Debates of April 23rd, 2026

Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and maybe add some value to the discussion we are having this afternoon on a very important motion. I advise members opposite to not necessarily be too fearful from the perspective of being in opposition. In my political career, I have actually spent more time on the opposition benches. I understand the important role members of the opposition play when it comes to debates, motions and all the things that take place, whether it is in a provincial legislature or here in the country's national Parliament. I understand the value of the tools that are provided.

I hope to give a couple of good, tangible examples that would maybe assist people who might be following the debate or the discussion in having an understanding, at least from my perspective, as to why it is so important that we continue to move forward with this motion, which has been presented by the government House leader, and in fact, why every member should ultimately be in support of it. I do not say that lightly, because I suspect there will be many MPs on both sides of the House who would say that they are parliamentarians first and foremost, and that they are very passionate about the country we represent here in the House of Commons and the constituents we are here for.

If we believe in those two issues, or those two agenda items I just put forward, let me expand on it a bit. In the history of our nation, every time there has been a majority government, there has been a majority on our committees. We have not heard the representative from the Bloc or the two members from the Conservatives, one of whom is a former Speaker of the House, provide an example where there was a majority government, a majority in the chamber and a minority in the standing committees. I would pose the question as I did to my friend from the Bloc: Do they support the parliamentary tradition and principle that recognizes that, if a party has a majority of seats in the House, it should continue to have a majority of the seats in the standing committees?

It was interesting listening to a couple of the questions that were posed to the Conservative members when they were asked whether, if at some point in time in the future the Conservative Party across the way or some newly branded Conservative Party was to be in a majority government, it would surrender a majority on the standing committees. We will notice that, on both occasions, they did not even answer the question, because that has been an absolute given.

Then, if we take a look at it, I believe Canadians did get an opportunity to speak. Prior to the by-election night, when we had three by-elections, we did not have a majority. We had 171 seats. In order to have a majority in the House of Commons, we needed 172. Had we not won those by-election seats, we would not have a majority today. We will find that the response Canadians gave the Prime Minister and the government was very encouraging. We won all three of the by-elections. At the end of the day, it put us into the position of having a majority government.

I can recall the Conservatives make reference to individuals who, for reasons I would suggest are reasons of building a stronger and healthier nation and wanting to be part of a government that is aggressively taking a team Canada approach in dealing with the important issues our nation is having to face today, made a decision to be part of the government caucus.

It used to be the absolute opposite. Stephen Harper, and even other Conservative leaders post-Stephen Harper, did not have a problem with individuals walking over to their political party. I think the Conservatives are trying to diminish the principal argument that I am putting forward, which is that parliamentary tradition and the history of our nation, in fact the Commonwealth, is very clear that a majority of seats in the House dictates a majority of seats in our standing committees. That is exactly what this motion is proposing.

As I indicated, while in opposition and in government in the House of Commons, and I remember standing up when we were the third party, I would talk about the frustrations of a filibuster from opposition because of issues such as concurrence back then. I believe the record would show that I made reference to the need for time allocation as a legislative tool to ensure that legislation was able to pass, but it does not mean that we are going to have a default position, which Stephen Harper had with Peter MacKay. While I sat in my chair, he would bring in a bill, open up his desk and read the closure or time allocation motions with absolutely no discussion or debate, and that happened well over a hundred times.

The Prime Minister and the government have been very clear. We want to be able to produce in a very real and tangible way for Canadians, and we will work co-operatively with opposition when the collaboration is there to do so. The previous speaker, the member from the Bloc, made reference to the supply management issue. I remember the discussion. I was a part of the House leadership team, and we ensured that it happened. We can go back to when it was being discussed, the discussions that were taking place and the concerns, whether it was in the province of Quebec or Manitoba. I am passionate about supply management. I was glad to see the motion. The Prime Minister did not say, “Well, it's a Bloc initiative. We don't want anything to do with it.” At the end of the day, we were able to come together, in a collaborative way, and get the legislation passed, but that is somewhat rare. I hope we will see more collaboration in the future.

