The House debated Government Motion No. 9, which would change the composition of standing and joint committees to give the government a majority of seats, reflecting the seats each party holds in the House. Liberal members said a majority government should also hold a majority on committees, as Parliament’s procedures provide, and that opposition members keep their seats. Conservatives said the government secured its majority by persuading members of other parties to cross the floor, going against voters’ wishes, and accused it of using its new committee control to block document requests and avoid scrutiny. A Bloc member questioned the effect on public trust in institutions, and a Green member said Parliament tends to reduce the powers of smaller parties regardless of which party governs. Some time also went to a member describing a fatal stabbing in his riding, and to remarks and questions about Canadian unity and historical anniversaries, which another member raised as a point of order about staying on topic.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“We now have more women in Parliament than ever before. We also saw parties work together today to pass a bill. I want to know how the member thinks we can keep working together to help Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is indeed a very special day because just recently we had the three by-elections and today we have the largest women’s caucus in the history of Parliament. I believe just over 70 women have been elected and that is worthy of recognizing. We saw earlier today the government and opposition working together as we had an opposition private member’s bill pass through the House. It amplifies what the Prime Minister said a year ago. He wants to see Parliament work in a collaborative way. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on how we continue to move forward in a collaborative way, working for the betterment of Canadians first and foremost.”
Mr. Speaker, today is indeed a very special day because just recently we had the three by-elections and today we have the largest women’s caucus in the history of Parliament. I believe just over 70 women have been elected and that is worthy of recognizing. We saw earlier today the government and opposition working together as we had an opposition private member’s bill pass through the House. It amplifies what the Prime Minister said a year ago. He wants to see Parliament work in a collaborative way. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on how we continue to move forward in a collaborative way, working for the betterment of Canadians first and foremost.
“I like how all parties have worked together on the environment committee and on different bills. I hope we keep working together to make the country better.”
“Mr. Speaker, being chair of the environment committee in recent weeks, I have enjoyed how we have worked together across parties to move the work forward in our environment and sustainable development committee. In my past life, working at the City of Halifax, it was all about working across different perspectives to get the work done and to have shared objectives to move things forward. I am really pleased that we have had cross-party support for various private members’ bills on both sides of the House. I hope that we can continue to collaborate for the betterment of our country.”
Mr. Speaker, being chair of the environment committee in recent weeks, I have enjoyed how we have worked together across parties to move the work forward in our environment and sustainable development committee. In my past life, working at the City of Halifax, it was all about working across different perspectives to get the work done and to have shared objectives to move things forward. I am really pleased that we have had cross-party support for various private members’ bills on both sides of the House. I hope that we can continue to collaborate for the betterment of our country.
“I want the government to explain why it is giving itself 60 percent of the seats on committees when it only has 51 percent of the seats in the House. I want to know if it is trying to silence the opposition.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the adjustment of numbers of members on committees. I would like to ask her to explain fully, not just to the members on this side of the House but to Canadians, why the government chose to move to a 60% makeup on committees instead of the 51% that it has in the House. Is this to shut down the opposition completely at committee, or is there some other diabolical scheme behind all of this?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the adjustment of numbers of members on committees. I would like to ask her to explain fully, not just to the members on this side of the House but to Canadians, why the government chose to move to a 60% makeup on committees instead of the 51% that it has in the House. Is this to shut down the opposition completely at committee, or is there some other diabolical scheme behind all of this?
“We are not planning anything bad. We had to choose between taking Conservatives off committees or adding Liberals to them. People preferred adding Liberals so committees can still have good debates.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are no diabolical schemes happening on this side of the House. I know that there was a decision to make regarding whether Conservatives are removed from each committee or Liberals are added. My understanding was that the more well-received path forward was to add Liberals rather than to take away Conservatives so that we could still have robust conversations in committee.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are no diabolical schemes happening on this side of the House. I know that there was a decision to make regarding whether Conservatives are removed from each committee or Liberals are added. My understanding was that the more well-received path forward was to add Liberals rather than to take away Conservatives so that we could still have robust conversations in committee.
“The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats on committees. I want the member to explain why the Liberals are giving themselves more power than they actually have.”
“Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my colleague said that the parties’ representation on committees must reflect their representation in the House. The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats in committees. Can my colleague explain to me how she can say in her speech that she wants committees to operate like the House, when in reality, the Liberals are giving themselves much more power with this new majority that they engineered by enticing floor crossers?”
Mr. Speaker, during her speech, my colleague said that the parties’ representation on committees must reflect their representation in the House. The Liberals hold 51% of the seats in the House, but they want 58% of the seats in committees. Can my colleague explain to me how she can say in her speech that she wants committees to operate like the House, when in reality, the Liberals are giving themselves much more power with this new majority that they engineered by enticing floor crossers?
“Only recognized parties sit on committees. In our system of government, a majority government has always had the majority of seats on every committee.”
“Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that parties with status sit on committee and that it is the history of Canadian government and Westminster government that when there is a majority government, there is a majority on every single committee.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that parties with status sit on committee and that it is the history of Canadian government and Westminster government that when there is a majority government, there is a majority on every single committee.
“The NDP wants voters, not politicians, to decide if a member can switch parties. The Liberals have passed several laws that violate our Constitution and charter rights. Now that they have a majority, they will pass even more unconstitutional laws. I want to know how the member feels about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned. The NDP has a strict rule. We actually tried to pass a bill to not allow floor crossings but to leave that up to the electorate. The current Liberal government has passed several bills that are in violation of our Constitution and charter rights: Bill C-9, Bill C-5 and Bill C-12. Now, we are going to have a situation where the majority Liberals pass bills that are completely unconstitutional. I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned. The NDP has a strict rule. We actually tried to pass a bill to not allow floor crossings but to leave that up to the electorate. The current Liberal government has passed several bills that are in violation of our Constitution and charter rights: Bill C-9, Bill C-5 and Bill C-12. Now, we are going to have a situation where the majority Liberals pass bills that are completely unconstitutional. I am wondering how the hon. member feels about that.
“I disagree that the bills we passed break the Constitution. It is completely legal for politicians to switch parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I absolutely disagree with my esteemed colleague on the other side that the bills we have passed are unconstitutional. Regardless of how different members feel about floor crossings, they are part of the history of Canadian government. They are completely legal and allowed. I have no further comment.”
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely disagree with my esteemed colleague on the other side that the bills we have passed are unconstitutional. Regardless of how different members feel about floor crossings, they are part of the history of Canadian government. They are completely legal and allowed. I have no further comment.
“I oppose this motion because it stops the opposition from holding the government accountable. The government is trying to take control of key committees. We want opposition parties to keep leading these committees so Canadians have proper oversight and transparency.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is hard to fit in so much on an attack on democracy and explain it in four and a half minutes, but I will try. I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 9, another attempt by the Liberal government to quash all opposition and criticism of its government. Now, this is not about the legitimacy of the Liberal majority, however vile the betrayal of their constituents was by the MPs who crossed. It is still allowed within the Westminster system and I do respect that. I recognize the government as a majority. The Prime Minister commented that he was going to do things differently, with a less partisan approach to governing. Of course, that comment aged about as well as his comment that affordability is at its best in the last 10 years. I am fine with the Liberals adding more members to committees. I would note that when the Liberals formed the committees in June, they actually reduced the number of committee members they normally had, stating they did not have enough members to do the work. It is funny to see them now actually bumping up two people on committees, when really they could make do with one. Again, I am perfectly fine with it. They do have the majority. However, this House and Canadians deserve oversight from this government. For the sake of accountability and transparency, we need better oversight. That is why we are proposing that the operations committee, known as the mighty OGGO, the public accounts committee, the access to information committee, also known as the ethics committee, and the status of women committee maintain the current setup, which is traditionally led by the opposition, with the Conservatives and the Bloc making up the majority. Again, this is for accountability and transparency. Now, we have seen the contempt the Liberals have for this Parliament. It is clear again and again, and this goes back to 2015. The Liberal government always seems to say that it wants an audience and not an opposition. We have seen motions like this in the past. Going back to the 42nd Parliament, we had Motion No. 6 from this government. Many of the Liberals here today were here for Motion No. 6. That was a motion that would have gutted Conservative opposition members’ ability to submit Order Paper questions. The government was going to decide what was a valid Order Paper question, not an elected MP. The minister would decide. Also under Motion No. 6, the government stated that it would decide what was an appropriate amount of debate. The Liberals would stop the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP from debating certain issues. Of course, we all remember that famous night of Motion No. 6, known as “elbowgate”, when the former prime minister manhandled the late Gord Brown and also elbowed an NDP member in the chest. During COVID, we saw Bill C-13 under the Trudeau government, and again, a majority of the members opposite were part of that government. With Bill C-13, the Liberals brought in a bill that would allow them, for 21 months, to have unlimited taxing and unlimited spending without any oversight or vote in this Parliament. The whole reason Parliament exists goes back to King Edward I, 1295, when calling the model Parliament, stating that “ what touches all should be approved by all”. Here we have the Liberal government under Bill C-13 saying that, for 21 months, what touches all should only be approved by the Liberals and not by all elected members. This government has a long history of trying to stamp out opposition. We have seen this government and my colleague from Winnipeg North constantly call out any opposition to Liberal plans as obstruction. Let us remember that the finance minister refused to table a budget last spring. He said there would not even be a budget in 2025, and yet when the Liberals finally tabled a budget, 10 months later, they accused the opposition of purposely delaying it. I understand I am out of time for this half of my speech about Liberal obstruction and blocking accountability. I look forward to continuing it afterwards.”
