A motion to change the Standing Orders so that House of Commons committees reflect the party composition of the House, which would give the Liberal government a majority on committees now that it has gained seats mid-mandate, with the government moving closure to end debate on it. The government said a majority in the House should be reflected in its committees, per Westminster tradition, and that this lets it move quickly on issues like trade and building projects; it noted no precedent exists for this unusual mid-mandate seat change. Conservatives said voters did not elect a Liberal majority, called the closure motion an attempt to shut down scrutiny, and asked why the government rejected their amendments protecting opposition oversight roles. Bloc Québécois members said the government was using its new numbers to gain an unfair edge on committees despite low public trust in Parliament, and the Greens asked why the government was rushing to end debate.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
35 statements
“I want us to keep debating this item without stopping.”
“Mr. Speaker, with regard to Government Business No. 9, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned.”
Mr. Speaker, with regard to Government Business No. 9, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned.
“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.”
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.
“I want the House to pass this motion. A government with a majority of seats should have that majority reflected in all parts of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition in this place and in Westminster parliaments in general that a majority in the chamber be reflected in all of the institutions of the House. This motion would simply respect and honour that tradition. Let us agree that it does not happen often that a government’s status changes such that it grows to have a majority of seats in the elected chamber during the typical mandate of a government. This motion simply seeks to give effect to the long-held principle that governments that have a majority in the chamber have that majority reflected in the institutions of Parliament.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, there is a long tradition in this place and in Westminster parliaments in general that a majority in the chamber be reflected in all of the institutions of the House. This motion would simply respect and honour that tradition. Let us agree that it does not happen often that a government’s status changes such that it grows to have a majority of seats in the elected chamber during the typical mandate of a government. This motion simply seeks to give effect to the long-held principle that governments that have a majority in the chamber have that majority reflected in the institutions of Parliament.
“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.”
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.
“Nothing was stolen. These changes help the government act fast to build things and protect our economy from global trade problems. This will protect Canadian jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my hon. friend, I need to challenge this notion that anything has been stolen. In fact, many Canadians appear to agree that much has been gained. One thing that has been gained is that the government can move quickly on getting things built in Canada and move to implement an economic agenda that seeks to insulate ourselves against world events, trade shocks, trade wars and all of the major developments happening in the world. This will represent a government that is resolute, strong and there for Canadians and their jobs, and that makes sure that our economy keeps moving forward.”
Reply to a debate question
Clarity 16 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, with all respect to my hon. friend, I need to challenge this notion that anything has been stolen. In fact, many Canadians appear to agree that much has been gained. One thing that has been gained is that the government can move quickly on getting things built in Canada and move to implement an economic agenda that seeks to insulate ourselves against world events, trade shocks, trade wars and all of the major developments happening in the world. This will represent a government that is resolute, strong and there for Canadians and their jobs, and that makes sure that our economy keeps moving forward.
“The opposition claims what we are doing has never happened before. Has any majority government in Canada or Britain ever given up its majority on committees?”
“Mr. Speaker, in their speeches, the opposition members are saying that what is happening here in Parliament is unprecedented. I have a question for my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Can he give us an example of any place in Canada or even under the British parliamentary system of a majority government that did not control or hold a majority of seats on committees?”
Mr. Speaker, in their speeches, the opposition members are saying that what is happening here in Parliament is unprecedented. I have a question for my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Can he give us an example of any place in Canada or even under the British parliamentary system of a majority government that did not control or hold a majority of seats on committees?
“Our situation in Parliament is very unusual because the numbers of seats have changed since the election. We looked for past examples, but there are none. There is also no example of a minority government having a majority of the seats on committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Naturally, good questions always come from the Outaouais. We did a search and looked for examples. We have to admit that the situation before us is highly unusual: a government that changed status during its mandate. The fact that we came within one or two hundred votes of winning a majority in Canada during the last election plays a part in this situation. It should therefore come as no surprise that certain adjustments and electoral events like by-elections have since changed things here in Parliament. I can tell my hon. colleague that we found no comparable examples. At the same time, however, there are no examples of a situation where a government that had a minority in the House held a majority of seats on committees.”
