A motion to change the Standing Orders so that House of Commons committees reflect the party composition of the House, which would give the Liberal government a majority on committees now that it has gained seats mid-mandate, with the government moving closure to end debate on it. The government said a majority in the House should be reflected in its committees, per Westminster tradition, and that this lets it move quickly on issues like trade and building projects; it noted no precedent exists for this unusual mid-mandate seat change. Conservatives said voters did not elect a Liberal majority, called the closure motion an attempt to shut down scrutiny, and asked why the government rejected their amendments protecting opposition oversight roles. Bloc Québécois members said the government was using its new numbers to gain an unfair edge on committees despite low public trust in Parliament, and the Greens asked why the government was rushing to end debate.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
21 statements
“I want us to keep debating this item without stopping.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to Government Business No. 9, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned.”
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Government Business No. 9, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned.
“I want the House to pass this motion. A government with a majority of seats should have that majority reflected in all parts of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition in this place and in Westminster parliaments in general that a majority in the chamber be reflected in all of the institutions of the House. This motion would simply respect and honour that tradition. Let us agree that it does not happen often that a government’s status changes such that it grows to have a majority of seats in the elected chamber during the typical mandate of a government. This motion simply seeks to give effect to the long-held principle that governments that have a majority in the chamber have that majority reflected in the institutions of Parliament.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, there is a long tradition in this place and in Westminster parliaments in general that a majority in the chamber be reflected in all of the institutions of the House. This motion would simply respect and honour that tradition. Let us agree that it does not happen often that a government’s status changes such that it grows to have a majority of seats in the elected chamber during the typical mandate of a government. This motion simply seeks to give effect to the long-held principle that governments that have a majority in the chamber have that majority reflected in the institutions of Parliament.
“Nothing was stolen. These changes help the government act fast to build things and protect our economy from global trade problems. This will protect Canadian jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my hon. friend, I need to challenge this notion that anything has been stolen. In fact, many Canadians appear to agree that much has been gained. One thing that has been gained is that the government can move quickly on getting things built in Canada and move to implement an economic agenda that seeks to insulate ourselves against world events, trade shocks, trade wars and all of the major developments happening in the world. This will represent a government that is resolute, strong and there for Canadians and their jobs, and that makes sure that our economy keeps moving forward.”
Reply to a debate question
Clarity 16 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, with all respect to my hon. friend, I need to challenge this notion that anything has been stolen. In fact, many Canadians appear to agree that much has been gained. One thing that has been gained is that the government can move quickly on getting things built in Canada and move to implement an economic agenda that seeks to insulate ourselves against world events, trade shocks, trade wars and all of the major developments happening in the world. This will represent a government that is resolute, strong and there for Canadians and their jobs, and that makes sure that our economy keeps moving forward.
“The opposition claims what we are doing has never happened before. Has any majority government in Canada or Britain ever given up its majority on committees?”
“Mr. Speaker, in their speeches, the opposition members are saying that what is happening here in Parliament is unprecedented. I have a question for my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Can he give us an example of any place in Canada or even under the British parliamentary system of a majority government that did not control or hold a majority of seats on committees?”
Mr. Speaker, in their speeches, the opposition members are saying that what is happening here in Parliament is unprecedented. I have a question for my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Can he give us an example of any place in Canada or even under the British parliamentary system of a majority government that did not control or hold a majority of seats on committees?
“Our situation in Parliament is very unusual because the numbers of seats have changed since the election. We looked for past examples, but there are none. There is also no example of a minority government having a majority of the seats on committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Naturally, good questions always come from the Outaouais. We did a search and looked for examples. We have to admit that the situation before us is highly unusual: a government that changed status during its mandate. The fact that we came within one or two hundred votes of winning a majority in Canada during the last election plays a part in this situation. It should therefore come as no surprise that certain adjustments and electoral events like by-elections have since changed things here in Parliament. I can tell my hon. colleague that we found no comparable examples. At the same time, however, there are no examples of a situation where a government that had a minority in the House held a majority of seats on committees.”
