TranslatePolitics.ca

Elizabeth May

Green 5:05 p.m.

“Maybe the government did something unusual to gain power. I'm not accusing them of anything. I'm just saying it seems fishy.”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 5:05 p.m.

“I respect parliament. I'm sad the Prime Minister does not. He changes rules to increase his power. He thinks the will of Canadians is beneath him. Opposition is not obstruction. The government must collaborate with other parties. Today's motion will give the government a blank cheque. I oppose this motion.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie. I said in my maiden speech, when I got to this august chamber, that this seat does not belong to me. Indeed, it belongs to the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I am a mere custodian of it. I say that to make the point that Parliament itself, this House of Commons, these institutions, are bigger than any of us as individuals. They are bigger than all of us even as a collective. These institutions matter more. This place matters more than the political ambitions, motivations and decisions of the people who get to come here every election. I have always venerated this institution. Indeed, I have always been fascinated by it. Even going back to when I was a university student involved in politics, I loved partaking in model parliament. I loved taking the opportunity to learn more. Perhaps it is why I have never been reprimanded for not addressing my comments through the chair or not doing some of those other conventions: I have been a student of parliamentary history. It was an honour the first day I walked into this chamber, and it remains the honour of a lifetime to be here. It has been saddening in that same vein to see how, for the Liberal government and specifically the Prime Minister, Parliament is a mere annoyance. We have seen the ignorance in this place: the fact that the Prime Minister has a question period attendance rating that is a fraction of that of his predecessors; the fact that he loves “showboating”, to use a word he is fond of, with fake executive orders that have no legal standing in our country; and the fact that he has been doing everything but governing in this place, governing in this chamber. To govern in this chamber is to be held accountable to Parliament as the collective body representing the will of the Canadian people. Parliament is a body comprising fellow custodians of this chamber, who are sent here with very similar mandates from each of their respective constituencies and constituents. However, we see in the motion before us today that the government does not believe it can win the game, so to speak, so it is changing the rules. It is changing the rules to suit its political ambitions, irrespective of the will of the Canadian people and irrespective of the norms, conventions and traditions of this place. It should be known to everyone here that Canadians do not, in fact, elect a government; they elect a Parliament. Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary since Canadians elected me, alongside all of my colleagues from all parties. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. The message Canadians sent in doing that was that they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term. I question why they would do that. However, while they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term, Canadians wanted their power to be checked by a strong, robust opposition. Now, my Conservative colleagues and I have held up our end of the bargain as His Majesty's loyal opposition. We supported and improved legislation such as Bill C-5, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which is before the justice committee right now. We opposed dangerous bills, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, which the Liberals wanted to wave through without scrutiny and accountability. We worked collaboratively across party lines. We represented the will of Canadians, who elected MPs to champion, for those of us on the Conservative side of the aisle, the values of liberty, personal responsibility and, yes, fiscal discipline. However, what we have seen over the last year is that when the Liberals do not get their way, they scream obstruction. Opposition is not obstruction. We have seen this in a minority Parliament. I recall when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had one just a few years ago. A minority Parliament requires the government to find dance partners, so to speak, to find collaboration and earn collaboration from opposition parties. The idea of holding opposition parties hostage to support bad legislation, which is what the Liberal government has tried to do, is not what a minority Parliament is supposed to be. We have seen under this arrangement, specifically at committees, a situation in which the Bloc has held the balance of power. I have seen votes in which Bloc and Conservative support was enough to pass a motion against the will of the Liberals. I have seen Liberal and Bloc members pass motions against the will of Conservatives. On a rare occasion, I might have even seen Liberals and Conservatives vote together, with the Bloc being the odd party out. Even when we have lost a vote, frustrating as that may be, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the Liberals were forced to co-operate with someone. They had a check, however modest, on their power. Today, the Liberals would enshrine their desire for a legislative blank cheque, stacking parliamentary committees to reflect their morally illegitimate majority. I say illegitimate majority because it was crafted not by the democratic will of Canadians but by the Prime Minister sending out his cabinet ministers to peel away the unscrupulous and the shameless opposition MPs who hold the will of the Canadian people in as little esteem as the Liberals do. This morally illegitimate majority is the consequence of that which they now seek to ratify by stacking the deck on committees. Committees are not the property of the government. They are creatures of Parliament. In many ways, they are where the real work happens, where scrutiny can happen, where amendments can happen and where real vigorous debates on the merits or lack thereof of legislation happen. If the government can manufacture a majority at will, scrutiny is merely choreography. They are seeking to not have a check on their power and to not have scrutiny of their legislation but rather to have a rubber stamp on anything they want to do. I am reminded of a quote from John Diefenbaker. In April 1957, he was speaking at Massey Hall in Toronto, and he said, “The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the Executive.” The Prime Minister could learn a great many things from John Diefenbaker. One of the lessons is that government is about accountability, not control. Another lesson is that parliamentary scrutiny should be welcomed and not scorned. As evidence that these Liberals are uninterested in accountability and collaboration, one need only look at how they rejected our modest amendment to the very motion we are debating today, which would have preserved the status quo on oversight committees such as ethics, government operations and estimates, among others, committees that are not responsible for reviewing legislation but are tasked with being a watchdog on the government. Why the Liberals do not want to cede control on a committee overseeing ethics, I think, is becoming more apparent by the day. That is precisely what we are looking at here: a government that does not wish to engage in Parliament, a Prime Minister who holds this institution in contempt and a government that does not want to engage in something so seemingly beneath it as seeking and preserving the will of the Canadian people to enact its legislative agenda. The motion that we have before us today, which I will be opposing, does not strengthen Parliament. It sidelines it. That is something that every member of the House should reject. I go back to the comment I made earlier about when the Liberals try to invoke obstruction as a narrative. We have given them much of what they asked for when they sought permission to do things that will build the country up. Bill C-5 is a great example of this. They said they wanted monumental, sweeping authority to approve major projects. We said we would love to see major projects. We gave them permission to do this and the framework to do it. No major projects have materialized. Here we are a year later: The Liberal government has promised much and has delivered little. The one mechanism that could be preserved to ensure that Parliament remains in keeping with what Canadians elected was a committee structure that would force members of Parliament and would force government members to do what the Liberals claim they have wanted this whole time, which is collaboration. No, they are laying their demands bare today with the motion. They do not want collaboration. They do not want co-operation. All they want is capitulation. We say no.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:15 p.m.

