Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

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 .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

4 statements

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois
“The government is using this motion to give itself an unfair majority on committees. Can the government leader name any other time this was done? I want him to explain why they are doing it now.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite are certainly not wrong to say that the composition of committees should reflect the composition of the House. It is true that, according to British parliamentary tradition, a majority in the House normally means a majority on committees. However, that does not mean we have to agree with how things are done. We understand that the government has a short fuse and wants to limit debate. Now, I would like the House leader opposite if he can share any recent examples, from either this Parliament or the provincial legislatures, of governments with very slim majorities that have used motions or gag orders to give themselves a supermajority on committees by adding two members instead of one. I would like him to explain why the government decided unilaterally to grant itself a much larger majority on committees than its majority in the House. I would like to know whether this is in keeping with British House traditions.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski—La Matapédia

Bloc Québécois
“Canadians already do not trust Parliament. The government wants to change the rules to take control of committees, even though voters did not elect a majority government. It is ignoring what voters chose.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? As we know, only one in three Canadians has confidence in Parliament and our institutions, according to Statistics Canada. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to fight cynicism. Democracy is not just a slogan that can be repeated over and over again in press releases and here in the House. Words have meaning. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to change the rules because it managed to recruit some members who were not originally on its side. Now that it has a majority in the House, the government also wants a majority on committees. However, voters did not give this government a majority mandate. How can we counter cynicism when the government acts in this way? It does not respect the will of the people. Does my colleague believe that fighting cynicism means not respecting citizens’ choices and what they voted for?

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski—La Matapédia

Bloc Québécois
“Only one in three people in Canada trusts Parliament. The government wants to give itself majority power, even though Canadians did not vote for that. I want the minister to explain how doing this helps democracy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the member for Gatineau, the government House leader, who told the House on April 16, “Canada’s democracy is one of the most stable and strongest in the world, but it would be unwise to take this for granted.” I have news for him: Only one in three people in Canada trusts Parliament. What the government wants is to give itself a majority, even though that is not what the people voted for. It says that it wants to do this in order to fight cynicism. I would like my colleague to tell me how his government can claim to be strengthening democracy in Canada while acting against the express will of the people.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski—La Matapédia

Bloc Québécois
“The government claims it is following tradition by taking a majority on committees, even though voters did not give them one. But Parliament also has a tradition of talking to opposition parties, and the government did not do that. Did they forget this tradition?”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it respects tradition and that this is why it should have a majority on committees, despite the will of the people, who did not give the government that majority. I simply wish to remind the government that there is also a tradition here in Parliament of consulting the opposition parties. Today, however, there has been no such consultation. Can my colleague tell me whether, by any chance, he has forgotten that consulting the opposition parties is one of Parliament’s traditions?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 111

  1. Private Members' Business An Act to Amend the Criminal Code 6 statements
  2. Government Orders Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders 35 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 29 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 13 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 6 statements
  9. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Finance 18 statements
  11. Oral Questions Sport 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  13. Oral Questions Seniors 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 3 statements
  15. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  16. Government Orders Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders 17 statements
  17. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 4 statements
  18. Government Orders Business of Supply 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders 130 statements