The motion before us would not take away any of the fundamental rights that any opposition party has been using for the last 15-plus years I have been here. There would be no effect on things like opposition days. Opposition days provide the official opposition and other political parties the opportunity to bring forward opposition motions on the issues of the day. Now, I disagreed with a lot of the issues, as there were a lot of more relevant issues that they might have brought forward, but that is my opinion. I respect the fact that they often have an opinion that is different from mine.

At the end of the day, we are not looking to ban concurrence of reports with this motion. I am anticipating that we are going to see concurrence of reports. Whether it is a majority in the committee, a majority in the House, or a minority, that is not going to change. I might prefer to see that debate occur the odd time outside of Government Orders so that we can have more debate on government bills, but again, that is a personal preference.

I can assure members that, whether there is a minority or a majority in the chamber or elsewhere, we are still going to see political tactics such as the official opposition standing up to move for someone to speak, which would then cause the bells to ring. I believe we are still going to see members opposite stand up to attempt to move adjournment for the day. There are all sorts of tools.

The only change we would see from today would be to recognize our parliamentary heritage and tradition. That is the only thing that would be affected today. I hope it would ultimately lead to more opportunities to build on relationships between parliamentarians. I have personally found that we often get relationships that develop in a different way in majority situations at standing committees.

Even in a majority situation, we have accepted amendments. Obviously, we have had amendments in minority situations in a standing committee. It is not the party that dictates whether the idea is ultimately going to pass. As the opposition party would say, it should be the majority of the House of Commons, which now passes on to the standing committees.

If it makes sense to bring forward an amendment, and the majority feels that is the way to go, then it will pass. I want to give a specific example. The reason I want to use this example is that we were talking about it earlier today, and it is with regard to Bill C-11.

The government has been working on trying to get sexual assaults out of the military court system and into the civil justice system for a number of years. The Prime Minister made the decision early on that we were going to invest in our Canadian Forces. We have already committed 2% of the GDP to this. We had 7,000 people apply to be members of the Canadian Forces in the last fiscal year. This is not to mention the drive to build an industrial military regime that complements Canada's security.

Part of dealing with the military issue is addressed in Bill C-11. It is why we have brought it forward. What would Bill C-11 do and why is it important to recognize this? It is because, when Bill C-11 went to committee, the opposition made substantial changes to the legislation.

Before Bill C-11 went to committee, things were clear. There was the Justice Arbour report. If someone wants to google Justice Arbour, they will see she has an incredible background in dealing with sexual harassment and all forms of sexual offences. She sat on the Supreme Court and was recognized worldwide, to a certain degree, on issues dealing with human rights. She did a report for the House of Commons after working with and meeting with people publicly, and off the record, no doubt, talking to thousands of individuals. In that report, her recommendation was that we, as a Parliament, establish the changeover from a military justice system to a civil justice system when it came to sexual assaults.

The Conservatives and the Bloc members united as one and told us what they wanted to see, and it goes against what the government believes is important with respect to listening to what Justice Arbour had to say. We have the debate today in the chamber, and they have made it very clear they do not support a change to the civil justice system. Both the Bloc and the Conservative Party have made it very clear.

Here is a flashback to two years ago, when the veterans affairs committee was meeting. Representatives from the Bloc and the Conservative Party sat on that committee and actually came up with a recommendation on the very issue that Bill C‑11 deals with. It said to transfer the jurisdiction for investigating sexual misconduct, and prosecuting its perpetrators, to civilian authorities.

Today, the opposition has changed its opinion, but the government still believes in the inquiry that was done and the 40‑some recommendations, of which I think close to three dozen have been implemented. The key one is this legislation. Because we have a majority situation, we are now in a better position to be able to pass it, as opposed to compromising on it, because we are listening to the victims.

If we look at why it is important, historically, for Parliaments to have a majority, that is one of the reasons. It is not that we are disregarding opposition ideas and amendments. I would compare amendments we have accepted from opposition in a minority situation. I am not talking about Bill C‑11, so members should not get too excited. I am not talking about Conservative and Bloc amendments, only those in a minority situation. If an amendment adds strength and value to the legislation, by all means it should be brought forward.

I would like to think that parliamentary committees, and I have argued this in the past, can be the backbone of Parliament Hill and the work that many members do. The opposition House leader talked at length about them with respect to the importance of things like legislation, financial matters, policy-related issues and the opportunity to understand and appreciate those issues that are critically important to Canadians. It is a wonderful opportunity.

