TranslatePolitics.ca

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 1:15 p.m.

“I want to attack the other party's motives. I'm going to throw out criminal accusations to make them look bad. I don't like how they're ignoring voters.”

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 1:15 p.m.

“Liberals don't care about democracy. They only want power. Liberals took MPs with different beliefs just to get a majority. They want power just because. They shut down debate and hide documents. Now they want a supermajority on committees. The Prime Minister doesn't respect his own MPs. He just wants control. This is bad for democracy. We need to fight this abuse of power.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and will reflect upon your advice. What we have happening today is that the Liberals have taken unprecedented steps in a pattern of trying to undermine democracy in this country. Canadians voted for a minority government, and the Liberals used all kinds of devices and connivance to draw in members with whatever conviction, with no consideration whatsoever of the beliefs of those members. They took members who, in normal times, would obviously not fit what the Liberal Party pretends to be ideologically, and they did so out of desperation for power. Mr. Speaker, you have chastened me to not be too strong in my language, but I hope you will not mind me quoting some of the things the new member for Scarborough Southwest said about Liberals. Of course, I welcome her to this place, and I think she has had some very thought-provoking things to say in the past. She previously described the Liberals as “the surest path to greater evil”. What a thing to say. I am not sure if she could say that in the House. She described the Liberals as “the surest path to greater evil”, as well as “untrustworthy” and “conniving”. Those were things the new member for Scarborough Southwest had to say about the Liberals before she decided to run for them. The member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong said that many Liberals think she belongs in jail. She said that about two weeks before she crossed over to join the Liberals. This is not about bringing people together with some common agenda. This is about Liberals who care about nothing except power and who are pursuing power, not as a means to advance anything in particular, but for its own sake. Today we are debating this motion that they brought forward and quickly moved closure on. Now that, through backroom deals, they have a majority that Canadians did not give them at the election, they have quickly moved to impose upon committees a supermajority that Canadians certainly do not want. I note that we have multiple committees right now where Liberals are actually filibustering. At the human resources Committee, which I am a member of, and a number of other committees, Conservatives are working with our Bloc colleagues in seeking information from the government. Liberals are filibustering those committees. Members can bet that those requests for documents will immediately be shut down as soon as the Liberals who have taken the majority feel that they no longer have to be accountable. In fact, in the past when they have had minority governments, they have refused to hand over documents, even when they were ordered to by committees. These Liberals are completely allergic to accountability. In a minority situation, committees must at least work together to achieve results. They are, in a way, forced to work together because no party has all of the power. This has led to very constructive outcomes. In the last year, the committee that I am a part of has done very good work. We have tabled eight reports in the House, which is very productive work as a committee, because people have had to negotiate. It is not always easy. Sometimes there are conflicts, but people have had to negotiate to get a result. Liberals do not want to have to do that hard work of listening to other ideas and working with other parties. They are pursuing power at all costs. They are pursuing power in defiance of democratic norms and in defiance of the wishes of Canadians. They would like to be able to impose their will on committees, prevent documents from being requested and prevent the necessary accountability work from being done. I also want to also point something out, which may be something worth the reflection of the individual members of the government. Even if we were to accept the argument that the committee should have the same proportions as what the Liberals have engineered in the House through floor crossings, we might then say that there should be six Liberal members. Maybe we would say that, if we believed their arguments, we would go from five to six. Why are they asking for seven? Why are the Liberals, who now have a very narrow majority in the House, seeking a supermajority on committees? It is particularly worth asking because, in practice, given the rounds of questions and the activity of those committees, the fifth, sixth and seventh members of that committee likely would not have an opportunity to do too much. The nature of time allocation within a committee, with questions, etc., means that the extra member at the table is probably just going to be sitting there, for the most part. Why does the government want to have seven members? I will say that this demonstrates that the Prime Minister has as much respect for his own caucus members as he does for members on the other side of the House. He wants to have extra members there who will likely not have an opportunity to speak very much. He wants to keep them busy. He wants to prevent them from being able to engage in and challenge things, even in the very measured and limited way that government members sometimes do. What the Prime Minister is trying to engineer is the greatest amount of power, not merely for his party, but for himself. He views members of Parliament as encumbrances to his exercise of executive power, to his pursuit of power, for reasons that are largely unspecified and that have not been articulated up until this point. This is a sad day for Canadian democracy. The Prime Minister, through connivance, has weakened this institution and is pursuing a reality in which he can rule without the normal checks and balances that are supposed to be a part of our system, and without the checks and balances that Canadians voted for when they chose to elect a minority government. We need to fight back against this abuse of power and defend democratic norms in this country. Conservatives, despite the limitations the government is imposing on us, will continue to fight for democracy and for the common good.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

John-Paul Danko

Liberal 1:15 p.m.

