Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

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 .

Official text

35 statements

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“We respect our democracy and our traditional rules. Voters recently told us they support our government's plans, and we plan to follow through with them in this Parliament.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite. We believe that respecting democracy and our institutions means respecting the standards, conventions, traditions and rules that have been established over the years as we have built the best country in the world. I believe that the people of Rimouski, just like those of Gatineau, expect us to respect and uphold the finest traditions of our democracy. I would add that just recently, we were able to ask the people of Terrebonne what they thought. They clearly told us that they wish to continue along the path proposed by this government, and that is what we intend to implement with the new composition of the House of Commons.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Connie Cody

Conservative
“I am worried the government is using its majority to shut down debate on controversial bills in committees. Committees need to study laws carefully so Canadians have a voice.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as a new member here, I came to realize very quickly that committees are the workhorse for Parliament. I fear that the government is using majority to shut down debate on controversial legislation, something where Canadians might lose their voice. As well, committees are a place for transparency and accountability. I am just wondering if speed is now more important than scrutiny when writing the law for this country and for Canadians.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“Committees work best when members work together. Having committee membership match the party numbers in the House follows our traditions and is democratic.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, for much of Canada’s history, we have helped build the best country in the world by having committees, as the member points out, be the workhorses of Parliament, but they have done so collegially, cooperatively and by working together, and whatever the composition of the House of Commons, none of that is going to change. In fact, I would argue that we are maintaining and respecting the rules, the norms, the conventions and the traditions that the people who came before us have built together, and the composition of the House also being the composition of committees is the democratic way to get things done.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Andrew Scheer

Conservative
“The government House leader is not telling the truth. The rules already create two different types of committees. The government wants to add two more Liberal MPs to these committees so it has a majority. I want to know if these Liberal MPs will vote to investigate the government, force people to testify, and demand government documents.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader keeps saying things that are just not true. He says it does not happen often that the status of a government changes from a minority to a majority. It has never happened at the federal level. That is something that has just never happened. He says that there are not two tiers of committees. There literally are two tiers of committees. There is a tier that handles legislation and is chaired by government MPs, and then there is a tier that is chaired by opposition MPs, which generally does not deal with legislation at all but provides oversight. Those two different tiers are literally spelled out in the Standing Orders. He says that these committees would still have the power to produce documents, compel testimony and order information from departments. What he fails to mention is that this would happen only if motions pass at committee, and he is now stacking the deck with two extra Liberals. Would Liberal MPs on these committees keep the government House leader’s word and commit to voting in favour of motions to investigate Liberal corruption, motions to compel testimony and motions to demand information from the government, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“House committees are not split into two ranks. They have different jobs, but each committee controls its own work and makes its own choices.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it may be a semantic debate, and it may be a pointless one, but there are no two tiers of committees. There may be committees with different job descriptions, as there should be when there are some 30 total committees of the House of Commons and joint committees with the Senate. Of course, committees are masters of their own agenda and their own destiny. They decide what to take up and they decide what to debate, and I am sure members on those committees would individually examine the merits of all proposals that come forward, whatever the source of those proposals, opposition or government, and make their own decisions on the merits of what is being proposed.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois
“Only one in three people in Canada trusts Parliament. The government wants to give itself majority power, even though Canadians did not vote for that. I want the minister to explain how doing this helps democracy.”

  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the member for Gatineau, the government House leader, who told the House on April 16, “Canada’s democracy is one of the most stable and strongest in the world, but it would be unwise to take this for granted.” I have news for him: Only one in three people in Canada trusts Parliament. What the government wants is to give itself a majority, even though that is not what the people voted for. It says that it wants to do this in order to fight cynicism. I would like my colleague to tell me how his government can claim to be strengthening democracy in Canada while acting against the express will of the people.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“I support this proposal. It respects voters and rebuilds trust by following the traditions and rules of Parliament.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have very different views on what it means to respect the people. I think that respecting the electorate, respecting the people, means respecting the traditions, precedents, norms and rules of our democratic institutions. I think that fighting the public cynicism that he mentioned means standing up and standing together for our democratic institutions. I think that today’s proposal is a step in that direction.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Scot Davidson

Conservative
“The purpose of committees is to question everything the government does. This government thinks it cannot be questioned, so it should not be allowed to control committees.”

