Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“Liberals are wasting time in committees so opposition members cannot do their work. They are stopping us from getting documents and calling witnesses. I want to know if they are doing this to buy time until they can take control of the committees and avoid answering for their actions.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are filibustering on a number of committees right now to prevent opposition members who have the majority from holding the government to account, from obtaining information, from calling witnesses and from receiving documents, essentially, to prevent them from doing their job, which is to determine what is going on and to ensure accountability for the government’s administration and decisions. The committee I sit on is facing this situation. When I see that several weeks have passed since the Liberals decided to block committees where the discussion and debates are not to their liking, and when a motion to take control of the committees appears at the same time, a question comes to mind. Are the Liberals filibustering in committee to buy time? Was their plan to play this game until they secured a majority to avoid parliamentary accountability?”

“The government is using this motion to cut off debate on how Parliament runs. The Liberals want nearly 60 percent of the seats on committees. That is unfair because they only have about half the seats in the House.”

“Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a gag order designed to limit speaking time on a fundamental issue, namely defining how Parliament and its committees operate. Normally, this is done in consultation with all the parties, out of basic respect for the principle of representation in the House. Representation is already questionable because the government does not have a true majority. Its majority has been cobbled together with floor crossers, but it gets even worse. If we used the Liberals’ current majority, that is, if we were to recognize it, they would end up with roughly 50% of seats. That should come out to just slightly more than half the members on committees. Normally, the Liberals should have one more seat than the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois combined. Unfortunately, what is happening instead is that the Liberals want to give themselves nearly 60% of the votes on committees. Sixty per cent of the seats on the committees is equivalent to having nearly 200 members in the House, 199 to be exact, while the Liberals actually have 174. How can they explain this overrepresentation of a government whose majority is false to begin with?”

“I want to ask the member if she thinks the government is on the wrong track. I worry the government is using its early popularity to take too much control. This sets a bad example and hurts trust.”

“Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the member from British Columbia on her insightful and interesting speech. It is clear at times like these that all political parties have different perspectives to offer on the issues we are debating. I found the Green Party’s perspective relevant and interesting. Under the circumstances, I was wondering about something. In her speeches in the House, the member often acts as the voice of Parliament’s conscience. I think that is how she tries to do her job, at least sometimes. Does that famous conscience tell her that the government is on the right track or the wrong track right now? Personally, I get the impression that the government is taking advantage of its honeymoon period to take increasingly authoritarian action, and that is dangerous because it sets precedents. Obviously, we have not reached the point where democracy is at risk, but still, I find these actions troubling. They are leading us down a slippery slope. They are not constructive and they do not build trust.”

“The Liberals have been blocking committee work and stopping votes for two weeks. Now they want to change who sits on committees to take control, not to work together.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I also commend her on remaining, at least so far, true to her convictions and not crossing the floor, unlike many other members of Parliament. As far as today’s motion is concerned, I have noticed in committee that the Liberals have been blocking our work for the past two weeks. They have been filibustering. That is the term that is often used. They are doing everything they can to prevent votes from being held and to disrupt the proceedings. Now, we are considering a motion that specifically aims to unilaterally change the composition of the committees. Rather than being motivated by a desire for co-operation, as mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister, we wonder whether this motion might instead be motivated by a desire to take control and operate in an authoritarian manner, as we are seeing with the closure motion.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 committee worked hard on this bill, and other parties proposed good changes. Now the government is ignoring that work in the House. The government claims it wants to work together, but it does not, and I do not trust it to change.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is important to take an interest in what we are debating here in the House. While my colleague may take an interest in the debates here in the House, he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the committee that studied this bill. He can correct me if I am wrong. The committee members worked very hard on this. Bloc Québécois and Conservative members proposed amendments that came back to the House. It was not the first time that happened. I think we have seen that with other bills in the past. The government says it wants to collaborate, but it just dismisses the committee’s constructive work once the bill comes back to the House. This does not bode well for the future when the governing party has a majority in committees. Is this how it is going to be from now on, or will there be genuine collaboration? I have my doubts.”