“I want to defend the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister works with others. The Prime Minister does not take all the power for himself. He lets others pass bills. Some bills pass with support from all parties. The government has a majority. That means a majority in committees too. The Prime Minister is doing what every Prime Minister does. I don't think we should question his actions. We should just accept it.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the comments that the member has put on the record are interesting. I disagree with most of those comments. As I have illustrated before, the Prime Minister has talked about working in collaboration. We saw a good example of that earlier this morning. We have a majority government, yet we passed a member of the opposition's legislation through on third reading. The collaboration is what is important. When we take a look at the standing committees, it is very simple. If we have a majority of members that make up the floor of the House of Commons, we get a majority on the standing committees. Every Prime Minister who has had a majority has had that situation. I do not think we should be trying to pass judgment on individual members. I think we should be recognizing and supporting parliamentary tradition. Does he not—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 5:20 p.m.

“Liberals didn't help that MP's riding until she joined their party. Liberals only care about other Liberals.”

Martin Champoux

Bloc Québécois 5:20 p.m.

“The Liberals say they just want to update committee membership to match party numbers. They say they aren't playing games and really want everyone to work together. They say other parties just want to fight and cause trouble for their own reasons. They say Canadians don't want that. Is that what's happening?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South on his speech. In the speech that he gave here in the House, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said, “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.” He also said, “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.” He then went on to say, “Collaboration is the approach to politics that Canadians...want in this place for all elected representatives. They do not want partisan gamesmanship.” Does my colleague think that is what the Liberals are doing?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 5:20 p.m.

“My friend is right. The Bloc asked good questions about the Liberals' formula. But let's talk about how the Liberals got their majority. The Liberals use defections to get complete control in committee. Canadians don't want the Liberals to control everything.”