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Naturally, good questions always come from the Outaouais. We did a search and looked for examples. We have to admit that the situation before us is highly unusual: a government that changed status during its mandate. The fact that we came within one or two hundred votes of winning a majority in Canada during the last election plays a part in this situation. It should therefore come as no surprise that certain adjustments and electoral events like by-elections have since changed things here in Parliament. I can tell my hon. colleague that we found no comparable examples. At the same time, however, there are no examples of a situation where a government that had a minority in the House held a majority of seats on committees.
“I disagree with the member's suggestion. In our system, the majority in the House should hold the majority on committees. All committees are equal, and the committees that check our work still have all their usual powers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, but her suggestion would offend the very principles of the Westminster tradition that we are all sworn to uphold, whereby a majority in the Commons would represent a majority in the institutions of the Commons. All committees are equal. There are no tier one or tier two committees. Indeed, there are committees that provide oversight. Those functions are vital to the functioning of Parliament. Members on those committees, including the chairs, who the member correctly points out are members of the official opposition, retain all of the rights, all of the privileges and all of the abilities to send for witnesses, papers and evidence that they had previously. Suggesting that there has been a change in those committees’ status would not be factual.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, but her suggestion would offend the very principles of the Westminster tradition that we are all sworn to uphold, whereby a majority in the Commons would represent a majority in the institutions of the Commons. All committees are equal. There are no tier one or tier two committees. Indeed, there are committees that provide oversight. Those functions are vital to the functioning of Parliament. Members on those committees, including the chairs, who the member correctly points out are members of the official opposition, retain all of the rights, all of the privileges and all of the abilities to send for witnesses, papers and evidence that they had previously. Suggesting that there has been a change in those committees’ status would not be factual.
“I support this motion. It follows our best traditions and keeps our democracy strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this morning’s motion is consistent with our finest parliamentary traditions, the ones we always uphold and to which we swear an oath about respecting our institutions, their precedents, their customs and their traditions. This has served our country very well. We believe that Canada is the best country in the world. The only thing we are giving ourselves is the right to continue to ensure that Canada remains a model democracy and that our democratic institutions reflect our finest traditions.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 41 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 analysisReply to a debate question
Clarity 20 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I would argue that this morning’s motion is consistent with our finest parliamentary traditions, the ones we always uphold and to which we swear an oath about respecting our institutions, their precedents, their customs and their traditions. This has served our country very well. We believe that Canada is the best country in the world. The only thing we are giving ourselves is the right to continue to ensure that Canada remains a model democracy and that our democratic institutions reflect our finest traditions.
“Canadians face big global problems like wars, trade threats, and climate change. People living in Conservative areas want their MPs to help fix these problems. Our government is offering real solutions, and opposition MPs should work with us.”
“He may be leaving himself open on that one, Mr. Speaker. I would say that Canadians who live in Conservative ridings are increasingly asking their members of Parliament to be a positive part of the solution and a positive part of meeting these major and converging international crises, wars, supply chain issues, obviously, trade threats and climate change. All of these threats are converging, and Canadians are demanding a comprehensive and comprehensible response to them. We believe that is what this government is offering. It should be no surprise that many opposition MPs and their constituents want to be a positive part of the solution.”
He may be leaving himself open on that one, Mr. Speaker. I would say that Canadians who live in Conservative ridings are increasingly asking their members of Parliament to be a positive part of the solution and a positive part of meeting these major and converging international crises, wars, supply chain issues, obviously, trade threats and climate change. All of these threats are converging, and Canadians are demanding a comprehensive and comprehensible response to them. We believe that is what this government is offering. It should be no surprise that many opposition MPs and their constituents want to be a positive part of the solution.
“Parliamentary committees should match the makeup of the House of Commons. We should agree on this simple rule and get back to work for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a very fundamental, yet incredibly simple principle at play here, which is that the institutions of our Parliament, including the committees of the House of Commons and obviously the committees we share with the Senate, be reflective of the composition of the House of Commons. This is a reasonably simple debate. We appreciate that there can be different perspectives, different arguments. We have heard those articulated during the first portion of this debate. I am sure we will hear them articulated throughout the course of today, but we believe that this is a reasonably simple principle and that Canadians expect us to get on with our normal work, which is building Canada strong.”
Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a very fundamental, yet incredibly simple principle at play here, which is that the institutions of our Parliament, including the committees of the House of Commons and obviously the committees we share with the Senate, be reflective of the composition of the House of Commons. This is a reasonably simple debate. We appreciate that there can be different perspectives, different arguments. We have heard those articulated during the first portion of this debate. I am sure we will hear them articulated throughout the course of today, but we believe that this is a reasonably simple principle and that Canadians expect us to get on with our normal work, which is building Canada strong.
“Canadians want their members of Parliament to follow the rules and respect our traditions. That is how we keep people's trust in our democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know the member’s constituents nearly as well as she would, but my bet is that the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga want to send members here who respect, uphold and cherish the democracy we have built, one that has served our country so well and has helped build the best country in the world. That member’s constituents, like my own in Gatineau, believe we should respect the rules. It is to fight cynicism that we uphold these principles and uphold these traditions and these conventions that we and the people who have come before us have put in place. Upholding them, respecting them and following the rules is how we build and maintain trust in our democracy and in our Parliament.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 38 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 analysisMr. Speaker, I do not know the member’s constituents nearly as well as she would, but my bet is that the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga want to send members here who respect, uphold and cherish the democracy we have built, one that has served our country so well and has helped build the best country in the world. That member’s constituents, like my own in Gatineau, believe we should respect the rules. It is to fight cynicism that we uphold these principles and uphold these traditions and these conventions that we and the people who have come before us have put in place. Upholding them, respecting them and following the rules is how we build and maintain trust in our democracy and in our Parliament.
“The world is dangerous and divided right now, and wars are making gas prices rise. I want the member to say how important it is for Canada to stay stable and united under the Prime Minister's leadership.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is part of a dangerous and divided world. We are seeing a lot of uncertainty throughout the geopolitical sphere, a war in the Middle East causing unprecedented gas hikes at home, and just ongoing chaos. How important does the member think it is to have stability here at home in Canada? We are seeing the Prime Minister continuing to be recognized as a global leader, bringing that leadership to Canada but also recognized around the world for his leadership and stability. How important does the member think it is for that unity and stability to follow through here at home in Canada?”
Speech on a motion
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.
See full analysisSpeech on a motion
Signal 31 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 analysisMr. Speaker, Canada is part of a dangerous and divided world. We are seeing a lot of uncertainty throughout the geopolitical sphere, a war in the Middle East causing unprecedented gas hikes at home, and just ongoing chaos. How important does the member think it is to have stability here at home in Canada? We are seeing the Prime Minister continuing to be recognized as a global leader, bringing that leadership to Canada but also recognized around the world for his leadership and stability. How important does the member think it is for that unity and stability to follow through here at home in Canada?
“We need to get results here to show people that government works. We must respect our democracy and get on with doing the job Canadians elected us to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Hamilton puts his finger on something very, very important, which is the need to fight cynicism. We must produce results in this place. Part of producing results in this place is respecting our traditions, respecting our democracy, respecting the institutions we have built together across party lines and over the years, and then implementing the plan we were sent here in election to implement. Indeed, our Prime Minister is having much success around the world and throughout our country in proposing measures and implementing our plan. We just want to get on with the job.”
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Hamilton puts his finger on something very, very important, which is the need to fight cynicism. We must produce results in this place. Part of producing results in this place is respecting our traditions, respecting our democracy, respecting the institutions we have built together across party lines and over the years, and then implementing the plan we were sent here in election to implement. Indeed, our Prime Minister is having much success around the world and throughout our country in proposing measures and implementing our plan. We just want to get on with the job.
