reversed, would Conservatives reshuffle committees if we had a majority government? The answer is yes, but that is what Canadians would have voted for. However, we are missing one important question here. If we were elected in a minority Parliament, would we go against the voters, recruit members from other parties and manufacture a majority that Canadians never approved? The answer to that is no, because we believe the mandate given by Canadians matters. We believe the balance they choose should be respected. We believe accountability is not something to be avoided, but something to be upheld. This is bigger than one motion. It is about whether we accept a path where power is quietly consolidated, scrutiny and opposition are weakened and the voices of Canadians are overwritten. It is about whether we stand up and say that our democracy is worth protecting and that the choices Canadians make matter. Canadians are not asking for perfection from their government, but they are asking for honesty. They are asking for a system that reflects their vote, not one that works around it. When trust in that system starts to erode, it is not easily rebuilt. What we are debating today may seem procedural to some, but Canadians understand fairness when they see it, and they understand when something crosses the line. Changing the rules after the fact, reshaping Parliament to avoid scrutiny, is not fairness. It is a shift away from the very principles that hold this place together. If we allow that shift to go unchallenged, we set a precedent not just for the government but for everyone to follow. This moment matters. This is why we are speaking up and not backing down. No government, regardless of party, should be able to rewrite Canadians’ choices. Conservatives will continue to stand against this, to call it out and to uphold a Parliament that reflects the will of the people, not the ambitions of power. This country and the democracy that defines it are worth protecting.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That should concern every single member of the House.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“The Prime Minister promised to work with other parties, but he broke that promise. He is trying to take control of committees by adding extra members from his own party. That stops us from checking his work and holding the government to account.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, a year ago Canadians elected a minority Liberal government that promised it would be collaborative with the members of the opposition and make changes in a collaborative manner. What we are seeing now is another broken promise from the Prime Minister because in no way is it collaborative to stack committees so that we cannot hold the government to account and be able to properly scrutinize legislation. Not only is that a power grab, ensuring it is stacking the committees. The government would have the majority with one additional member, but instead of going with that, it wants two to really ensure that our voices are—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“People in my riding are upset about politicians switching parties and the Liberals changing the committee rules. They are losing trust in politicians. I want to know if my colleague hears the same thing in her riding.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her passionate speech about democracy. I can tell members I had the opportunity on the weekend to attend the 50th anniversary of Wendy and Larry Long of Clearview Township. I congratulate them on 50 years. The common question was about floor crossers. People are concerned, are upset and have lost faith in politicians. The other part the Liberals are now talking about is committees. Does my colleague find when she is in her riding that the trust in politicians has really gone down in the last couple of weeks because of what the Liberals have been doing here?”

“Canadians are losing trust in Parliament because of members switching parties and changes to committees. We need to keep a balance in committees so we can hold the government accountable.”

“Yes, Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am seeing an erosion of trust in Parliament with what is happening here, with not only the floor crossings that have happened but also this reshuffling of committees. Canadians do not understand why this decision is being made, especially in my riding, because we need to maintain the balance to ensure we can properly hold the government to account.”

“The Liberals are using these rules to shut down committees. They can now force meetings to be secret so Canadians cannot hear our debates. I want people to watch how often this happens.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Bloc member is absolutely right that this is a way to shut down committees. Currently, filibustering is being used to make sure we are not able to put our motions forward, but another thing that is going to happen that Canadians are unaware of is that a motion can be put forward by the Liberals to go in camera, and it is going to stifle our conversations even more. I would like Canadians, when they watch committees, to note how many times this happens moving forward.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The other party tried to get me to switch sides and join them. I said no.”

“Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is true. I can confirm here today that they actively tried to recruit me to cross the floor, and my answer was unequivocally no.”