Government Orders

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 .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

9 statements

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“The Liberals will do anything to stay in power. They are ignoring what voters want.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are known for their cynical pursuit of power at any cost. Today, they are plumbing new depths. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Garnett Genuis: Mr. Speaker, I am hearing some noise from the other side, so I will say that the only convictions Liberals have are the criminal kind. Today, what the Liberals are doing is ignoring the will of the voters. They are undermining—

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“Canadians voted for a minority government, but the Liberals made backroom deals with other members to gain power. Now they are trying to take control of committees so they can block our requests for documents and avoid being held accountable. We need to stop this abuse of power.”
  • 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
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 27 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
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.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“The member complained about how Conservatives use social media. I invite him to join my livestream to debate this bill with me. The government is attacking democracy, and Canadians deserve better.”
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.

Harb Gill, Windsor West

Conservative
“A teenager was stabbed and killed in Windsor. The government's main job is to keep people safe. Instead of dealing with violent crime, the government is wasting time on rules and committees.”
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—

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“In a minority parliament, parties must work together to get things done. My party has tried to do that. But now the government is trying to force its will on the House without working with others. That is wrong.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
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.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“People need to be able to trust our democratic institutions. The Liberal government has weakened that trust over the last ten years by ignoring rules, withholding documents, and trying to change how Parliament works without agreement. Our institutions need to earn that trust back.”
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.

Scott Anderson, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee

Conservative
“The Liberals convinced a member of our party to switch sides. Most Canadians vote for the party, not the person, so this switch goes against what voters wanted. I want to know if the member opposite agrees with the new member's past views on vaccines and the convoy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has put a new face on what happened. In fact, the government has been trolling our benches, and some did slither over. The House is not reflective of Canadians’ wishes. About 93% of the vote goes to the party now, by custom, and about 7% goes to the individual. By law, yes, we are elected as individuals. The Liberal Party’s explanation is that it is “a big tent”, but I would say it is more like a circus tent. I wonder if the member agrees with the views of his party’s newest acquisition on vaccines and the convoy.

Mel Arnold, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies

Conservative
“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.”
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?

Kelly McCauley, Edmonton West

Conservative
“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.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 1 of 100

    Only 1% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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.

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