Cheryl Gallant

Conservative 5:20 p.m.

“The government already has too much power. They stripped out amendments that the committee agreed on unanimously. What else will the government control about committees now? Will they stop us from scrutinizing bills too?”

Andrew Lawton

Conservative 5:20 p.m.

“The government wants to avoid accountability. Liberals are filibustering the finance minister to protect him from testifying about his conflicts of interest. Committees should have the power to hold ministers accountable, not just in short question period slots. Ministers need real scrutiny.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is not just about amendments, as the member indicates; it is also about the agendas for committees. There are a number of committees that engage in studies that want to invite ministers to appear. As we have seen in the case of the ethics committee, the Liberals have staged a massive filibuster to block the finance minister from having to testify about his clear conflicts of interest on the $90‑billion Alto boondoggle. It is not just about amendments; it is about avoiding ministerial accountability at the committee level, where members get the chance, not just in a 35‑second question period slot but in a real substantive way, to question ministers who right now desperately need the accountability and scrutiny.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Chris Warkentin

Conservative 5:20 p.m.

“The Liberals made big promises but delivered nothing. Now they want to rig committees to avoid accountability. They already have more seats than they won by votes, and now they want even more control in committees to hide their failures. The government is all talk and no action, and now they don't even want to let us talk in committees to expose their scandals. I'm calling out the Liberals for dodging accountability.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was mesmerized by the speech my colleague just gave. It is remarkable the lengths to which the Liberals will go to get their hands on power. That has been the Liberal story through all of history. I will give the Liberals credit for one thing: their ability to seize power and take credit for doing absolutely nothing. They are truly masters of illusion. Never has a government been given so much credit for doing so little. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that doing little might be an improvement over what the government has done, in some cases causing Canadians to fall backwards. The current Prime Minister ran the last election on grand promises. I think we can all recall the grand promises to reverse the Trudeau era and bring back prosperity and hope to Canadians. He went to great lengths to explain how he would reverse the policies of his predecessor, saying that the Liberal Party of the past was no more and that he would be coming in with a new vision for Canada. He said that he would reverse the anti-development Trudeau era and that he would build new infrastructure in this country to get more product to new markets, specifically saying that he would approve and build pipelines and infrastructure in our ports to ensure that we could get our products to places that had never seen Canadian product. He said, “We will need to do things previously thought impossible at speeds we haven't seen in generations.” He went on to promise that he was going to make life affordable and bring down the price of groceries and homes. He asked to be judged by the prices on grocery-store shelves, that he would get a deal done with Trump and that he would negotiate a win on trade by July 21. I will point out that the year that he made that promise was for July 21, 2025, nearly a year ago. He said that he would get new trade agreements done and would diversify our trading relationships. Now, a year later, absolutely nothing has been done. There are no new pipelines, no new infrastructure that has even been proposed and every one of Trudeau's anti-development laws are still in place. Unfortunately, he has made it worse. He has layered on additional red tape and more bureaucratic hurdles. When we look at where we are today compared to where we were even a year ago, we have to compare ourselves to our international partners. When we look at the G7, we rank the worst in household debt, food inflation and housing costs. Canada currently has the only shrinking economy and the second worst unemployment rate in the G7. With this motion the Prime Minister currently has before the House, the Liberals are taking the unprecedented move to rig