Mr. Speaker, I am usually very pleased to speak in the House. I know it is a great privilege. I do not want to take this privilege for granted, but today I take less pleasure in it than usual because we are deeply disappointed, as, I hope, are most Canadians and Quebeckers who are listening. They are realizing once again that Liberal promises are just hot air, as they usually are most of the time. The way the Liberals are acting today is very cavalier.
I will begin by outlining some of my main points. The Bloc Québécois believes that committees must reflect the composition of the House. Government MPs claim that the opposition parties do not want to recognize this, but that is absolutely untrue. What we do not want to recognize is overrepresentation of the ruling party. That is what we do not want. The Bloc Québécois respects parliamentary tradition and believes that the composition of committees must be negotiated in good faith, by consensus. However, negotiations require effective communication. No one has communicated with us, so we consider the current process to be fundamentally flawed.
They actually could have found common ground with the Bloc Québécois. We are all adults here, as everyone knows. I hardly need to tell anyone that we are an intelligent opposition, we put forward constructive proposals and we listen closely to the government's proposals. We always make sure that whatever it is is good for Quebec. That is and will always be our criterion, no matter what anyone says to the contrary. People seem to be saying that we did not want to collaborate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I wanted to set the record straight on that, especially since the government seized a majority partway through its mandate. Legitimate byelections took place, and we fully recognized the outcomes. We have no issue with that. Those three seats were already Liberal seats anyway. That is not what changed the composition of the House.
Floor crossers are what changed the composition of the House. It is funny, because in this situation, the Liberals were negotiating behind the scenes. They were chatting people up to persuade them to cross the floor. Where is the legitimacy in that? I think that the voters in these five ridings were fundamentally disrespected in all this. People vote for a federal member. My riding has 108,000 voters. I would like to think that I am pretty good, but I know that these people were not voting for an individual. Many of them were voting for a political party. The legitimacy factor is missing from this majority.
Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois would have been open to negotiating, because the composition of committees does need to reflect the composition of Parliament. I would like to remind members that parliamentary tradition dictates that the composition of committees is decided by consensus at the start of every new Parliament. We are already sidestepping tradition. This is the first time that a government has bought itself a majority by negotiating with elected members of the opposition to get them to cross the floor. We are not entirely sure what they received, but objectively, that is what happened. We are not passing serious judgment against anyone in this regard, but these are the facts.
We had hoped to receive some communication. We even talked about it among ourselves. We thought that they would talk to us. The Prime Minister said, as recently as April 14, that all perspectives in Parliament are needed. That was not that long ago. He promised to work collaboratively with the other parties. He said: “The work ahead demands collaboration, partnership, and ambition to deliver at the speed and scale Canadians are counting on.”
Now, he may still have ambition, but so much for collaboration and partnership. In fact, that only lasted seven days. Collaboration lasts seven days for the Prime Minister, or rather the CEO of Canada. We have a Prime Minister who wants to move quickly, who has little interest in parliamentary procedure, and I say this politely, and who thinks that the opposition gets in the way. However, that is not true. We are far from that, in fact.
The Bloc Québécois was not consulted in any way, shape or form. Worse still, we received an email informing us that this motion would be moved, and here it is. That was it. Guess when we received that email. I am going to say this with a great deal of irony: We were just coming out of the House leaders' meeting. The leaders' meeting, for those who do not know, is when the House leaders meet. It happens once a week. That is where we discuss matters. It is a formal forum for discussion.
Of course, there are plenty of other opportunities to discuss things in the hallways; we can call each other or send a text. However, the leaders’ meeting is the formal gathering with all the leaders of the recognized parties. We talk about the agenda or the fact that someone would like to move a motion, for example, and we discuss what we think about it. In the end, we usually say that we will bring it up with caucus and come back with an answer. It is a constructive process.
That being said, barely two hours after we left that meeting yesterday, we received an email telling us that a motion would be introduced the next day and that we would be silenced in committee, because that is the goal. I urge people not to buy into the government's friendly rhetoric today, as it claims it has not affected the representation of opposition parties and that it will listen to all points of view. What it is not saying is that it is going to give itself a supermajority so it can shut down debates as quickly as possible the moment they start to become bothersome. Then it tries to tell us that it wants to work as a team and build consensus.