Personally, I want to look at what is good, sound public policy, as I know every member of the Liberal Party wants to do, and take the actions necessary to support that, whether it is a budgetary measure, of a legislative nature or anything else. Canadians want us to work more co-operatively. Let us collaborate where we can.

The motion we are debating today does not take away the rights of members of Parliament. It reinforces our heritage and parliamentary history within the Commonwealth. I would like to think that there is an opportunity for everyone to see the value of legislation from a government perspective, at the very least, such as the suite of crime bills we have, which is such a high priority for Canadians, and we will be able to deliver on those.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was entertained by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's speech.

Every time I have risen in the House before to speak to legislation, the parliamentary secretary has accused us of filibustering and not allowing legislation to go to committee quickly enough. Now that the Liberals want to assert their majority to get a majority on committees, will he undertake and commit today to stop the rhetoric about how we should stop debating legislation in the House?

We have a right to stand here with our opinions. He seems to want to have co-operation until he does not. At the immigration committee, we passed substantial and reasonable amendments to legislation that were only overturned when it came back to report stage.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would commit today to being more collaborative in reality and not just in rhetoric.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with saying my desire is to be collaborative. I want to be able to see the advancement of good, sound public policy.

Two examples come to mind right offhand. The first is Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever that we could not have passed that legislation at the end of last year. There was absolutely no reason. The reason, ultimately, I would argue, was that the opposition would not let us do so.

A second example is lawful access. I have often heard opposition talk about the issue of extortion, yet we have the lawful access bill before us. There is absolutely no reason that lawful access legislation could not have been amended in some form, again, long ago.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many points to raise after listening to the speech by the hon. member opposite that I am struggling to choose.

He spoke to us of parliamentary heritage and tradition while putting on a show of virtue. According to parliamentary heritage and tradition, the composition of committees must reflect the composition of the House—something the Liberals are failing to respect today—and it must be negotiated and adopted by consensus. They tell us they have won a majority thanks to the by-elections. That is not true. Liberals were elected in those three by-elections that were already held by Liberal MPs. The majority was therefore secured thanks to defectors.

The last truly appalling thing my colleague told us was when he spoke of a bill and a study was that his government listens to the opposition when it suits them, but that, now that they have a majority, they will be able to do as they please, because his government is listening to the victims. He said this as though the opposition parties did not listen.

Give me a break.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member's question, I do not necessarily agree with his overall assessment. If members look at the legislative agenda of the government, there is a very limited amount of time for debate under government business. There is no programming in place. Over the last 15-plus years, there may have been an argument to start talking about programming.

I would like to see changes to the Standing Orders. I would be happy to work with members of the Bloc and others, in a co-operative way, to look at ways in which we can improve upon the system.

What we have been afforded, I think, is a good opportunity today to reset the dial and, hopefully, to see more people working to build a stronger Canada.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech from one of the most knowledgeable members of the House. He spends more time in this room than anybody I know and really does understand how this place works. He mentioned the lawful access bill, which was delayed by the Conservatives until they kind of came around and, I suppose, were convinced, maybe by their constituents or perhaps by law enforcement officials who were asking us to deliver on that. However, they slowed that legislation down.

Could the member please inform Canadians and the House how a change to our committee structure to better reflect the composition of Parliament would allow us to advance legislation that Canadians, law enforcement and officials require for their work?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the question. I think that is the core of it for me, personally. We have had discussions related to lawful access virtually since last June. It was a priority for the Prime Minister. It deals with things like child sexual exploitation, severe repeat crimes and organized crime. It deals with issues like extortion, public safety and terrorism.

There is absolutely no reason we could not have had that healthy discussion in committees and seen the legislation passed out of committee, even in some sort of an amended form, but that was not possible because the Conservatives refused to allow it to proceed.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently, and in justifying this motion, the government House leader called this principle “undeniable”.

Does the Liberal government not 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 and accessed on its own merits? A government that declares itself “undeniable” has told the House exactly why it must not be trusted with committee control. This control is control that Canadians did not give in a general election.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last federal election, Canadians gave a very clear indication that they want to see more collaboration, and we are going to see that collaboration.