“You are just saying this for attention. This is dumb. You should do what we want instead. We should use our majority to pass the things we all agree on.”

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 1:15 p.m.

“You are upset we are talking to our voters. You had your chance to talk to them too. I'll embarrass you again if you want. You are very bad. People are mad at you.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is unsurprising to hear this member in particular complain about Conservative use of social media accounts. During the debate on Bill C-9, my colleague from London and I were doing a livestream, explaining to the public what was going on, and this member came by, trying to offer some comment. We invited him to join the livestream, but he quickly ran away. If he objects to how we use social media, I would like to give him another chance. He can join me for a livestream to discuss the bill and to share his thoughts with my followers. I will certainly happily share my thoughts with his. Canadians are frustrated by the attack on democracy that we are seeing. Canadians deserve better.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Harb Gill

Conservative 1:25 p.m.

“A teenager was stabbed. It's sad. The families are sad. But the government isn't paying attention to this real problem. I want the government to focus on this instead of wasting time on other things.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart following the tragic stabbing of a 16-year-old boy by a 19-year-old boy in Windsor. At the centre of this unimaginable loss are two mothers, one grieving the loss of a child, the other grappling with the reality of what her child now faces. There are two families whose lives will never be the same. Their pain is shared by friends, loved ones and a wider community that has been left shaken, wondering how something like this could happen so close to home. The most fundamental responsibilities of any government are to protect its citizens and ensure that families feel safe in their communities and secure in their daily lives, yet while Canadians are confronting tragedies like this, the government is focused on expanding committees and engaging in procedural manoeuvres that feel far removed from the realities people are facing. Is anyone on the government benches truly paying attention to these families, to those mothers or to the communities they were elected to—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 1:25 p.m.

“I say a nice word about those sad families. Then I talk a lot about how government is slow and messy because a lot of people need to agree on things. My party is very responsible. We did our part to help make things work. But now the government wants to make the rules so it can just do whatever it wants. That's bad. Canadians didn't vote for the government to ignore everyone else.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to those families in his community. When it comes to the work of the House and its committees, I would say that, in minority parliaments, such as what Canadians chose in the last election, we are forced to work together in a different way, because anything that moves forward at committees requires two parties, at minimum, to be able to have a meeting of the minds. That process of negotiation is not always easy, but I think we have seen in the last year that things can get done and done well, especially because our party has been responsible. We have expedited legislation where appropriate and we have opposed it where necessary, but now the government is trying to eliminate the need for that co-operation and create the circumstances in which it can impose its will undemocratically on the House. It is wrong, and it is not what Canadians voted for.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois 1:25 p.m.

“That party tries to get people from other parties to join it and vote how it wants. I think that's bad. I ask you if that makes normal people trust government more or less. Do you think Canadians will lose trust in government when it goes against what voters wanted?”

Garnett Genuis

Conservative 1:25 p.m.

“I agree that trust in government is important and weak. The current government has made people trust it less for many years. It hides information. It tries to change rules to keep its own power. People feel like that government doesn't listen to them. We should make government act better so people trust it again.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this question of trust in institutions is a very important one. We would all like to see a situation in which institutions are both trusted and worthy of that trust. Our democratic institutions, though, have been weakened over the last 10 years under the Liberal government. We see continuing efforts to undermine those institutions, including the failure to hand over documents when ordered to, efforts to unilaterally impose changes on the structure of Parliament and the pursuit of power regardless of the constraints that are supposed to exist on that power. That has implications for how Canadians view, and feel represented within, our institutions, and the right response is for those institutions to try to rise to the occasion and be worthy of that trust once again.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Chris Bittle

Liberal 1:25 p.m.