the government in their favour and ensure that all of this accountability that Canadians deserve would be wiped away. They know they have failed to fulfill the promises that they made to Canadians, and they know that by rigging committees and ensuring that they have the majority on committees, all these uncomfortable questions would disappear. It is a clear effort by the Liberals to stack the deck. I want to explain the egregious nature of this stacking of the deck. I think it is important for Canadians to understand the real assault on the democratic rights of Canadians that is currently being undertaken. In the last election, the Liberals won the election by 43.76%, and that translated into 49.27% of the seats in the House of Commons, which was already overrepresented vis-à-vis what the Canadian people had voted for, but that is how our system works. After the floor crossings, the Liberals now have 51.4% of the seats. Again, let us remember that this is the first time in Canadian history where a Prime Minister gave favours to individuals to cross the floor, moving them from a minority government to a majority government. The Liberals now have 51.4% of the seats in the House of Commons, but Motion No. 9 would give them 58% of the seats on committees. Canadians have been told that committees are where the real work of the House of Commons happens. They are where we dig deep, get to the nuts and bolts, and pull back the curtain to discover what is actually happening. Obviously, in this chamber, it is oftentimes dramatic speeches and a fair bit of cut and thrust, but at committees, that is where there is the opportunity for parliamentarians, on behalf of our constituents, to drill down to find out what is happening. However, through the unprecedented measure the Liberals are now undertaking, the Liberals would go from having won just under 44% of the popular vote to getting 58% of the seats on committees, where the real work of Parliament happens. To give a little context, due to five members of the House of Commons crossing the floor, the Liberals now believe they are entitled to 52 new positions for Liberals on the House of Commons Standing Committees. The media has taken notice. I will read into the record what Andrew Coyne had to say about the Prime Minister. He said, “This is a government and a Prime Minister with an autocratic streak a mile wide.” Althia Raj, who was also quoted on CBC, said, “This Prime Minister definitely has an authoritarian streak.” Even the media on CBC is responding in complete disgust and disbelief that the Prime Minister would undertake this. At a time when Canadians desperately need more accountability in the House of Commons, the Liberals would remove that accountability through this motion. When we look back at previous scandals of Justin Trudeau, we saw the WE Charity scandal entirely exposed because of the work of the committees. The SNC-Lavalin affair was a scandal that demonstrated just how much the then prime minister Justin Trudeau was trying to manipulate a court process, which was completely exposed because of the work of a standing committee. The green slush fund scandal was completely exposed because of the work of a standing committee. The arrive scam scandal was exposed because of the work that was done at committee. This is what the Liberals currently want to stop, because before our committees right now, we have Liberals who will not let witnesses stay at committee when it comes to witnesses such as Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, who has been the whistle-blower on the working conditions for the Chinese manufacturers of the Chinese EVs that the government wants to import to Canada. The ethics committee is currently being filibustered by the Liberals to make sure that issues before that committee will never see the light of day. We are currently also seeing the Liberals filibustering at the fisheries and oceans committee to ensure that those scandals never see the light of day. We are also currently witnessing a filibuster at the health committee, where Liberals will not allow the PrescribeIT scandal to come to the light of day. At transport, the Liberals are filibustering a Bloc motion, supported by the Conservatives, to force the Liberals to produce documentation. The human resources committee is currently being filibustered by the Liberals. The Liberals are doing all of this, including this motion, to ensure that these scandals never see the light of day. We will continue to oppose and fight this.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 5:20 p.m.