Since the last federal election, the Government of Canada has done what it can to advance a legislative agenda that truly reflects what we heard from the electors on platform issues in that election. I have had to stand in this very place and shame Conservatives into allowing some of those issues to get through second reading and to the committee stage.

I am very aware of the games that take place. The member is not going to fool me on that issue. We have an opportunity, through the mandate that was given to us, to continue to work for Canadians and materialize in a very real and tangible way—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really outdoing himself today by making the claim that giving government members all of the power on committees will somehow lead to more co-operation.

The nature of a committee structure in which no single party holds a majority is that parties have to negotiate, work out their differences and figure out how to collaborate in order to get things moving forward. The new reality that the Liberals are trying to impose is one in which the government does not have to co-operate with anyone but can instead impose its will through an undemocratic majority, in fact an undemocratic supermajority, on committees that they were not given.

In what world is it even plausible to argue that taking away the need to negotiate and putting all the power in the hands of one party is somehow going to lead to more collaboration?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it might be more of a reflection of how the member opposite handles himself in a standing committee. If the member genuinely believes that all standing committees are dysfunctional, I would invite him to attend different standing committee meetings.

I have been in committees when there have been majorities, and it does change the optics; I will give him that much. However, I will also suggest to the member that there is a higher sense of co-operation, which I have witnessed first-hand. Giving a false impression does a disservice to the parliamentary process.

Let us remember, we have had majority governments throughout the years here in Canada, and typically, they work relatively well. Why would we not allow that to continue?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the government reconcile the fact that it is promoting co-operation and negotiation when we are being hit with this right in the face? In the end, we were told that the government was upholding a tradition. I do not understand. Someone please explain it to me.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at some of the comments. We have the principle of a majority government, which should also apply to the standing committees, and that is within our rules, and we have the Conservative and Bloc members saying no.

A compromise, to the Bloc and the Conservatives, is to say the Liberals cannot have a majority on committees. Is there another suggestion the member would like to make?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches by my colleagues, including my colleague from Winnipeg North. I listened to the speeches of several members. I certainly do not want to miss the speech by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, with whom I will be sharing my time. His speech will surely be very interesting because he is a very capable man, particularly in matters of parliamentary procedure. I think he is a reference here, after the Speaker, of course.

There is something wrong with the Liberals' logic right now. It is something I have noticed since the beginning of the speeches today and since I read the first version of Motion No. 9. Something just is not right, and I think it is coming from the top. It is coming from the Liberal Prime Minister himself. For years he was a CEO, a chief executive officer. He came here and decided that, from now on, he would get his bills and rules passed, that he would decide everything that was going to happen and that he was going to dig Canada into the hole. He may not have used those words, but that is what we are seeing right now. That is what is happening.

He forgot just one minor detail: Parliament is not a business. The Prime Minister is not Parliament's boss. All members of Parliament are equal, and every member of Parliament has the right to vote. The votes of all members of Parliament are what enable us to move bills and motions forward by working together.

Something else bothered me earlier. It seems that, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, Parliament is supposed to work to ensure that the government gets its bills passed. That is nonsense. That is completely false. It is up to the government to convince Parliament to pass its bills. I have to say that, since Canadians elected the minority government, things had been going relatively well. We offered to co-operate with the government on important bills, to boost the economy and to improve our relationship with the United States, because the Prime Minister said two very important things. He said that he was the only one who could resolve the tariff crisis with Trump. He also said that Canadians should judge him by grocery prices.

Now a year has passed. Opposition parties co-operated, but what happened to tariffs? People are paying more. What happened to food prices? For the fourth month in row, food inflation in Canada is the highest in the G7. We are co-operating. We have supported the government. The Prime Minister and the government decided things should get even worse. They decided to make trouble on their own. That is what we need to keep in mind because the Liberals had the reins of power. Our role was to co-operate and help them do things well, but, unfortunately, they felt that things did not go well. It is true that things did not go well, but that is not the opposition parties' fault. It is because they do not know how to run things.

