Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

A government motion to change the Standing Orders so the governing party holds a majority of seats on House committees. Liberal members said it follows long-standing parliamentary tradition that the party with the most seats in the House also gets the most seats on committees, and pointed to examples of collaboration with other parties. Bloc Québécois, Conservative and Green members argued the change would reduce accountability, since committees could be used to block opposition studies and requests for documents, and said the motion would leave smaller parties with less committee representation. Several Conservative members also argued the government had obtained its majority through floor-crossing rather than the election result, while Liberal members responded that working with other parties continues. A number of exchanges also touched on committee work generally, including a Conservative motion at the veterans affairs committee that Liberals were debating at length.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

130 statements

Martin Champoux, Drummond

Bloc Québécois
“Government members need to show up if they want to have a debate. Also, the government's math for committee seats does not add up. If seats matched the House fairly, Liberals would get six seats, not more. I want the member to explain their math.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kings—Hants can thank me. Because of me, he had a slightly larger audience during his speech. Half of them left afterward, but that was down to him. He will have to manage that with is colleagues. The other comment we heard while you were counting members was that I was interrupting the debate. If there is no one to debate, there is no debate; it is called a monologue. Government members have to be present for a debate to happen. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said, “We are proposing to adjust committee membership proportionally to reflect the party standings in the House.” If we did that proportionally, the Liberals would be entitled to 6.2% or 6.3% representation in committee. As anyone who has done first-year high school math knows, that would be rounded to the nearest whole number. In this case, Liberal representation in committee would therefore amount to six members. How does my colleague explain the creative math that his leader and his government used to calculate party representation in committee?

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“Committees should match the makeup of the House of Commons. That is why we need seven Liberal members on each committee instead of six. This also lets Conservatives keep their seats.”
  • 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, it is very difficult to have 6.2 members per committee. Tradition dictates that the composition of committees reflect that of the House. For example, if the Liberal Party holds a majority of seats here in the House of Commons, then of course it is possible to have a majority vote. Parliamentary committees need to reflect that reality. That is why we need seven Liberal members on each parliamentary committee and not six. That will also enable the Conservatives to maintain the same level of representation at committee.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our government works with other parties to pass good ideas. Even though we reached a majority today, the first thing we did was pass a Conservative bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member would know that, since the last federal election, we have had a Prime Minister and a government that have talked a great deal about the issue of collaboration and working to elevate good ideas into good public policy, and today is a good example of that. Today, yes, we got an official majority. Three members were sworn in. We got to 174 members, but the first action taken today was actually the passage of a Conservative private member’s bill. It is good legislation. It fit into the crime agenda that this Prime Minister and this government have been talking about. Does he not see that collaboration can, in fact, be effective even in majorities?

Kody Blois, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

Liberal
“Even though my party now has a majority, we are here to serve Canadians. All parties have good ideas, and I will keep working with everyone when it helps Canadians.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 25 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, of course, yes. This being the first time I have sat as a member of Parliament where we are actually in a majority situation, I have seen the good work that has happened over minorities. I know that will continue in a majority context. At the end of the day, regardless of the party’s standing in the House of Commons, we are here to serve Canadians. There are great ideas on all sides of this House. I have great relationships on all sides. I know we will continue to work collaboratively where it makes sense for Canadians.