“We respect our democracy and our traditional rules. Voters recently told us they support our government's plans, and we plan to follow through with them in this Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite. We believe that respecting democracy and our institutions means respecting the standards, conventions, traditions and rules that have been established over the years as we have built the best country in the world. I believe that the people of Rimouski, just like those of Gatineau, expect us to respect and uphold the finest traditions of our democracy. I would add that just recently, we were able to ask the people of Terrebonne what they thought. They clearly told us that they wish to continue along the path proposed by this government, and that is what we intend to implement with the new composition of the House of Commons.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, quite the opposite. We believe that respecting democracy and our institutions means respecting the standards, conventions, traditions and rules that have been established over the years as we have built the best country in the world. I believe that the people of Rimouski, just like those of Gatineau, expect us to respect and uphold the finest traditions of our democracy. I would add that just recently, we were able to ask the people of Terrebonne what they thought. They clearly told us that they wish to continue along the path proposed by this government, and that is what we intend to implement with the new composition of the House of Commons.
“Committees work best when members work together. Having committee membership match the party numbers in the House follows our traditions and is democratic.”
“Mr. Speaker, for much of Canada’s history, we have helped build the best country in the world by having committees, as the member points out, be the workhorses of Parliament, but they have done so collegially, cooperatively and by working together, and whatever the composition of the House of Commons, none of that is going to change. In fact, I would argue that we are maintaining and respecting the rules, the norms, the conventions and the traditions that the people who came before us have built together, and the composition of the House also being the composition of committees is the democratic way to get things done.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, for much of Canada’s history, we have helped build the best country in the world by having committees, as the member points out, be the workhorses of Parliament, but they have done so collegially, cooperatively and by working together, and whatever the composition of the House of Commons, none of that is going to change. In fact, I would argue that we are maintaining and respecting the rules, the norms, the conventions and the traditions that the people who came before us have built together, and the composition of the House also being the composition of committees is the democratic way to get things done.
“House committees are not split into two ranks. They have different jobs, but each committee controls its own work and makes its own choices.”
“Mr. Speaker, it may be a semantic debate, and it may be a pointless one, but there are no two tiers of committees. There may be committees with different job descriptions, as there should be when there are some 30 total committees of the House of Commons and joint committees with the Senate. Of course, committees are masters of their own agenda and their own destiny. They decide what to take up and they decide what to debate, and I am sure members on those committees would individually examine the merits of all proposals that come forward, whatever the source of those proposals, opposition or government, and make their own decisions on the merits of what is being proposed.”
Mr. Speaker, it may be a semantic debate, and it may be a pointless one, but there are no two tiers of committees. There may be committees with different job descriptions, as there should be when there are some 30 total committees of the House of Commons and joint committees with the Senate. Of course, committees are masters of their own agenda and their own destiny. They decide what to take up and they decide what to debate, and I am sure members on those committees would individually examine the merits of all proposals that come forward, whatever the source of those proposals, opposition or government, and make their own decisions on the merits of what is being proposed.
“I support this proposal. It respects voters and rebuilds trust by following the traditions and rules of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have very different views on what it means to respect the people. I think that respecting the electorate, respecting the people, means respecting the traditions, precedents, norms and rules of our democratic institutions. I think that fighting the public cynicism that he mentioned means standing up and standing together for our democratic institutions. I think that today’s proposal is a step in that direction.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have very different views on what it means to respect the people. I think that respecting the electorate, respecting the people, means respecting the traditions, precedents, norms and rules of our democratic institutions. I think that fighting the public cynicism that he mentioned means standing up and standing together for our democratic institutions. I think that today’s proposal is a step in that direction.
“I agree that committees must hold the government accountable by studying laws, asking hard questions, and demanding answers. Today's debate does not change that. Committees will keep all their powers to call witnesses and get documents.”