Earlier, the government House leader said that the Prime Minister was clear: He expects a Parliament that produces results for Canadians. However, he was mistaken: the Prime Minister expects the government to produce results. We need to agree on the words “results for Canadians” because the Prime Minister has thus far failed to produce any results whatsoever.

How did they do that? We have heard a number of times that there were by-elections, that they have a majority and that the House and the committees must reflect the majority obtained in the by-elections. That is another falsehood. The outgoing members before the by-elections were Liberal. The people who were elected in the by-elections are Liberal. The by-elections did not change the makeup of the government at all. What changed that makeup, then? The government was determined and this CEO turned Prime Minister was obsessed with the idea of recreating in Parliament the structure of a company where he can pull all the strings, so much so that he decided to set up a whole operation to attract floor crossers. Through secret backroom deals we are not privy to, he wanted to attract people who set aside their values and principles, those for which they were elected and for which they were given a mandate from their voters, in order join the government's side.

They said so themselves. They said that they were going over to the government side, the Liberal side at that. That is how the government managed to cobble together a majority. It made secret deals behind closed doors so that the Prime Minister can continue to do what he has always done. He is going to make all of the decisions himself and run things into the ground, just like he did everywhere he went and with all of the organizations that he ran. We obviously do not want to let that happen. We do not want to leave all that power in the hands of a Prime Minister who has not yet delivered any results and who has not kept any of the promises that he made to Canadians.

We were talking about history. The members opposite keep repeating that, never before in the history of Parliament has a majority government not been reflected in the committees and that the committees must absolutely reflect the composition of Parliament. However, there is one small thing they are forgetting to mention. Never before in the history of Parliament has a government gained a majority by making secret deals with members. That has never happened. The membership of committees has never been changed during a parliamentary session and during a Parliament. This is the 45th Parliament. How was the government formed in the previous 44 Parliaments? A majority or minority government was formed based on the votes of Canadians.

In the last election, Canadians did not trust the government to give it a majority. They elected a minority government with a very strong opposition because they had doubts. Not everyone believed in the Prime Minister's message and pretty words. Canadians decided to give him power, but with a strong opposition to ensure he could not do whatever he wanted. Unhappy with the election results, the government worked very hard to send messages to almost every member of the other parties to try and see if it could draw people in and change the composition of the government. That is how we ended up with a majority government today: through secret negotiations and secret deals.

Now that they have their majority, what do the Liberals want? They want to change the composition of committees even though, once again, that has never happened before in history. Not only is the government going to change the committees' composition, they do not intend to do it by half measures. Instead of reflecting the composition of Parliament, where the Liberals have roughly 50% of seats, Liberal representation on committees is going to climb to about 57%. In other words two Liberals will be added to each committee to form a supermajority.

What will happen to all the great inquiries we conducted on ArriveCan, all the inquiries we were able to do on the Liberal green fund, or all the corruption scandals we managed to uncover because we demanded that documents be produced and because, as a Parliament, we were able to obtain papers that the government refused to hand over to members? What sad fate will befall committees? The Liberals are going to consistently vote down these motions, adjourn debates and use every available means to avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is what the government wants. This government does not want to be held accountable to anyone. There is a reason that we seldom see the Prime Minister rise here in the House to answer questions during question period. He does not want to be held accountable to members of Parliament. He does not want to do his job as Prime Minister. He prefers his job as CEO.

When people say that we have nothing to offer, that is not true. We have put forward a motion. Today, we proposed an amendment. We are prepared to vote in favour of this government proposal if the Liberals agree to let the oversight committees, namely the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, do their work and not change their composition. No one can claim that we have not made an attempt at a compromise, but they have not made any at all. It is all about power at any cost. They have given themselves the privilege of doing whatever they want, and too bad for Canadians and what they thought during the last election.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not about power at all costs. It is, as the Prime Minister has indicated, about delivering for Canadians, building Canada strong for all. That is what we are advocating for. The principle and parliamentary tradition are very clear. Even our Standing Orders state that when a party has a majority of seats in the House, it has a majority of seats in our standing committees.