I think we are right to be skeptical. The government House leader is going to be quite disappointed. He was hoping just a moment ago that we would say that we are voting with him. Well, no, we are not voting with him. We will not endorse stacking the standing committees partway through this Parliament, because that is what is happening. The government House leader even went so far as to tell reporters that he was not ruling out using a closure motion to impose this measure. It really takes some nerve: intending to ram through an amendment via a closure motion, an amendment that is usually adopted by consensus and through discussion, without even discussing it once with the Bloc Québécois.
What is the rationale for that? I hope that everyone is sitting down. I see they are, so I can say it now, since no one will fall over. The underlying reason was allegedly that the Conservatives were against it, so it would serve no purpose to talk to us about it. That is what Liberals do. Now that they have a majority, we have no choice but to listen to what they say. That is about it as far as a rationale goes. It is deeply disappointing, especially considering that, as I said, the Prime Minister had pledged just seven days earlier to keep co-operating. The leader of the Bloc Québécois responded to that by saying that the Bloc Québécois's constructive proposals prove our goodwill. We felt that a hand was being held out to us and we took it. We said that we would be there. The Bloc Québécois is an intelligent opposition party. We work constructively because we are not here to score political points on a daily basis. We are here to advance the common good, the collective good. That is what we try to do. We are therefore deeply, even bitterly, disappointed.
It falls to me to explain this today. This is truly worrisome. I would like to point out that a Conservative member moved a motion. The purpose of Motion No. 27 is precisely to prevent changes to the Standing Orders imposed by a majority vote. Traditionally, this is negotiated and discussed, so when people stand up and deliver flowery speeches, like the ones we heard earlier, saying that this is what needs to be done, that it is British tradition and so on, I am sorry, but that is not good enough. The rhetoric does not hold water. The Liberals are trying to muzzle the opposition parties, and the opposition parties will not stand for it. That is that. That is the message I have to send today. This is troubling. When someone pledged to work together and then turns around a few days later and ignores any discussion, what does that say about the future? If the government maintains its majority, we are in for another three years of this. It is going to be a long haul. I am also sending this message to Liberal MPs.
I hope there will be internal discussions and a return to constructive negotiations. They cannot make speeches claiming that all opinions matter and then not take any of them into account. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons say earlier that committee work is incredibly important and that it allows us to explore issues in greater depth and raise questions, but that only happens when we have the opportunity.
With the plan he is proposing, it is all over. Everything is going to happen very quickly. It is like high-speed rail. It is like a bunch of things they want to rush through. Some things cannot be rushed. I urge the government members to reconsider and, in fact, to take their time. It is important.
When a government sets out to change rules like this, it must always remember that this is not a matter of majority rule. This concerns the institution of Parliament. We are talking about democracy in Canada and Quebec. The rules of procedure do not belong to the majority party. The rules of procedure belong to Parliament. That is why I am calling for co-operation and discussion. Furthermore, again, in case the Liberals did not get the message, let me say that if they had spoken to us, they would have found us open to dialogue, as we always are.
We can face facts. There is a majority in the House of Commons now. We have no intention of denying it. What we would not accept is to give the Liberals more than 58% of representation on committees when they make up only 50.7% of the House of Commons. I would like them to give me a reason to justify that. I really look forward to hearing it.
That is not it. There were other workarounds. There were other proposals for changing the committees that we could have discussed together. Once again, I keep coming back to the same thing. There were other options, but no one talked to us. Unless people talk, it is very hard to come to terms. The call has been made. I am leaving time in my speech to let people take in what I have just said and reflect.
There were other possibilities. I might come back to that if I have time at the end, but I do not want to run out of time. I am being given the excuse that the committee chair is not supposed to vote. I am sorry, but that is set out in the rules. If the chair always had to vote in committee, then it would mean that we were not doing our job properly. In last year's election, the public gave the Liberal government a minority mandate. What message was the public trying to send? Citizens chose to trust this government to govern, but they did not trust it completely. They gave the opposition a major role so that the government would not become a dictatorship by virtue of its numbers and so that it would have to compromise.
History shows us that many excellent laws have been passed under minority governments because minority governments work well. The government has been in a minority position since 2019. We are experiencing a change. I am not saying that the Liberals did not have a right to go after a majority. That is not what I am saying. We have to tell it like it is. When a vote results in a tie in committee, it is because there was no negotiation, no listening and no compromise. The government is saying that it is going to give itself a majority in committee because the Conservatives are filibustering. Let us hold on for just a moment. The Bloc Québécois has not done any filibustering so far.