Jacques Gourde, Lévis—Lotbinière

Conservative
“I oppose this motion. It changes how committees work and gives too much power to the Liberal minority government. Committees need to reflect election results so opposition parties can hold the government accountable and investigate problems.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Respect 99 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “as he seems to think our parliamentary institutions are fairly burdensome,”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore. I am pleased to take part in today’s debate in the House on Government Motion No. 9. However, I am very unhappy with what this motion will do, particularly as the result will fundamentally redefine the work of MPs for the remainder of this Parliament. The parliamentary committee work that MPs do is very important for our democracy and must reflect the wishes and choices expressed by voters in the last election. That being said, Canadians chose a minority Liberal government, and therefore a government under close scrutiny. Canadians’ wisdom should be reflected in a committee composition and a distribution of seats in accordance with the will of the people. Committee work requires a certain degree of collegiality and mutual respect. Motion No. 9 would bring back a great deal of partisanship. It would give absolute power to the government and, by so doing, would undermine non-partisan work in the service of Canadians. I would like to highlight the work of the clerks and analysts and the technical support provided by all the staff involved in the work of parliamentary committees. Drafting reports, hearing from witnesses and engaging in parliamentary work are the bulwark of democracy. They honour Canadians and make Canada a better country. However, when a majority decides to impose a unilateral vision without any compromise, this work comes to reflect a single party’s ideology and becomes a pale imitation of what it once was. For us conscientious MPs, the most important part of parliamentary work is helping Canadians so that our government services evolve over time and are always being improved. I have been around for several Parliaments, with both majority and minority governments. When drafting their reports, it has always been important for committees to ensure that Canadians’ views are heard and considered. That is how committees come up with fair and transparent recommendations that will help us in this monumental task of ensuring our country’s prosperity. I am deeply concerned about what will happen in the months following the adoption of Motion No. 9, particularly with regard to how committees will operate going forward. Members who serve in committee derive their motivation from knowing that they have done their job well. However, in the coming years, we are going to find ourselves in a situation where committee reports will not be representative and will become meaningless because of the problems caused by the numerical superiority. This important work, which currently reflects MPs’ opinions and talents and the views of Canadians, will be interpreted through a Liberal lens and will thus lose its substance and fail to reflect Canadians’ reality. That is not to mention all the parliamentary committee resources that will be wasted. The expertise of Canadians from across the country will be disregarded to protect the Liberal government’s ideology. I have received many testimonials from people who are genuinely concerned about the government’s drift away from democracy. Just yesterday, a 21-year-old young worker in my riding told me, “It makes no sense. Basically, what is the point of my vote if, afterwards, everyone changes their mind and does exactly the opposite of what they said? I have no say? Is voting even worth it at this point? That tells me that my vote does not matter and that politics is extremely biased. I no longer see the purpose of voting.” I can say that millions of Canadians are feeling the same way and this is fuelling cynicism about our democracy and our institutions. Today, I ask Canadians what they think. Do they believe their vote counts? Do they believe that Canada is best served when the makeup of our institutions reflects the outcome of our elections? The Liberal’s Motion No. 9 will only fuel this cynicism and cause great harm to our country in the short, medium and long term. I urge the government to reconsider before it is too late and not to proceed with this motion. This whole situation is all the more concerning given that, this week, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics released a report recommending that the Prime Minister divest his investments and shares in Brookfield, a firm that manages nearly $1 trillion in assets. His close ties to that company, where he served as vice chair for two and a half years before entering the race for the Liberal leadership, place the Prime Minister in a multitude of potential conflicts of interest. This is an unprecedented situation, but that is the reality. Thanks to some tremendous work, the committee has formulated 20 recommendations for resolving this ongoing conflict of interest. Unfortunately, this is the kind of study that will no longer be possible with the restructuring of the committees. These kinds of studies will now be nipped in the bud by the government before witnesses can be heard. That is why the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Barrie South—Innisfil, aimed at exempting the ethics, public accounts, and government operations committees, is so important. Allowing opposition parties to do their job on these committees and hold the government to account is the bare minimum. These committees exist to ensure government transparency and to prevent corruption. The ideal remains that this government respect the will of Canadians as expressed in the general election of April 28, 2025, less than a year ago, and that the committees continue to reflect that democratic will. I can already hear the Liberals responding with their polls and other nonsense. I can say that, in Canada, there is only one poll that counts and that is an election. It is the only way to guarantee with certainty the will of Canadians. It is not a sample of 1,000 respondents to a poll that will give this Liberal government the right to override democracy. I do not know if that is a word that the Prime Minister likes, as he seems to think our parliamentary institutions are fairly burdensome, or rather a necessary evil. That may be why he prefers to travel all over the world, everywhere but Canada. However, the Prime Minister must remember that, for our democracy to work, we must nurture it. We must take personal initiative and exchange ideas. Motion No. 9 destroys that trust in the ability of parliamentarians to do meaningful work for their communities. If this motion passes, it means that the Liberals have no intention of working collaboratively with their colleagues. It means that they want to impose their agenda without working collaboratively with the opposition parties. Even though the Leader of the Opposition has reached out to the Prime Minister to work collaboratively on the issue of U.S. tariffs, the Liberals have no intention of working collaboratively. Lastly, it means that the Liberals reward backroom dealings and secret agreements over the normal, transparent process of Parliament and committees, which reflects the will of Canadians. In any case, I find this situation absolutely shameful, and I hope Canadians will remember it when the next election rolls around. Regardless of which way the vote on this motion goes, I ask Canadians not to lose heart. I ask them to continue to believe that change is possible, that there are still some honest politicians and that Liberal arrogance does not define the current state of our country. I solemnly pledge, as do all other Conservative MPs, to continue to fight every day, in every way possible, to represent our constituents by fulfilling the mandate entrusted to us; to fight to give Canadian workers their purchasing power back; to rebuild the strongest middle class in the world, which we had under the Harper government; to bring safety and order back to our streets; to restore a government that respects farmers, their land and their trade, because they feed us all; to restore entrepreneurs’ belief that it is worthwhile to invest in Canada and to encourage innovation without being overtaxed on the wealth they create; and to restore the dream of home ownership for young people. We will fight this fight every day.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“If a party wins a majority of seats in the House, it should also have a majority on committees. That has always been the rule. The opposition can still hold the government accountable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, since Canadian Confederation, we have had majority governments and we have had minority governments. In terms of the motion that we are debating, all we are debating is whether, if a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of the positions, the votes, on a standing committee. For majority governments throughout our history, even if we go back into the Commonwealth, that is a basic principle. There are opposition tools. I understand the tools. I was in opposition for 20-plus years when we combine my entire parliamentary experience. Opposition still has the ability to hold the government accountable. Why are the Conservatives so fearful? Are they concerned that they do not have the ability as other Conservative parties have in the past?