Does the member believe that the opposition can work collaboratively with the government on trying to pass important legislation and on other matters?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we did. The first thing we did as an opposition was to collaborate with the government on the bill to more quickly make each and every big project. We collaborated, but unfortunately the Liberals thought it was not enough. They thought they could do better, but after a year, things are not better in Canada with the new Prime Minister, another Liberal prime minister. They are worse. We have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and food inflation is the worst in the G7. I could go on and on.

It is a bad government, and we cannot put all our confidence in it.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague's thoughts on the following premise. We are seeing the attitude of this government, which recently secured a majority and will have an even stronger one once the new members are sworn in. We see that at the first opportunity, the government decided to ignore the opposition and not consult with it before introducing this motion. Today, the government refuses to rule out the idea of using a closure motion to get this motion passed.

What does my colleague think this says about how this government is going to use its new majority?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an extremely important point. Committee composition is usually a collaborative decision involving the opposition parties. When a new government is elected, the parties meet and decide on the composition of committees. Now we have been told that it will no longer work that way because the government decided to add two members without consulting us to see if we were adding one, two or three or taking some away. We might have preferred to take some away rather than have the government add two. There was no collaboration.

They even floated the possibility of closure. I know my colleague is fairly new here, but I remember, back when we had a Liberal government, it was one gag order after another. He should get used to this. If things go on like this, obviously the government will impose closure every time opposition members oppose its ideas. The Liberals do not like anyone's ideas but their own.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of collaboration. “Collaboration” is a word we have heard bandied back and forth. It seems to me a basic truth that the way power works is that when power is dispersed, co-operation and collaboration become necessary, because if power is dispersed, people have to work together in order to achieve some result.

The committee I am on, the human resources committee, has adopted eight reports in the last year. It has been an extremely productive committee. I know there are many other committees that have undertaken important studies and gotten a lot of work done, and have done so through collaboration that is forced by parliamentary committees that reflect the reality that Canadians voted for, which is dispersed power through a minority government.

If the government takes an undemocratic supermajority on committees, that means that collaboration is much less likely to happen, because the power would be centralized in the government and there would be no pressure on it to collaborate. There is more collaboration in the present than there would be if the motion were to go forward.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague's comments, which are very relevant. Collaboration among political parties means making compromises. It means that someone has to make compromises so that we can ultimately come to an agreement and achieve something worthwhile.

Just this week, a committee report containing recommendations to improve a bill was simply rejected by this government because it did not like the ideas proposed by the committee. Compromise and collaboration will become increasingly rare.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it grieves me to observe that we are seeing an unprecedented attack on democracy in the country by the Liberal government.

Canadians in the last election chose to elect a Liberal minority government, which means that, yes, the Liberals continue in power. At the same time, power is dispersed. Opposition parties have a role in holding the government accountable and in being able to drive outcomes in terms of committees and in terms of legislation. We have clearly played that role responsibly, expediting legislation in certain cases, strongly opposing legislation in others. The Liberals have been pursuing this violation of our democracy, of our democratic institutions, by trying to take a majority that Canadians did not give them.

Let me clear on the issue of floor crossing. We have had floor crossing in the country before, individual instances where individuals came to different conclusions based on shifting events or, maybe, changes in their own thinking. That is not what we are talking about in this case, very clearly. What we are seeing in the country is an effort by the government to gain an undemocratic majority government they were not given by Canadians, by recruiting any and every individual, regardless of convictions and regardless of ideology, through backroom deals.

In recent weeks they have recruited someone who endorsed Avi Lewis and someone who endorsed the convoy. This clearly has nothing to do with shifting ideas or world views. This is about a naked power grab. In fact, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong was explicit about this. She said the Minister of Housing did not return her phone calls beforehand, and that he called her back the next day once she crossed the floor.

This is not about world view. This is not about shifting ideas. This is about a naked, undisguised, backroom power grab that is now being used to subvert our democracy. Liberals are using the bare majority that they have taken in violation of the will of Canadians and they are now using it to try to get a supermajority on committees. They are proposing a supermajority of additional members, seven members in total, which would allow them to do anything they want at committee. They have claimed that this is about co-operation. No, this is about subverting democracy. In a minority, parties have to work together. They have to co-operate to get things done. We have co-operated to get things done, in this Parliament and in committee.