“I'm filling time with old scandals instead of defending our power grab in committees. The real issue is we have more seats than votes, so we should get our way in everything, including committees, because that's how it's always been. Conservatives and Bloc aren't always right. I won't let them use committees to go against us.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if we are debating history and past scandals today, I would love to share dozens of them. I have a book of over 100 scandals from the days of Stephen Harper, when the member's current leader was involved. If the member wants to get a copy, he can come on over and I will show him some of the quotes, which include contempt of Parliament. At the end of the day, a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons. According to the rules, and according to our parliamentary heritage, which is not only in Canada, but also in the Commonwealth, that means that majority should be extended to the standing committees. That is what we are doing. To try to say there is a Conservative and Bloc alliance, and everything they do in committees is absolutely wonderful and delightful and in the best interest of Canadians, is balderdash. Does the member really believe that we should be going against parliamentary tradition because—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Chris Warkentin

Conservative 5:35 p.m.

“The other guy did something small and bad once. Now we do much bigger bad things. They can't lecture us.”

Claude DeBellefeuille

Bloc Québécois 5:35 p.m.

“That was a nice speech. Whips work hard. Some committees are stuck. Liberals are stalling them on purpose. They don't want transparency. We don't mind a committee having more Liberals, but seven is too many. It's an abuse of power. I want to know if the opposition whip agrees with me.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by the chief opposition whip. Having served as a whip myself, I know that it is a very demanding role that also requires a thorough understanding of parliamentary procedures. I have a question for my colleague. As we speak, there are two or three committees that are at a standstill, including the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are filibustering and refuse to discuss issues that require transparency and testimony so that we can examine matters that are somewhat sensitive but necessary. Right now, it is the Liberals who are filibustering in the committees. We are not opposed to committees having a majority, but we believe that seven Liberal members is excessive. It is an abuse of power. We wonder if the official opposition whip feels the same way we do.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Chris Warkentin

Conservative 5:35 p.m.

“The Liberals won a minority but they want a majority. Now they want 58% of committee seats. They are filibustering many committees. The committees can't vote as long as the Liberals keep talking. They want to force a motion to get their majority on all committees. The Liberals want to control the committees and stop any transparency they don't like.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is clear what is happening. The Liberals, having won a minority, want the power of a majority. There have been floor crossings that bring them over the technical definition of a majority, but now they are demanding 58%, nearly 60%, of the seats on standing committees. Currently, most committees are seized by Liberal filibuster. Effectively, that means that, if the Liberal members keep talking, the chair cannot move to a vote for the issues that are before those committees. That means that nothing will happen until such time as the Liberals can force this motion through the House of Commons, giving them the effective majority on every single committee. Obviously, the purpose of this entire process is to ensure that nothing happens at those committees that the Liberals do not agree to, specifically transparency.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Amarjeet Gill

Conservative 5:35 p.m.

“I think my friend made good points. I don't want to make it easier for the government to avoid questions. The Liberals are talking a lot at the ethics committee to avoid questions today. Can you explain how these changes will affect Parliament? I want to make sure Parliament works for people, not just for the current government.”

Chris Warkentin

Conservative 5:35 p.m.

“I think the Liberals are trying to change the rules to help their own party, not to help Canadians.”

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Liberal 5:35 p.m.