“I want more Liberal MPs on committees. We won a majority. We should get a majority on committees. Nothing else should change. That is fair. That is normal. That is how Parliament works. Everyone can still talk and do their jobs. I heard other people say what Canadians want. I think Canadians want what our government wants. Committees help do that. We changed some small parts of bills before. We all work together sometimes. New MPs want to help too. We need more people from different places on committees. Our government should look good. Parties should not fight this. Conservatives did not say this before. We are doing normal things. We are following the rules. Conservatives are being very loud. I don't think they really want an election. We are fine.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to add my voice to Government Motion No. 9, which addresses composition of standing committees of the House of Commons and joint committees. Over the course of this debate, it has been undisputable that committees are microcosms of this place in form and in function, both reflecting party standings in the House and performing the necessary duties to scrutinize legislation, propose solutions and represent the diverse views of Canadians. The granularity of this work being undertaken in committees is what makes us more informed, effective and thoughtful legislators, better equipped to support Canadians. The government has taken a balanced approach to additions to standing committee and joint committee compositions that we are discussing today. This routine motion in response to the changing landscape here in the House would add to the voices currently at committee. I would point members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, which makes it clear on page 819: “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” There is an undeniable, long-standing principle in Parliament: A party that has a majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees. This is at the core of our Westminster system of government. The motion proposed by the government reflects how things are done in the House of Commons. The numbers on committees ensure that the government has a majority and the chair of the committee does not routinely need to vote to break a tie, because the number in the House means that the Speaker does not routinely need to vote to break a tie. The makeup of the House of Commons has changed since committees were formed almost a year ago. The government has gone from a minority government to a majority. Naturally, this means a change must occur to the makeup of committees to reflect this change. The motion would not put opposition parties in a position to lose representation. Current committee members of both the government and the opposition would remain unaffected and would be able to continue the important work they have undertaken over the course of the last year. The government recognizes the time these members have invested in familiarizing themselves with their respective committee subject matter and in building trusting relationships with stakeholders and members of all political stripes. Do my colleagues across the way not agree that having more voices on standing committees would add to the diverse perspectives being shared during a committee's deliberations? Do they not agree that an additional voice from the Prairies or Atlantic Canada, from rural or urban centres, would better inform our studies, reports and amendments? I have heard my opposition colleagues speak to what they say Canadians voted for in the last election. The message our government was elected on was to build Canada strong. I recall conversations at the door about a year ago being rooted in addressing affordability concerns, managing geopolitical threats and investing in Canada's future. These are the exact issues that committees are expected to undertake. They are a mechanism to further dive into these issues, propose solutions and improve legislation. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Halifax. Usually I am the one to drop that note on other members' desks. I apologize. I am sure the opposition would much rather hear from the member for Halifax than the member for St. Catharines. We have seen collaboration take place since the start of this Parliament, as the government has thoughtfully considered ideas and supported amendments brought forward by opposition parties. Members of the finance committee studied, in depth, Bill C-15, the 2025 budget bill, and proposed amendments. The government brought forward amendments to address stakeholder concerns and, without hesitation, supported opposition party amendments to provide more security to consumers and ensure guardrails on ministerial power. Even going back to my days in the 42nd Parliament, I did not see a bill go through without amendments by the opposition accepted. This level of collaboration has also been shown on legislation brought forward by private members, as was the case at the public accounts committee when government members proposed reasonable amendments to ensure the scheme and policy objectives of Bill C-230, the creation of a debt forgiveness registry, would work effectively if established. I have heard claims made against Government Motion No. 9 as changing the checks and balances on government. I find this unreasonable for the simple fact that the mechanisms that hold government to account remain unchanged; ministerial appearances before committees, opposition day motions, the study of estimates and question period are just a few examples. On the valuable studies committees undertake and reports they present, if a member feels that their concerns have not been adequately reflected in a report, they have an opportunity to present the House with a supplemental report to ensure their views are on the parliamentary record. Last spring, colleagues on both sides of the aisle welcomed many new faces to our caucuses who were eager to represent their constituents, share ideas and work hard to improve the lives of Canadians. Allowing more members on committees gives our colleagues the opportunities to be better legislators. As my colleagues have previously stated, this is a time of unity, to bring Canadians together, to represent the needs of our communities and to listen to one another so we can build Canada strong. Demonstrating to Canadians that we, as political parties with differing views on matters of policy, can come together, working collaboratively and constructively, is of utmost importance given the challenges we face. We should define ourselves in this time of crisis by the things that unite us, not by those that divide us. This is a critical time in our nation's history, when we will, hopefully, define ourselves not by our partisan interests but rather by how we work together to deliver what the country needs in spite of our partisan interests. We can disagree, but we must rise above pettiness to deliver on our promise to put Canadian interests first. In my speech, I have noted times that we worked together, whether on government legislation or in private members' business. Let these examples be the rule, not the exception. I have listened to the debate for a bit, and I am genuinely surprised. Many of these Conservative members were here in the 41st Parliament, and the things they are proposing right now did not exist then, when the Conservatives held the majority. I believe the previous speaker was a member of Prime Minister Harper's office, and I doubt he was proposing the things in the PMO that he is coming to the House today to deliver. This is how Parliament has worked in this country. The composition of the House has changed, and as such, the committees— An hon. member: Never before. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, they said that this has never happened before. They are right. It has not happened before, but what has happened many times in this country's history is a majority government, and when there has been a majority government, there has been a majority in the House. An hon. member: It is not an elected majority. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, the member is heckling me: “It's not an elected majority.” Each member here was elected and is accountable to their constituents. Canadians did not elect a majority or minority government; they had 343 elections of members. Since then, there have been by-elections. What has happened is— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): Order. Chris Bittle: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that in all this criticism, they never stand up in the House of Commons, if they claim that this Parliament is illegitimate, and call for an election at this time. I am curious why this is. I am genuinely curious why, at this point, they question the legitimacy of floor crossings when in the last Parliament they were actively seeking Liberals to cross the floor to them. It was not an issue 18 months ago. Now they are upset that we have formed a majority and that the rules of the House, the traditions of this place and of Westminster Parliament, allow us, and dictate that there should be, a majority on committees. They can heckle. They can shout, scream and pound their fists, but this is the way it has been and the way we hope it is going to be.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Scott Anderson