The government does not want to have to co-operate. The Liberals do not want to have to listen to other parties and to Canadians who voted for those parties. They want to be able to rule absolutely, without consultation and in defiance of the democratic will of Canadians, which is why they are putting forward the motion today to give themselves a supermajority on committees that Canadian voters did not give them. It is wrong and it undermines the work these committees do.

Up until now, committees have been working to request information and documents from the government. Multiple committees are now in the midst of Liberal filibusters. The human resources committee, the ethics committee and the health committee are all in the middle of Liberal filibusters. They do not want to hand over documents that have been asked for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

National Framework on Skilled Trades and Labour Mobility Act

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

moved that Bill C-266, An Act to establish a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South for supporting this bill.

It is always a huge honour to stand in the House and speak on vital issues for Canadians. Today, I have an opportunity to speak at length on respecting skilled trades and labour.

As a former aircraft maintenance engineer, I spent countless hours turning wrenches at a hangar in my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia. When I was campaigning for re-election as MP for Richmond East—Steveston, I did not do it alone. I was supported by electricians, carpenters, construction workers and unions. Builders and everyday Canadian workers share my vision of a community and a Canada that works for them. It is for these Canadians that I tabled Bill C-266, a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility.

At its core, this bill recognizes a simple truth: Canada cannot reach its full potential if the people who build it, our skilled trades workers, are prevented from working where they are needed the most. Movement of skilled trades and labour across Canada is essential to the country's economic development, productivity, infrastructure and competitiveness. However, our economy continues to be weighed down by a system of disjointed licensing requirements, certifications and other restrictions. This has evolved into significant non-tariff internal trade barriers.

The IMF estimates that Canada's economy could gain nearly 7%, or $210 billion, in real GDP over a gradual period by fully removing internal trade barriers between the country's 13 provinces and territories. This is not just inefficient; it is unacceptable. Across this country, from the shipyards of Vancouver to the construction sites of Halifax, from energy projects in Alberta to housing developments in Toronto, employers are facing unpredictability. On one hand, there are acute labour shortages delaying critical projects, and on the other, there are skilled, qualified workers in other parts of the country who are ready and willing to step in, but they are held back by regulatory barriers that make mobility difficult, costly and slow.

A welder trained in Saskatchewan may encounter different certification requirements when attempting to work on major infrastructure projects in British Columbia. These inconsistencies do not improve safety or enhance quality. They create duplication, inefficiency and unnecessary costs.

The same holds true for major infrastructure projects. Whether it is expanding transit systems, upgrading ports or building clean energy infrastructure, delays in mobilizing skilled labour translate directly into higher costs and missed opportunities. Every week that a project is delayed because workers cannot be certified quickly enough is a week that Canadians are left waiting for essential services and economic benefits.

Of course, there were efforts to correct this growing problem. If we go back to the Agreement on Internal Trade in 1995, it would, “enable any worker certified for an occupation by a regulatory authority of one Party to be recognized as qualified for that occupation by all other Parties.” Regrettably, the AIT did not achieve this crucial goal, which is why in December 2014, the federal, provincial and territorial governments began negotiations to strengthen and modernize into the Canada Free Trade Agreement.

The Red Seal program has been an important step forward toward standardization, allowing certified workers in certain trades to move more easily between provinces. However, not all trades are covered, and even within the program, variations and administrative barriers can persist.

Efforts to harmonize certifications and labour regulations across Canada's economy made limited progress, not because electricians who reside in Manitoba have unique insight into the functions of an electrical circuit compared to electricians who reside in Nova Scotia or the risk to a trucker's safety changes radically when driving from B.C. to Saskatchewan, requiring different regulations and insurance, but because incentives favoured the status quo. Regulators looking to retain their authority and protect regional labour economies had little incentive to loosen their grip and provide easy access to competition from other provinces.

Skilled workers, understandably unenthusiastic about acquiring and maintaining credentials across provinces, could always find ready work down south in the United States. However, this status quo is over. Since President Trump's unacceptable comments about Canada's sovereignty and turning his back on the deal that he signed, applying tariffs to Canadian lumber, steel and cars, Canadians have started to see our relationship with the U.S. in a new light, but more importantly, how we view ourselves and our future in a new light.