“I want to add more of my party's people to each committee so that we have a majority on every committee. That will help our party stay in control of each committee's work.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand today to participate in this particular discussion. I will be sharing my time with the great member for Whitby, and I am pleased to be able to do that. It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak about Government Motion No. 9, dealing with the composition of committees. Every member in this place understands the critical role that committees play in our parliamentary system. It is in committees where the hard work of legislating gets accomplished as bills are reviewed, amendments proposed and diverse perspectives are considered. This work ensures that legislation is improved upon before it makes its way back to the House. Committees are also a place where issues of importance to Canadians are studied. It is where the hard work of legislating gets accomplished as bills are reviewed, amendments proposed and diverse perspectives are considered. This work ensures that legislation is improved upon before it makes its way back to the House. Witnesses appear and offer their unique perspective. Ministers appear to defend and explain their actions and to be held to account. It is a system that is of the utmost importance to the functioning of democracy. As chair of the international trade committee, I can say that we have had numerous witnesses who have come before us to give us insightful ideas and thoughts on the challenges they are facing in this new world of tariffs. Nothing in the motion that we are debating today would change any of this. Committees would continue to carry out their important functions. Ministers would continue to appear to answer questions and defend their actions, and estimates would continue to be studied. Committees would retain all of the powers they currently have and be free to study anything that is within their mandate. This motion has one goal, and that is to maintain the long-standing tradition in our Parliament that the party that has a majority of seats in the House of Commons also holds a majority of seats on committee. I am going into my 26th year here, and that has always been the case. Whoever was in government was able to get whatever extra seats they wanted. It is not just members on this side of the House who are saying this. It is a recognized tradition within our system. 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.” This is not something that the House leader invented over the weekend and decided he was going to do. Page 819 is very clear on what the practice is to be. Additionally, 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”. Therefore, the motion we are debating today is entirely consistent with upholding the traditions of the House. It is also important to talk about how the government has proposed to make the changes to committees. It could have looked at previous majority government numbers and mirrored that approach. To do that would have required removing members of the official opposition from committees. The government chose not to do this and instead took an inclusive and collaborative approach, which is what we really have been using for this last year with the successes we have had by all working together. The Prime Minister has been clear that the government intends to work collaboratively with all members of Parliament. The Prime Minister has stated, “We are absolutely focused on working with Parliament, getting legislation through Parliament, adjusting legislation where it needs to be, where it's better informed by discussions in Parliament, where we have to make compromise in order to do it. And we've shown that. We've shown that consistently.” Removing official opposition members of Parliament from committees was an option, as I mentioned, but it was an option the government chose not to proceed with, as we are serious about wanting to work constructively with all members. The government took a different approach. The motion we are debating would simply add members from the governing party to committees to ensure that the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons also has a majority of seats on parliamentary committees. It is that simple. The changes proposed in the motion reflect the operation of the House of Commons. Namely, the numbers in committee would ensure that the government has a majority and that the chair of the committee would not need to vote and break a tie. The motion was drafted this way to mirror the state of play in the House, as always, where the numbers are such that the Speaker also does not need to vote to break a tie. It is an undeniable fact that the makeup of the House of Commons has changed since committees were formed. The government has gone from a minority government to a majority government. The Conservatives continue to argue about how this occurred, but that does not change the fact that it has occurred. As a result, the government has a duty to ensure that the makeup of committees reflects this reality. Because the change occurred partway through the current Parliament, the government took a responsible and constructive approach to this change that would preserve all the members from the official opposition on committees. We recognize the role these members play at committees. We respect the expertise that they have gained and that they bring to the debate. Much like we want to build Canada strong, we have chosen addition rather than subtraction in our approach. I think it is also worth pointing out that if a government were to go from a majority to a minority, the opposition would demand that committees also reflect that reality, so the motion we are debating today is a reasonable and responsible response to a change in the makeup of the House of Commons. The government has gone from a minority to a majority, and the motion would simply ensure that this is also reflected in committees, as has always been the case. One of the things I really value as a member of Parliament is hearing the diversity of perspectives that all members bring to their work. Canada is such a massive, diverse and beautiful country. Policies affect people differently depending on where they live. By all of us coming together to debate the issues of the day, we all benefit from the perspective of others. This is especially true in the work we do on committees. Legislation is made better through the perspective of others. Issues are studied because members from a particular part of the country think they are important. All of this would continue after the passage of the motion. Committees would continue to do the heavy lifting of Parliament and ensure that all perspectives are heard. I look forward to continuing this important work we all do on committees, and I will continue to work collaboratively with members from all political stripes to build Canada strong. We are at a challenging time in our country right now, and I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Kerry Diotte

Conservative 5:45 p.m.

“You're just trying to stack the committees with your people so your party's scandals don't get investigated.”

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Liberal 5:45 p.m.

“No, that's not why we're adding people to committees at all. The committees will still do all the same work.”

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois 5:45 p.m.

“You want more power than you deserve. You don't have a real majority. But you're giving yourself 60% of committee seats. That's too many. You're not playing fair.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a gag order designed to limit speaking time on a fundamental issue, namely defining how Parliament and its committees operate. Normally, this is done in consultation with all the parties, out of basic respect for the principle of representation in the House. Representation is already questionable because the government does not have a true majority. Its majority has been cobbled together with floor crossers, but it gets even worse. If we used the Liberals' current majority, that is, if we were to recognize it, they would end up with roughly 50% of seats. That should come out to just slightly more than half the members on committees. Normally, the Liberals should have one more seat than the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois combined. Unfortunately, what is happening instead is that the Liberals want to give themselves nearly 60% of the votes on committees. Sixty per cent of the seats on the committees is equivalent to having nearly 200 members in the House, 199 to be exact, while the Liberals actually have 174. How can they explain this overrepresentation of a government whose majority is false to begin with?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Liberal 5:50 p.m.

“You're whining about majority numbers. We have the right number. People joined us because they want to help during hard times. They want to work on solutions with us.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

Elizabeth May

Andrew Lawton

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Andrew Lawton

Martin Champoux

Andrew Lawton

Cheryl Gallant

Andrew Lawton

Chris Warkentin

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Chris Warkentin

Claude DeBellefeuille

Chris Warkentin

Amarjeet Gill

Chris Warkentin

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Kerry Diotte

Hon. Judy A. Sgro

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Hon. Judy A. Sgro