Could such radical and unilateral changes not have unintended consequences, such as encouraging the opposition to filibuster in order to exert some influence, slow down the agenda or gain leverage? That concerns me a great deal, because I do not do that stuff. I think that, in committee and in the House of Commons, we are paid to make progress for the common good. That is why I think we should have worked together. What is happening today is truly disheartening.
House of Commons Procedure and Practice states:
Chairs are responsible for, among other things, presiding over meetings, maintaining order and decorum, ruling on procedural matters and playing a leadership role in the administration of the committee. Chairs do not normally vote, but can exercise their casting vote to break a tie.
That is possible, and we saw that happen in the House not too long ago when we called for a commission of inquiry on Cúram, the software that is leaving thousands of seniors without their pension cheques. The government keeps telling us that this is no big deal, that it is not a real problem and that not that many seniors are affected. It does not matter if not that many seniors are affected. Even one is one too many. Unfortunately, the Speaker cast the deciding vote and voted with the government. We understand that. Those are the rules. We are not happy with the final results of the vote, but those are the rules.
What is the problem with a committee chair having to vote every once in awhile? The problem is that I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons clearly indicate in his speech that the government does not intend to discuss, compromise or negotiate. It intends to move forward quickly and vote quickly. He made it clear that he did not want committee chairs to always have to vote. If the government, which does not hold that strong of a majority, did its job properly, then committee chairs would not have to vote so often. Meanwhile, the Liberals are talking to us about goodwill and saying that the opposition parties are putting up obstacles and going in circles, that they are delaying all of Canada's great legislation, and so on. That is hogwash.
The Speaker's deciding vote is used sparingly, but it is used effectively. Generally, the Speaker will vote in favour of the status quo to avoid controversy. This is well established and was not an issue. It is a fake excuse. The excuse the Liberals are giving is that they have a majority in the House and therefore have the opportunity to force this down members' throats. That is what is happening today. Rather than adding one member of the ruling party to each committee, which would have given them a majority, the Liberals are deciding to add two, just to be safe. They want to add two because the opposition parties are a nuisance and they do not want too many questions, challenges or suspicions. They do not want scandals to come to light. In the same speech, they have the nerve to say that, and then say that a committee is virtuous and extraordinary, the place where bills are thoroughly examined. Seriously?
Let us talk about fast-tracking bills. The high-speed rail project is a recent example of that. They are taking away everyone's right to oppose expropriation, they are rushing ahead and ramming this down people's throats. People will not have a choice because this is happening. That is kind of what we are seeing again today. The government says it is changing the rules and opposition parties will not have a choice. We will have to live with it. We might protest, but our protest will die down and everything will be fine. Then the government will be able to do whatever it wants as quickly as it wants, and Canada's CEO will be able to make things happen faster.
That is what I am hearing today, and I am very worried about what will happen next. Committee work is important. It is about digging deeper. I would like someone on the government side to tell me that the opposition's work is not important. We are the voice of the people. It is our job to look at what is being done and raise concerns, not to prevent legislation from being passed, but to ensure that good legislation is passed. To do that, we need to be able to propose amendments in committee that have even a small chance of being adopted. Those days are over. Based on what is being proposed today, we are going to say no and the vote will go ahead. That is what I heard in the speech by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I have serious concerns.
When we are told that things are not working, that we need to move faster and that this is a crucial change, I would respond that, since the beginning of the 45th Parliament, that is, over the past 11 months, we have passed 28 bills. That is not a bad result. I can compare that with other Parliaments. In the 44th Parliament, 30 bills were passed. In the 43rd Parliament, 35 bills were passed in the second session and 19 bills were passed in the first session. Minority governments work well, in my view.
What the government is doing today is trying to muzzle the opposition parties while claiming not to be reducing their representation, all while holding a fragile majority. The members who defected may realize in a few months' time that, ultimately, the government is further to the right or further to the left than they thought. They may realize in a few months' time that the government does not share the wealth as freely as they thought. I am thinking of the NDP member who crossed the floor. The last Conservative floor crosser may realize that this lot is a tad too left-wing. Perhaps the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie will get fed up too.
To conclude, I am calling on the government to change its stance and talk to us.