The comfortable norms Canadians took for granted with our American partners, like trust and predictability, no longer exist. While time will tell if this relationship can be repaired, it is clear that Canada must forge a new path. As our Prime Minister has said, we can give ourselves far more than the Americans can ever take away.

Bill C-266 is an essential step in charting a new path forward for Canada. I have heard from the Canadian Construction Association, and it said, “The CCA welcomes the introduction of Bill C-266 and the development of a national framework to modernize, streamline and harmonize skilled trade certification processes. Canada's construction industry is held back by a fragmented internal market where labour mobility restrictions create costly barriers for workers and employers alike.”

From my alma mater, the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Dr. Jeff Zabudsky, who is the president of the BCIT, agreed and said, “Canada’s future prosperity is being shaped by large-scale priorities that rely heavily on a strong trades workforce. Whether it be building affordable and climate-resilient housing or infrastructure to strengthen national security, these national priorities all require a job-ready and adaptable trades workforce.”

Let me be clear: This legislation does not seek to override provincial jurisdiction, and I look at my friends from Quebec. Provinces and territories would continue to regulate training, certification and labour markets within their borders. That is both appropriate and necessary.

Through extensive consultations spanning at least nine months, the minister would engage with provincial governments, regulatory bodies, industry associations, labour unions, indigenous organizations, polytechnics and educational institutions. This would ensure the framework is not imposed from above, but built from the ground up, reflecting the realities of those who work within the system every day.

The framework itself wishes to deliver several key outcomes.

First, it would establish a comprehensive inventory of skilled trades across Canada. This may sound straightforward, but it is a critical step. Today, even defining what constitutes a skilled trade can vary among jurisdictions. A clear shared understanding is essential for any meaningful harmonization.

Second, it would map equivalencies among provincial standards and credentials. This is where the real work begins. By systematically comparing requirements, we can identify where trades are already aligned, where minor adjustments are needed and where more significant differences exist.

Third, and most importantly, it would introduce measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline regulatory processes. This would mean fewer redundant exams, faster recognition of credentials and clearer pathways for workers moving between provinces. Consider the impact of this on a carpenter relocating from New Brunswick to Alberta. Instead of navigating a confusing and time-consuming certification process, that worker could benefit from a system that recognizes their qualifications quickly and fairly, allowing them to get to work sooner.

Fourth, the framework would support modernization. As industries evolve, so too must the standards that govern them. By coordinating updates across jurisdictions, we can ensure that Canadian tradespeople remain at the forefront of global best practices.

Fifth, it would promote ongoing collaboration. This is not a one-time exercise, but a continuous process of improvement. The inclusion of indigenous governing bodies and organizations would be particularly important in ensuring that the framework reflects diverse perspectives and supports inclusive economic growth.

Accountability is also built into the legislation. The minister would be required to table the national framework in Parliament within one year, ensuring timely action. Annual progress reports would track implementation, measure improvements in labour mobility and assess the effectiveness of the framework, and within five years a comprehensive parliamentary review would provide an opportunity to refine and strengthen the approach.

The bill would create a structured, collaborative process to bring those systems into alignment where possible and to make them more transparent and interoperable where full alignment is not feasible.

The bill is also about national unity. Canada is one country with one economy. While regional diversity is a strength, unnecessary barriers that divide our labour market weaken us all.

The legislation represents a pragmatic, collaborative and forward-looking approach to a long-standing challenge. It would respect jurisdiction, engage stakeholders and focus on outcomes. I look forward to collaborating with everyone if the bill advances to committee. I urge all members of the House to support the national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility act and to take this important step toward a stronger and more unified Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish we saw more respect for trades workers from the government. Sadly, in the last budget, the government chose to cut trades workers off from access to student grants. It is on page 217 of the budget that people who go to private institutions, which generally includes trades workers, as trades programs are not offered at universities, are cut off from student grants as a result of a decision made by the government.

The Conservatives put forward a motion earlier this week, on Tuesday, asking the government to reconsider this policy, and the member who put forward the bill that is before us and who just spoke about respecting trades workers, voted against our motion that sought to give these grants back to students. I want to ask the member why he joined the rest of the Liberals in opposing our effort to get grants back to people in the trades.