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to fit in so much on an attack on democracy and explain it in four and a half minutes, but I will try. I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 9, another attempt by the Liberal government to quash all opposition and criticism of its government. Now, this is not about the legitimacy of the Liberal majority, however vile the betrayal of their constituents was by the MPs who crossed. It is still allowed within the Westminster system and I do respect that. I recognize the government as a majority. The Prime Minister commented that he was going to do things differently, with a less partisan approach to governing. Of course, that comment aged about as well as his comment that affordability is at its best in the last 10 years. I am fine with the Liberals adding more members to committees. I would note that when the Liberals formed the committees in June, they actually reduced the number of committee members they normally had, stating they did not have enough members to do the work. It is funny to see them now actually bumping up two people on committees, when really they could make do with one. Again, I am perfectly fine with it. They do have the majority. However, this House and Canadians deserve oversight from this government. For the sake of accountability and transparency, we need better oversight. That is why we are proposing that the operations committee, known as the mighty OGGO, the public accounts committee, the access to information committee, also known as the ethics committee, and the status of women committee maintain the current setup, which is traditionally led by the opposition, with the Conservatives and the Bloc making up the majority. Again, this is for accountability and transparency. Now, we have seen the contempt the Liberals have for this Parliament. It is clear again and again, and this goes back to 2015. The Liberal government always seems to say that it wants an audience and not an opposition. We have seen motions like this in the past. Going back to the 42nd Parliament, we had Motion No. 6 from this government. Many of the Liberals here today were here for Motion No. 6. That was a motion that would have gutted Conservative opposition members’ ability to submit Order Paper questions. The government was going to decide what was a valid Order Paper question, not an elected MP. The minister would decide. Also under Motion No. 6, the government stated that it would decide what was an appropriate amount of debate. The Liberals would stop the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP from debating certain issues. Of course, we all remember that famous night of Motion No. 6, known as “elbowgate”, when the former prime minister manhandled the late Gord Brown and also elbowed an NDP member in the chest. During COVID, we saw Bill C-13 under the Trudeau government, and again, a majority of the members opposite were part of that government. With Bill C-13, the Liberals brought in a bill that would allow them, for 21 months, to have unlimited taxing and unlimited spending without any oversight or vote in this Parliament. The whole reason Parliament exists goes back to King Edward I, 1295, when calling the model Parliament, stating that “ what touches all should be approved by all”. Here we have the Liberal government under Bill C-13 saying that, for 21 months, what touches all should only be approved by the Liberals and not by all elected members. This government has a long history of trying to stamp out opposition. We have seen this government and my colleague from Winnipeg North constantly call out any opposition to Liberal plans as obstruction. Let us remember that the finance minister refused to table a budget last spring. He said there would not even be a budget in 2025, and yet when the Liberals finally tabled a budget, 10 months later, they accused the opposition of purposely delaying it. I understand I am out of time for this half of my speech about Liberal obstruction and blocking accountability. I look forward to continuing it afterwards.