“Mr. Speaker, in fact, I think we agree on much more than we disagree on. We believe as well that, as my hon. colleague points out, the essence of this Parliament, of its institutions and of its committees is to hold governments to account and perform these kinds of examinations of laws, budgets, estimates and differing matters in terms of public policy, to ask probing questions and to demand accountability. That is the essence of our parliamentary democracy. None of that changes, of course, with the proceedings today. Committees retain the same powers, the same abilities and the same privileges that they have to call witnesses and compel documents and testimony. All of that continues, and we would argue that it is in our best democratic traditions that we are debating this matter today.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, in fact, I think we agree on much more than we disagree on. We believe as well that, as my hon. colleague points out, the essence of this Parliament, of its institutions and of its committees is to hold governments to account and perform these kinds of examinations of laws, budgets, estimates and differing matters in terms of public policy, to ask probing questions and to demand accountability. That is the essence of our parliamentary democracy. None of that changes, of course, with the proceedings today. Committees retain the same powers, the same abilities and the same privileges that they have to call witnesses and compel documents and testimony. All of that continues, and we would argue that it is in our best democratic traditions that we are debating this matter today.
“Canada's government works best when it follows tradition. Past majority governments never had committee chairs break tie votes. I want the government House leader to explain why our plan for committee members fits our traditions better than the opposition's plan.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague put it well when he said that in Canada, our political system is based on respect for traditions and principles. This ensures that the system is stable and the government is able to function properly. If we look at the last 10 majority governments in our history, whether they were Liberal or Conservative, we see that there has never been a case where a committee chair had to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie. This morning, I heard some opposition members taking issue with the proposed composition of committees. I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons whether the government’s proposed composition better reflects the traditions of our parliamentary system than the suggestions put forward by the opposition during this morning’s debates.”
Speech on a motion
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, my colleague put it well when he said that in Canada, our political system is based on respect for traditions and principles. This ensures that the system is stable and the government is able to function properly. If we look at the last 10 majority governments in our history, whether they were Liberal or Conservative, we see that there has never been a case where a committee chair had to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie. This morning, I heard some opposition members taking issue with the proposed composition of committees. I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons whether the government’s proposed composition better reflects the traditions of our parliamentary system than the suggestions put forward by the opposition during this morning’s debates.
“Our plan for committee members keeps the opposition at the same size. It also stops committee chairs from having to break tie votes all the time.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my hon. colleague, who comes from a region of this great country that is very special to me. The committee composition that the government is proposing does two things. It ensures that the chair of each committee will not have to routinely cast tie-breaking votes, because committee chairs, like the Speaker of the House, should not be settling debates. They should be called upon to do so only in exceptional circumstances. That is why we proposed the membership that we did. It is also because the other option would be to remove an opposition member from each committee, and we did not want to do that. We wanted the opposition parties to have the same level of representation as they do now.”
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my hon. colleague, who comes from a region of this great country that is very special to me. The committee composition that the government is proposing does two things. It ensures that the chair of each committee will not have to routinely cast tie-breaking votes, because committee chairs, like the Speaker of the House, should not be settling debates. They should be called upon to do so only in exceptional circumstances. That is why we proposed the membership that we did. It is also because the other option would be to remove an opposition member from each committee, and we did not want to do that. We wanted the opposition parties to have the same level of representation as they do now.
“Canada does not have supermajorities. Every majority government is just as valid as any other, no matter its size. We are all elected as individuals, and Canadians want us to work together to solve problems.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a supermajority. That is an American term. Parliaments with a certain number of members do not have more power than Parliaments with a lower number of government members. What I would say in response to my hon. friend is that the current majority is no less legitimate than any other majority that has existed in Canadian history. We elect members of Parliament to the House. The member, my colleagues on this side of the House, and I are all elected as individuals. Yes, we wear a party label and we have a party banner, but we are elected to exercise our conscience and our judgment as we approach the House. The member knows, because I am sure she is living it, that many Canadians in opposition-held ridings expect their member of Parliament to be part of a positive solution for the country.”
Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a supermajority. That is an American term. Parliaments with a certain number of members do not have more power than Parliaments with a lower number of government members. What I would say in response to my hon. friend is that the current majority is no less legitimate than any other majority that has existed in Canadian history. We elect members of Parliament to the House. The member, my colleagues on this side of the House, and I are all elected as individuals. Yes, we wear a party label and we have a party banner, but we are elected to exercise our conscience and our judgment as we approach the House. The member knows, because I am sure she is living it, that many Canadians in opposition-held ridings expect their member of Parliament to be part of a positive solution for the country.