Conservative 1:35 p.m.

“You're wrong. The Liberals didn't really win. People voted for MPs, not the party. The House isn't what Canadians wanted. I don't like the Liberals. They're a circus. Their new MP has bad views. He shouldn't agree with that.”

Chris Bittle

Liberal 1:35 p.m.

“I don't like your question. You're angry and complaining. Conservatives did this too. You know I'm right.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 1:40 p.m.

“I want the Liberals to stop changing House rules. The government shouldn't have a supermajority on committees. I asked a question and got no answer. The majority on committees should be proportional to the House. I don't like what the Liberals are doing.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can say what they will, but we are dealing with a government that no longer has the slightest regard for our parliamentary traditions. It started in the previous Parliament, when the government decided to change the rules of how the House operates without unanimous consent. Today, they are telling us that it is normal for a majority government to have a majority on committees. That is true, but I asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons a question, and he was unable to answer. I would like my colleague to tell me when, in the recent history of the House, a government with a very slim majority decided to give itself a supermajority on committees. I would like him to tell me whether it is not more in keeping with the traditions of the House for a government's majority on committees to be proportional and similar to the one it has in the House of Commons.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Chris Bittle

Liberal 1:40 p.m.

“I don't like that you're challenging our changes. I want our majority to have all the power on committees. That's how it should work.”

John-Paul Danko

Liberal 1:40 p.m.

“I want to change the subject to a historical battle. Look at this battle! Unity and stability are important.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 1:40 p.m.

“I want to stop you from changing the subject. Follow the rules!”

John-Paul Danko

Liberal 1:40 p.m.

“I want to look serious by saying big words like 'unity' and 'stability'.”

Chris Bittle

Liberal 1:40 p.m.

“I want to make my party look good by mentioning popular things like Isaac Brock and defending Canada. I also want to say that election wins mean everyone should agree with us.”

Elizabeth May

Green 1:40 p.m.

“I don't like that big parties gang up to reduce my small party's power.”

Chris Bittle

Liberal 1:40 p.m.

“We have the majority, so we should have the majority on committees.”

Shannon Miedema

Liberal 1:40 p.m.