  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis

  • Speech on a motion

    Signal 26 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 had to pull up my question for the government House leader. I am glad he is here today. I asked the member for Winnipeg North this question. I did not quite get a satisfactory answer. When justifying the government’s motion, the government House leader called this principle “undeniable”. Does the government understand that the entire purpose of parliamentary committees is to ensure that nothing is undeniable, that every action, every claim, every program and every policy is examined on its own merits? A government that declares itself undeniable has told this House exactly why it must not be trusted with committee control, control that Canadians did not give it in a general election.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal

Linked statement

“I agree that committees must hold the government accountable by studying laws, asking hard questions, and demanding answers. Today's debate does not change that. Committees will keep all their powers to call witnesses and get documents.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I think we agree on much more than we disagree on. We believe as well that, as my hon. colleague points out, the essence of this Parliament, of its institutions and of its committees is to hold governments to account and perform these kinds of examinations of laws, budgets, estimates and differing matters in terms of public policy, to ask probing questions and to demand accountability. That is the essence of our parliamentary democracy. None of that changes, of course, with the proceedings today. Committees retain the same powers, the same abilities and the same privileges that they have to call witnesses and compel documents and testimony. All of that continues, and we would argue that it is in our best democratic traditions that we are debating this matter today.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Liberal
“Canada's government works best when it follows tradition. Past majority governments never had committee chairs break tie votes. I want the government House leader to explain why our plan for committee members fits our traditions better than the opposition's plan.”

  • Speech on a motion

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the specific motion under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague put it well when he said that in Canada, our political system is based on respect for traditions and principles. This ensures that the system is stable and the government is able to function properly. If we look at the last 10 majority governments in our history, whether they were Liberal or Conservative, we see that there has never been a case where a committee chair had to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie. This morning, I heard some opposition members taking issue with the proposed composition of committees. I would like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons whether the government’s proposed composition better reflects the traditions of our parliamentary system than the suggestions put forward by the opposition during this morning’s debates.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade F View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“Our plan for committee members keeps the opposition at the same size. It also stops committee chairs from having to break tie votes all the time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my hon. colleague, who comes from a region of this great country that is very special to me. The committee composition that the government is proposing does two things. It ensures that the chair of each committee will not have to routinely cast tie-breaking votes, because committee chairs, like the Speaker of the House, should not be settling debates. They should be called upon to do so only in exceptional circumstances. That is why we proposed the membership that we did. It is also because the other option would be to remove an opposition member from each committee, and we did not want to do that. We wanted the opposition parties to have the same level of representation as they do now.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Kelly DeRidder

Conservative
“The government says it respects democracy, but it is trying to change how committees are set up to give itself more control. Will the government keep the committees as voters chose them, so it stays accountable?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the government House leader say multiple times today that the government wants to maintain the institutions that are in place and that it wants to respect democracy. I find it quite ironic that these words are even being used, considering that in over 150 years of Canadian Parliament, active recruitment to secure a majority has never happened in this place. Not listening to Canadian voters and not respecting a minority government has never happened in this place. My question for the government House leader is very simple: Will the government keep the makeup of committees as elected, as the Canadian voices elected them to be at the time of Parliament, instead of now trying to get a supermajority for itself to hide from accountability?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“Canada does not have supermajorities. Every majority government is just as valid as any other, no matter its size. We are all elected as individuals, and Canadians want us to work together to solve problems.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a supermajority. That is an American term. Parliaments with a certain number of members do not have more power than Parliaments with a lower number of government members. What I would say in response to my hon. friend is that the current majority is no less legitimate than any other majority that has existed in Canadian history. We elect members of Parliament to the House. The member, my colleagues on this side of the House, and I are all elected as individuals. Yes, we wear a party label and we have a party banner, but we are elected to exercise our conscience and our judgment as we approach the House. The member knows, because I am sure she is living it, that many Canadians in opposition-held ridings expect their member of Parliament to be part of a positive solution for the country.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C+ View analysis

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois
“The government claims it is following tradition by taking a majority on committees, even though voters did not give them one. But Parliament also has a tradition of talking to opposition parties, and the government did not do that. Did they forget this tradition?”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it respects tradition and that this is why it should have a majority on committees, despite the will of the people, who did not give the government that majority. I simply wish to remind the government that there is also a tradition here in Parliament of consulting the opposition parties. Today, however, there has been no such consultation. Can my colleague tell me whether, by any chance, he has forgotten that consulting the opposition parties is one of Parliament’s traditions?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Steven MacKinnon

Liberal
“We did not change the number of committee seats for the Bloc Québécois, so we did not need to consult them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, since we have not altered the Bloc’s representation on the committees in any way, there was no reason to consult them.

View on ourcommons.ca

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 111

All 35 items ·
  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