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Naturally, good questions always come from the Outaouais. We did a search and looked for examples. We have to admit that the situation before us is highly unusual: a government that changed status during its mandate. The fact that we came within one or two hundred votes of winning a majority in Canada during the last election plays a part in this situation. It should therefore come as no surprise that certain adjustments and electoral events like by-elections have since changed things here in Parliament. I can tell my hon. colleague that we found no comparable examples. At the same time, however, there are no examples of a situation where a government that had a minority in the House held a majority of seats on committees.
Linked statement
“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.”
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.
“I disagree with the member's suggestion. In our system, the majority in the House should hold the majority on committees. All committees are equal, and the committees that check our work still have all their usual powers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, but her suggestion would offend the very principles of the Westminster tradition that we are all sworn to uphold, whereby a majority in the Commons would represent a majority in the institutions of the Commons. All committees are equal. There are no tier one or tier two committees. Indeed, there are committees that provide oversight. Those functions are vital to the functioning of Parliament. Members on those committees, including the chairs, who the member correctly points out are members of the official opposition, retain all of the rights, all of the privileges and all of the abilities to send for witnesses, papers and evidence that they had previously. Suggesting that there has been a change in those committees’ status would not be factual.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, but her suggestion would offend the very principles of the Westminster tradition that we are all sworn to uphold, whereby a majority in the Commons would represent a majority in the institutions of the Commons. All committees are equal. There are no tier one or tier two committees. Indeed, there are committees that provide oversight. Those functions are vital to the functioning of Parliament. Members on those committees, including the chairs, who the member correctly points out are members of the official opposition, retain all of the rights, all of the privileges and all of the abilities to send for witnesses, papers and evidence that they had previously. Suggesting that there has been a change in those committees’ status would not be factual.
“The government is using this motion to give itself an unfair majority on committees. Can the government leader name any other time this was done? I want him to explain why they are doing it now.”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite are certainly not wrong to say that the composition of committees should reflect the composition of the House. It is true that, according to British parliamentary tradition, a majority in the House normally means a majority on committees. However, that does not mean we have to agree with how things are done. We understand that the government has a short fuse and wants to limit debate. Now, I would like the House leader opposite if he can share any recent examples, from either this Parliament or the provincial legislatures, of governments with very slim majorities that have used motions or gag orders to give themselves a supermajority on committees by adding two members instead of one. I would like him to explain why the government decided unilaterally to grant itself a much larger majority on committees than its majority in the House. I would like to know whether this is in keeping with British House traditions.”
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues opposite are certainly not wrong to say that the composition of committees should reflect the composition of the House. It is true that, according to British parliamentary tradition, a majority in the House normally means a majority on committees. However, that does not mean we have to agree with how things are done. We understand that the government has a short fuse and wants to limit debate. Now, I would like the House leader opposite if he can share any recent examples, from either this Parliament or the provincial legislatures, of governments with very slim majorities that have used motions or gag orders to give themselves a supermajority on committees by adding two members instead of one. I would like him to explain why the government decided unilaterally to grant itself a much larger majority on committees than its majority in the House. I would like to know whether this is in keeping with British House traditions.
“I support this motion. It follows our best traditions and keeps our democracy strong.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this morning’s motion is consistent with our finest parliamentary traditions, the ones we always uphold and to which we swear an oath about respecting our institutions, their precedents, their customs and their traditions. This has served our country very well. We believe that Canada is the best country in the world. The only thing we are giving ourselves is the right to continue to ensure that Canada remains a model democracy and that our democratic institutions reflect our finest traditions.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 41 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 analysisReply to a debate question
Clarity 20 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I would argue that this morning’s motion is consistent with our finest parliamentary traditions, the ones we always uphold and to which we swear an oath about respecting our institutions, their precedents, their customs and their traditions. This has served our country very well. We believe that Canada is the best country in the world. The only thing we are giving ourselves is the right to continue to ensure that Canada remains a model democracy and that our democratic institutions reflect our finest traditions.