“I want to talk a lot about how committees work. Committees do many things. Government Motion No. 9 says our party should have more seats on them. I think that is fair.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Government Motion No. 9 and the importance of parliamentary committees. As members of Parliament, we have been individually elected by our constituents to represent their interests in the House of Commons. Not only do we individually represent the interests of our constituents, but together we represent the fabric of who Canadians are. We are a privileged minority of Canadians elected to this House, representing Canadians from every beautiful region of this vast and breathtaking country. We are standing here today to represent our constituents' interests and as a representation of the will of our constituents. Every moment of our work as parliamentarians is ultimately aimed at good governance for the benefit of all Canadians. Much of this work is done in committees, which is the subject of Government Motion 9. Before I speak to the motion itself, it is important to highlight the role of committees in the Westminster system. One of the fundamental functions of members of Parliament is the development of legislation, and the crux of this work is done in committee. Committees are the venues that allow for and facilitate the detailed examination of not only legislation but also other policies and issues of interest to Canadians. Committees allow us to have focused and detailed discussions on what would be possible in the chamber, where debate is focused on the principle and scope of each bill. Committees are the place where we can review legislation, hear from witnesses and conduct clause-by-clause consideration of bills. It is through this process of legislative scrutiny that we can voice our views, ask experts questions, raise our concerns and debate proposals with each other. Our ultimate, and I suggest shared, objective is to improve legislation when it is needed. It is this scrutiny and detailed examination in committees that not only strengthens accountability but also allows members to work together to find solutions to issues facing Canadians. That process and engagement builds trust with Canadians. It encourages open and transparent government. Participation in committees gives members the opportunity to scrutinize decisions and expenditures and monitor progress. Robust and constructive debate in committees is the means through which we arrive at solutions. Committees produce extensive and comprehensive reports, thereby adding to greater transparency for Canadians by ensuring public access to information about the government's work. These studies help inform government policy and future legislative proposals. Committees are also incubators of non-partisan collaboration. They allow members from across parties to come together to address complex problems in a collaborative manner and foster consensus on difficult issues. Committees allow us to build camaraderie among members so we can bring forward our diverse perspectives as members from across the country, consider evidence-based insights and come together to advance the interests of Canadians. The discussions and insights that committees generate enrich our parliamentary process and our ability to work together. Further, the common thread to the work of all committees is that of hearing directly from Canadians, stakeholders and experts on a range of issues that are important to who we, together in the House of Commons, represent. With every committee study undertaken, through witnesses and briefs, we get to hear the diverse aspects and views on a particular subject, from business leaders to academics, scientists and Canadians from across this great country who are directly impacted by or have a strong interest in any one of the numerous subjects that the parliamentary committees study. This engagement of experts, stakeholders and citizens acts as a bridge between Parliament and the broader Canadian public. Committee work can also bring international perspectives on how we can best achieve our policy goals. Hearing about experiences from like-minded countries can help facilitate an exchange of ideas and ways to incorporate good ideas from abroad that can be implemented here in Canada. By bringing in the international perspective, we get to hear about emerging issues and opportunities to learn from the experience of other countries. Through this process, we learn about what worked well, what did not and how to avoid challenges that other countries have experienced. Every time I chair or participate in a committee meeting, I am struck by the extent to which witnesses want to share their expertise and lived experiences to inform the studies we undertake. The fact that we hear from witnesses with varied and sometimes opposing perspectives helps us stay in touch with the diversity of Canadian perspectives. What Canadians think and their views on issues not only matter; they are important to informing us as members of Parliament. All of what we learn through parliamentary committees is taken into account as decisions are made. I encourage all Canadians to get involved in the work of our parliamentary committees. It is democracy in action. Now I will turn to Government Motion No. 9. It is important to take a moment to note that the standing committees and special joint committees in this Parliament have mandates that are focused on the issues that are important to Canadians and to Canada. The reason they are called standing committees is that they should reflect the standings of the recognized parties in the House of Commons. In a Westminster parliamentary system such as ours, the composition of parliamentary committees is historically determined by reflecting the representation of political parties. This balances the need for representation with effective governance. The composition of committees should always reflect the standings in the House, and Government Motion No. 9 simply seeks to uphold and institute the principle that underpins our parliamentary system.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Government Orders

Garnett Genuis

Garnett Genuis

John-Paul Danko

Garnett Genuis

Harb Gill

Garnett Genuis

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Garnett Genuis

Chris Bittle

Scott Anderson

Chris Bittle

Jean-Denis Garon

Chris Bittle

John-Paul Danko

Jean-Denis Garon

John-Paul Danko

Chris Bittle

Elizabeth May

Chris Bittle

Shannon Miedema