What they said. What they meant.

“I need to get elected MPs on the record voting for this motion to use in attack ads later. Opposition MPs speaking out on behalf of their constituents raises the alarm on the motion more than I can. Shutting down debate lets me paint the government as undemocratic.”

“I'm angry the government is using its new majority to limit debate time on their power grab. Canadians didn't vote for this kind of majority! The Liberals are abusing their power to help themselves ram bills through committee. This motion lets the government silence debate and opposition. It's shameful! I demand more debate time so the opposition (my party) can properly criticize the government's record and bills.”

“I don't like the other party's motion. It would increase their control over committees. I prefer our amendment. Our amendment would keep committees representative and let them scrutinize the government. I want to imply the government just opposes our amendment because they don't want scrutiny.”

“I want to paint the Liberals as power-hungry. They tied themselves in knots to recruit an NDP MP who endorsed left-wing radicals so my party could attack them, and they poached an MP who spoke kindly about the trucker convoy protests so we could get outraged about it. So now I want to jump on that bandwagon and lob some talking points about the Liberals having no real principles -- prying open that contradiction to score some points. And I'm going to throw in a gotcha question too about how low the Liberals will go for more votes. It doesn't matter if it's super broad -- my goal here is just to make them squirm.”

“I'm trying to sound reasonable but I'm really just scoring political points. The other side wants to change the rules to suit themselves. I want to remind everyone that I speak for my riding, not just my party, so I can keep saying no to the government's power grab.”

“I don't like that the government might use its majority to push through controversial laws without enough debate. I want more transparency and accountability at committees, not speeding up scrutiny just to pass laws faster.”

“I don't like that the government House leader is saying things I think are not true. He says status changes from minority to majority aren't common, but it's never happened federally. He says there aren't two tiers of committees, but there are: one tier handles legislation and is chaired by government MPs, the other is chaired by opposition MPs for oversight, not legislation. Those tiers are in the Standing Orders. He says committees can still produce documents, compel testimony and order information, but only if motions pass at committee. Now he's stacking the deck with two extra Liberals. Would Liberal MPs on these committees keep the government House leader's word and vote yes to investigate Liberal corruption, compel testimony and demand information from the government? I want a yes or no.”

“I want the government to know that they can't just say everything they do is undeniable. Committees exist to question things. If the government says it can't be questioned, that's exactly why we shouldn't trust them with more power over committees.”

“You say you respect democracy. But no government has ever politicked this hard to get a majority on committees. Quit trying to grab a supermajority and hide from accountability. Leave the committees like voters elected them.”