“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?”
Speech on a motion
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.
See full analysisMr. 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?
“Canadians face big global problems like wars, trade threats, and climate change. People living in Conservative areas want their MPs to help fix these problems. Our government is offering real solutions, and opposition MPs should work with us.”
“He may be leaving himself open on that one, Mr. Speaker. I would say that Canadians who live in Conservative ridings are increasingly asking their members of Parliament to be a positive part of the solution and a positive part of meeting these major and converging international crises, wars, supply chain issues, obviously, trade threats and climate change. All of these threats are converging, and Canadians are demanding a comprehensive and comprehensible response to them. We believe that is what this government is offering. It should be no surprise that many opposition MPs and their constituents want to be a positive part of the solution.”
He may be leaving himself open on that one, Mr. Speaker. I would say that Canadians who live in Conservative ridings are increasingly asking their members of Parliament to be a positive part of the solution and a positive part of meeting these major and converging international crises, wars, supply chain issues, obviously, trade threats and climate change. All of these threats are converging, and Canadians are demanding a comprehensive and comprehensible response to them. We believe that is what this government is offering. It should be no surprise that many opposition MPs and their constituents want to be a positive part of the solution.
“The government is changing the rules for House committees in an unusual way. Why is it in such a rush to end this debate?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am speaking now from a spot that has a chair with no arms, which means I can stand up and address the hon. government House leader. The purpose of this debate is to bring closure on the debate on Motion No. 9. I hope I will have a chance to speak more substantively to Motion No. 9 later this day. On an unprecedented matter and doing something unusual, which is taking the matter of changing House committees from their normal process to a motion debated in the House that will be carried by what we now know is a majority of Liberal members, would the hon. government House leader explain why it is urgent that we close down debate?”
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking now from a spot that has a chair with no arms, which means I can stand up and address the hon. government House leader. The purpose of this debate is to bring closure on the debate on Motion No. 9. I hope I will have a chance to speak more substantively to Motion No. 9 later this day. On an unprecedented matter and doing something unusual, which is taking the matter of changing House committees from their normal process to a motion debated in the House that will be carried by what we now know is a majority of Liberal members, would the hon. government House leader explain why it is urgent that we close down debate?
“Parliamentary committees should match the makeup of the House of Commons. We should agree on this simple rule and get back to work for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a very fundamental, yet incredibly simple principle at play here, which is that the institutions of our Parliament, including the committees of the House of Commons and obviously the committees we share with the Senate, be reflective of the composition of the House of Commons. This is a reasonably simple debate. We appreciate that there can be different perspectives, different arguments. We have heard those articulated during the first portion of this debate. I am sure we will hear them articulated throughout the course of today, but we believe that this is a reasonably simple principle and that Canadians expect us to get on with our normal work, which is building Canada strong.”
Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a very fundamental, yet incredibly simple principle at play here, which is that the institutions of our Parliament, including the committees of the House of Commons and obviously the committees we share with the Senate, be reflective of the composition of the House of Commons. This is a reasonably simple debate. We appreciate that there can be different perspectives, different arguments. We have heard those articulated during the first portion of this debate. I am sure we will hear them articulated throughout the course of today, but we believe that this is a reasonably simple principle and that Canadians expect us to get on with our normal work, which is building Canada strong.
“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?”
Speech on a motion
Relevance 7 of 100
Only 7% of this speech directly addressed the motion under debate.
See full analysisMr. 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?