Jacques Gourde, Lévis—Lotbinière

Conservative
“Canadians voted for a minority government because they wanted to hold it accountable. The government is using this motion to avoid that supervision.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “Canadians voted for a minority government.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on April 28, 2025, Canadians voted for a minority Liberal government. That is what Canadians wanted. In their wisdom, Canadian wanted to keep this government under close supervision and hold it accountable. Unfortunately, the government is now using Motion No. 9 to stop Canadians from getting what they want.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski—La Matapédia

Bloc Québécois
“The minority government is acting like a majority government. It wants to add more of its own members to committees and cut speaking time for opposition parties. I want to know if my colleague is worried this will make it harder to expose new scandals.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the world is upside down. We are experiencing something never seen before because this is the first time it has happened in Canada’s history. A government elected as a minority has managed to persuade members from different parties to join its minority government ranks and transform it into a majority government. Not only that, but the government wants to change the committees’ composition. It calls it a matter of tradition. In addition to expanding the committees by not just one but two additional government members, the government will be reducing the opposition parties’ speaking time. Is my colleague concerned that he might not be able to uncover potential new scandals?

Jacques Gourde, Lévis—Lotbinière

Conservative
“Canadians voted for a minority Liberal government. The Liberals now have a majority only because politicians switched sides, and that makes people lose trust in politics.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 39 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, this is a scandal in itself, but what saddens me most is that the Liberals, through their actions, are building a case for political cynicism in Canada. Let me remind everyone: Canadians elected a Liberal minority government. We now have a Liberal majority government, not because Canadians chose it, but because of defections.

Bernard Généreux, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata

Conservative

Linked statement

“The Liberals are using their majority to add two members to every committee so they can control them. This is an abuse of power. A Conservative government would never do this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals now have a majority and have decided to secure a majority on committees by adding not one, but two members per committee. If that is not an abuse of power, I honestly do not know what is. Can my colleague explain why, under a Conservative government, we would never have dared to do such a thing?

Jacques Gourde, Lévis—Lotbinière

Conservative
“The Liberals are breaking democracy with their tactics. It will make Canadians stop voting because they think Parliament does not care about what they want.”
  • 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, I can assure him that we have never dared to go as far as the Liberals have. I have to emphasize the word “never”. The Liberals have broken democracy. They are going to foster cynicism. I read a message last night from a young man who took the time to write to me, and he said he may never vote again in his life because of the Liberals’ tactics. Has anyone thought about the cynicism this could foster across Canada if this situation affects hundreds of thousands of people who will say that it is not worth voting because Parliament does not respect the will of Canadians? This goes too far.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“If the Conservatives were in power and gained another seat, they would want a majority on committees too.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, can the member honestly say that if the party had 172 seats, and then a Liberal walked across the floor, that the Conservatives would not want to make any changes? They would not want to adhere to parliamentary tradition and allow the government to have a majority on a committee, even if they did not have a majority on the floor? That is just silly.

Jacques Gourde, Lévis—Lotbinière

Conservative
“The Liberals are doing something shameful right now. I believe they may be destroying Canadian democracy for future generations.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 49 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 0 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, this will not take long and I will answer honestly. Shame on the Liberals. Shame on them for what they are doing right now. They may be destroying democracy in Canada for future generations.

