“The government is cutting off debate on a motion that puts too many Liberals on committees. Many members still want to speak against this. I want to know why the government is ending debate and why it opposes our changes to protect the opposition's role on oversight committees.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is meta-Liberal. The Liberals are stacking the decks on committees with this motion, and now they are moving closure and shutting down debate on that very motion. We had only a couple of hours of debate last week. There are many members who wanted to speak out on behalf of their constituents to raise the alarm on this undemocratic measure, and now the government is shutting down debate. The irony here is so thick that one could cut it with a knife. I have to note that the very first vote these new Liberal MPs will pronounce on will be a vote to shut down debate. Welcome to the Liberal Party of Canada. They can check their souls in at the door and follow whatever the whip tells them to do. Why is the government using this undemocratic tool to shut down debate to stack the decks on committees? Why does it continue to oppose our reasonable amendment to protect the opposition’s role on the oversight committees? Those committees have nothing to do with government legislation. They provide the accountability the Canadian people voted for at the ballot box.”

“The Liberals are using their power to cut off debate on an important issue. They are trying to take control of committees so they can push bills through without enough discussion. This is wrong, and they should not end the debate.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly shameful. What we are seeing here is the Liberal government, immediately upon swearing in three new members today, calling for a closure motion on a very important debate that Canadians expect this Parliament to hold. The Liberals were not given a majority by Canadians. They stole a majority. Now, they are immediately abusing the power of a majority government to bring in this motion to give themselves a supermajority at committees so that they can ram through their legislation without proper debate. Canadians expect more from this Parliament than what the Liberals are offering today, and presenting a motion of closure is just inappropriate at this time.”

“The government's plan gives it too much control over committees. We have a change that lets some committees keep holding the government to account. I want to know why the government opposes our change.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I approach the first anniversary of my coming to this place, it is a good chance to reflect on the lessons I have learned. One of the important lessons someone learns in this place is that just because we can do something, it does not always mean it is a good idea. The government motion we have in front of us would increase the size of committees, as well as the government’s control over them. There is a Conservative amendment to this motion that would simply ensure that while committees are expanded, a small number of them would continue to be able to hold the government to account. It is not about blocking change. It is about protecting the independence and effectiveness of this place. I would like to ask the government House leader if he can explain why the government would oppose a straightforward amendment to keep committees representative of the House and preserve committees’ ability to properly scrutinize government activity.”

“The Liberals only care about gaining power, not their own values. They are taking in members from other parties just to get a majority. I want to know if there is any member they would refuse to let join them.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the Liberals’ pursuit of an undemocratic majority, which they were not given at the ballot box, it has become clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government stand for absolutely nothing except the pursuit of power. They flattered and recruited a member who endorsed Avi Lewis and a member who endorsed the convoy, all in the pursuit of power. I have a specific question for the government House leader about their pursuit of power. Is there any member of this House, even one, whom the Liberals would not accept as a floor crosser in their pursuit of a majority?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Canadians are losing trust in Parliament and how it works. I want the government House leader to explain why.”

“Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but democracy usually values open discussion. When I was elected in 2021, I was elected because I was sent here to this place to represent the views of all constituents of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga. In a time when there is a lot of frustration and cynicism and just confusion about how and what happens in this place, could the government House leader speak to the reduction of the amount of trust that Canadians have in parliamentarians and processes in this place?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Relevance 7 of 100

  Only 7% of this speech directly addressed the motion under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I am worried the government is using its majority to shut down debate on controversial bills in committees. Committees need to study laws carefully so Canadians have a voice.”

“Mr. Speaker, as a new member here, I came to realize very quickly that committees are the workhorse for Parliament. I fear that the government is using majority to shut down debate on controversial legislation, something where Canadians might lose their voice. As well, committees are a place for transparency and accountability. I am just wondering if speed is now more important than scrutiny when writing the law for this country and for Canadians.”

“The government House leader is not telling the truth. The rules already create two different types of committees. The government wants to add two more Liberal MPs to these committees so it has a majority. I want to know if these Liberal MPs will vote to investigate the government, force people to testify, and demand government documents.”

“Mr. Speaker, the government House leader keeps saying things that are just not true. He says it does not happen often that the status of a government changes from a minority to a majority. It has never happened at the federal level. That is something that has just never happened. He says that there are not two tiers of committees. There literally are two tiers of committees. There is a tier that handles legislation and is chaired by government MPs, and then there is a tier that is chaired by opposition MPs, which generally does not deal with legislation at all but provides oversight. Those two different tiers are literally spelled out in the Standing Orders. He says that these committees would still have the power to produce documents, compel testimony and order information from departments. What he fails to mention is that this would happen only if motions pass at committee, and he is now stacking the deck with two extra Liberals. Would Liberal MPs on these committees keep the government House leader’s word and commit to voting in favour of motions to investigate Liberal corruption, motions to compel testimony and motions to demand information from the government, yes or no?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The purpose of committees is to question everything the government does. This government thinks it cannot be questioned, so it should not be allowed to control committees.”

“Mr. Speaker, I had to pull up my question for the government House leader. I am glad he is here today. I asked the member for Winnipeg North this question. I did not quite get a satisfactory answer. When justifying the government’s motion, the government House leader called this principle “undeniable”. Does the government understand that the entire purpose of parliamentary committees is to ensure that nothing is undeniable, that every action, every claim, every program and every policy is examined on its own merits? A government that declares itself undeniable has told this House exactly why it must not be trusted with committee control, control that Canadians did not give it in a general election.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a motion

  Signal 26 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 →

“The government says it respects democracy, but it is trying to change how committees are set up to give itself more control. Will the government keep the committees as voters chose them, so it stays accountable?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have heard the government House leader say multiple times today that the government wants to maintain the institutions that are in place and that it wants to respect democracy. I find it quite ironic that these words are even being used, considering that in over 150 years of Canadian Parliament, active recruitment to secure a majority has never happened in this place. Not listening to Canadian voters and not respecting a minority government has never happened in this place. My question for the government House leader is very simple: Will the government keep the makeup of committees as elected, as the Canadian voices elected them to be at the time of Parliament, instead of now trying to get a supermajority for itself to hide from accountability?”