“Canadians want their members of Parliament to follow the rules and respect our traditions. That is how we keep people's trust in our democracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know the member’s constituents nearly as well as she would, but my bet is that the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga want to send members here who respect, uphold and cherish the democracy we have built, one that has served our country so well and has helped build the best country in the world. That member’s constituents, like my own in Gatineau, believe we should respect the rules. It is to fight cynicism that we uphold these principles and uphold these traditions and these conventions that we and the people who have come before us have put in place. Upholding them, respecting them and following the rules is how we build and maintain trust in our democracy and in our Parliament.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 38 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 analysisMr. Speaker, I do not know the member’s constituents nearly as well as she would, but my bet is that the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga want to send members here who respect, uphold and cherish the democracy we have built, one that has served our country so well and has helped build the best country in the world. That member’s constituents, like my own in Gatineau, believe we should respect the rules. It is to fight cynicism that we uphold these principles and uphold these traditions and these conventions that we and the people who have come before us have put in place. Upholding them, respecting them and following the rules is how we build and maintain trust in our democracy and in our Parliament.
“The world is dangerous and divided right now, and wars are making gas prices rise. I want the member to say how important it is for Canada to stay stable and united under the Prime Minister's leadership.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada is part of a dangerous and divided world. We are seeing a lot of uncertainty throughout the geopolitical sphere, a war in the Middle East causing unprecedented gas hikes at home, and just ongoing chaos. How important does the member think it is to have stability here at home in Canada? We are seeing the Prime Minister continuing to be recognized as a global leader, bringing that leadership to Canada but also recognized around the world for his leadership and stability. How important does the member think it is for that unity and stability to follow through here at home in Canada?”
Speech on a motion
Relevance 0 of 100
None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.
See full analysisSpeech on a motion
Signal 31 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 analysisMr. Speaker, Canada is part of a dangerous and divided world. We are seeing a lot of uncertainty throughout the geopolitical sphere, a war in the Middle East causing unprecedented gas hikes at home, and just ongoing chaos. How important does the member think it is to have stability here at home in Canada? We are seeing the Prime Minister continuing to be recognized as a global leader, bringing that leadership to Canada but also recognized around the world for his leadership and stability. How important does the member think it is for that unity and stability to follow through here at home in Canada?
“We need to get results here to show people that government works. We must respect our democracy and get on with doing the job Canadians elected us to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Hamilton puts his finger on something very, very important, which is the need to fight cynicism. We must produce results in this place. Part of producing results in this place is respecting our traditions, respecting our democracy, respecting the institutions we have built together across party lines and over the years, and then implementing the plan we were sent here in election to implement. Indeed, our Prime Minister is having much success around the world and throughout our country in proposing measures and implementing our plan. We just want to get on with the job.”
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Hamilton puts his finger on something very, very important, which is the need to fight cynicism. We must produce results in this place. Part of producing results in this place is respecting our traditions, respecting our democracy, respecting the institutions we have built together across party lines and over the years, and then implementing the plan we were sent here in election to implement. Indeed, our Prime Minister is having much success around the world and throughout our country in proposing measures and implementing our plan. We just want to get on with the job.
“Canadians already do not trust Parliament. The government wants to change the rules to take control of committees, even though voters did not elect a majority government. It is ignoring what voters chose.”
“Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? As we know, only one in three Canadians has confidence in Parliament and our institutions, according to Statistics Canada. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to fight cynicism. Democracy is not just a slogan that can be repeated over and over again in press releases and here in the House. Words have meaning. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to change the rules because it managed to recruit some members who were not originally on its side. Now that it has a majority in the House, the government also wants a majority on committees. However, voters did not give this government a majority mandate. How can we counter cynicism when the government acts in this way? It does not respect the will of the people. Does my colleague believe that fighting cynicism means not respecting citizens’ choices and what they voted for?”
Mr. Speaker, what is the world coming to? As we know, only one in three Canadians has confidence in Parliament and our institutions, according to Statistics Canada. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to fight cynicism. Democracy is not just a slogan that can be repeated over and over again in press releases and here in the House. Words have meaning. Today, the government is telling us that it wants to change the rules because it managed to recruit some members who were not originally on its side. Now that it has a majority in the House, the government also wants a majority on committees. However, voters did not give this government a majority mandate. How can we counter cynicism when the government acts in this way? It does not respect the will of the people. Does my colleague believe that fighting cynicism means not respecting citizens’ choices and what they voted for?