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“I oppose this motion. It changes how committees are run so the government can avoid accountability. It does not reflect how people voted in the election.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the incredible citizens of Calgary Midnapore. We are here today to debate Motion No. 9, a motion that causes a lot of concern not only for me and for my movement but for many citizens across Canada, citizens who cast their vote believing that it mattered, that their vote would be reflected in the composition of not only the House but also committees. We find, with Motion No. 9, that this is not the will of the government, even though it was the will of the people, the will of the citizens. These changes would be thrust upon committees without the will of the citizens who voted for representatives to represent them not only in the House but in committees as well. I find this particularly troubling for three reasons. The first is that, in the words of the CBC, there is a complete lack of accountability. This is a government that needs accountability. The Liberals have failed to deliver for Canadians on a number of fronts, and Canadians continue to feel the pain of their decisions across their lives. We hear, consistently, about the trouble with the cost of living, and with groceries in particular. Every time I go to the grocery store, I am surrounded by citizens who are scared to put items in their grocery basket because they are not certain they can afford them. I think of purchasing a simple item like a basket of berries. We cannot even do this now for less than $10 usually. It is encroaching upon a double-digit dollar number just to purchase a basket of berries. The same goes for meat. There was a time, coming from Alberta, that citizens could enjoy our wonderful beef without concern. Now this is seen as a luxury. It is a result of the government doing a terrible job of managing the cost of living with their policies. As well, we have seen this reflected recently in fuel prices. Fuel is something we have an abundant amount of here in this great country of Canada. I personally do not accept the idea that there is a global shortage and that Canadians should have to suffer. If the government had been doing its job over the last decade, it would have put in place the infrastructure and the mechanisms so that we would have an endless supply of fuel instead of, now, forcing our citizens to compensate for its lack of oversight over the last decade. That is before we even talk about the carbon tax that the Liberals imposed and the industrial carbon tax that remains. The result of this, of course, is low productivity. We know that the U.S. has beaten Canada in productivity. It limits wage gains for workers significantly, resulting in high unemployment rates. It is no wonder that Canada lost 100,000 jobs in a single month and that our rate of unemployment continues to hover in the high sixes and low sevens. It is a result of poor policies of a government that requires accountability. Our productivity gap has become so acute in the last eight years that, according to numbers that have been cited, Canadian business productivity slipped 0.6% from 2017 to 2024, and nearly half of last year’s inflow came through mergers and acquisitions of existing Canadian businesses, well above the historical norm of around one-third. That is not new capital creation. It is not adding anything to our economy. It is not adding jobs for our young Canadian citizens. Today, the announcement of the sovereign capital fund is just ridiculous because there is nothing to go into the fund. Other nations that have created this kind of fund had a surplus. Instead, here, we see a history of deficits. For every consecutive year, since 2015, there has been a deficit. We see that again this past fiscal year with one of $80 billion. We do not know what to expect tomorrow, but we are concerned and worried. Nearly 80% of Canadians are saying that the cost of living outpaces their income. The government demands accountability. The fact it is creating these committee rules to not allow for this accountability is absolutely by design so it will not be held accountable by the official opposition. Second, this is a government that talks a good game about team Canada, but it really wants to do things by itself. It really does not want us to have the team Canada approach. Anyone who has any ideas that are not the Liberals’ are deemed un-Canadian. It is absolutely insulting to the so many Canadians who have ideas that are different from theirs. The Liberals said that we were not working with them in their effort to achieve things for Canadians. This is also not true. We passed Bill C-5, which gave them carte blanche to achieve anything they possibly wanted to, yet we are stalled out again with respect to major projects and achieving things for Canadians. They are driving the unity crisis as a result of this type of mentality, which has played out in the creation of these committees. I received a note this week: “I am so disappointed in our so-called democratic system. What a clown show. There is nothing democratic about floor crossing. When is this nonsense going to end? Who is overseeing this, and when will they fall in their job? Let’s just start with the lack of answers during the question and period segments. When a question is asked, it should be obligatory to provide an intelligent reply that actually relates to the question and not merely dodges the question. The Prime Minister should be removed from office for his endless conflicts of interest. I can’t wait for October 19th to vote for an independent Alberta.” That is what the government is driving with its authoritarianism, and that includes this committee constitution motion. I will also point out that the Prime Minister literally won office because he promised Canadians that he would be the individual who could get a deal with the U.S., but to date we have yet to see it. We have only seen his ever-changing position on the trade deal with our neighbours to the south. During the leadership race, he said that dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs by Canada should be given and should be aimed where their impacts in the United States would be felt the hardest. Then, on July 15, 2025, he said that a trade deal with Trump without tariffs is unlikely because there is not a lot of evidence right now that the U.S. is willing to make one. Again, he ran on this and he has not gotten a deal for us. In October, he said, “We are still negotiating further gains in [our] major sectors”. He also said, “As we speak, our team is negotiating. This is just not words. We will get a deal.” Then, in November, he said, “Who cares?” He said that we would make a deal as it was necessary, saying “It’s a detail.... I’ll speak to him again when it matters.” I will tell the House that it matters to Canadians. Then, as of this week, he said, “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become [our] weaknesses”, but just three days later he said, “We can come to a mutually successful outcome.” As I said, the Prime Minister won the election with the promise that he would get a deal for Canadians. The government talks a good game about wanting us to work together, but really he, as described by the CBC, is “authoritarian”. This move to take control of committees points to that. I will say that the third and final reason is that it is fundamentally undemocratic that committees are constructed in this format. The government got 169 seats in the last election, which is 43.76% of the popular vote, with the CPC getting 144, which is 41.31%. In the words of the CBC, this is overreach. It has an authoritarian streak. Canadians did not ask for this, so it should not be done.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our government is focused on getting the best deal for Canada with the United States. Also, because we won the most seats, our party gets the majority of seats on House committees. That is normal, but we still want to work together with other parties.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there. Let me provide a quick commentary. First of all, when it comes to the Canada-U.S. deal, I can tell the member what we will not do is what one of the Conservative MPs did. He visited with the vice-president, then he came back and said Canada was just having an “anti-American hissy fit”. Canada, the Prime Minister and this government will focus on getting the best deal we can for Canada. That is the bottom line. In regards to this whole conspiracy aspect, it is a very simple, straightforward process. If a party gets a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, it gets a majority of the seats in the standing committees. That is the way it has been historically. That is the way it is administered in the Commonwealth. In terms of this whole sense of co-operation, from the very beginning the Prime Minister and this government have indicated that we want to see collaboration. After all, remember, we have the majority government today, with 174 members. For our first action, we actually passed a Conservative private member’s bill. Is that —

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“Many Canadians voted for the official opposition. House committees should reflect those votes fairly.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 90 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “as this member is doing”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not appreciate being gaslit, as this member is doing. Forty-one per cent of Canadians voted for an official opposition, so they would like to see that reflected accurately within the makeup of the committees. I will point out that our member actually got more meetings than his Prime Minister. The member should think about that.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“Parliament usually agrees together on how to set up committees. The Liberals said they would work with other parties. Instead, as soon as they won a majority, they forced rule changes without talking to the opposition. I want to know what my colleague thinks about that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just referred to parliamentary tradition. It is a parliamentary tradition that we proceed by consensus when it comes to establishing the composition of committees. Up until now, the Liberals have said in their speeches that they would ask for input and collaborate. However, on the first day that the Liberals won a majority, they chose to act unilaterally to change the rules by introducing a closure motion without consulting the opposition members, including anyone in my political party. What does my hon. colleague think about that?

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“This is only the first step. The opposition should expect the government to make more unfair changes like this in the future.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think that this is only the beginning, that what we are witnessing is step one. We will see how things develop in the next few months or years. As undemocratic as it may be, I think that opposition members have to prepare for the fact that even though things are just getting started, we should probably expect more actions like these to come.

Ted Falk, Provencher

Conservative
“The Liberals want more committee seats than they should have based on their share of the House. They should not get that much control.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member highlighted a lot of areas. We know that with the stolen seats that the Liberals recently acquired from opposition members, they now have 50.8% of the seats in this House. What they are trying to do with this motion is acquire 58.3% of the seats in committees. That is actually very unreasonable. They are looking to have seven out of 12 members be Liberal members. Why would they not be happy with six out of 11? If the Liberals are so bent on having control of the voting, why do they not give up the chairmanship of those committees? Then they could have control of the votes. Would that not make them happy, if they had maybe 54% of the representation instead of 58%?

Stephanie Kusie, Calgary Midnapore

Conservative
“The Liberals are hurting our democracy. Canadians voted for an official opposition with real power, but the government took that away today.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is better not to give them more ideas as to the abuse of our democracy and the democratic process. The Liberals are capable of coming up with these types of ideas on their own. Again, it is such a sad day for Canadians because they did not vote for this and they did not ask for this. They asked for an official opposition that has all of the powers and the benefits of being the official opposition, and that was stolen from us today.

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