Is that in the petition as well? We will move on.
House of Commons Hansard #111 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.
House of Commons Hansard #111 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
An Act to Amend the Criminal Code Third reading of Bill C-225. The bill aims to combat intimate partner violence by strengthening criminal justice measures regarding coercive control and homicide sentencing. It introduces targeted bail reforms to better protect victims. Members from all parties highlight the collaborative drafting process and agree that this legislation is a necessary step to address escalating threats, resulting in the bill passing its third reading. 7100 words, 1 hour.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned Liberal House Leader Steven MacKinnon moves to end debate on Government Business No. 9, a motion proposing that committee membership ratios be adjusted to reflect the Liberal Party’s recent attainment of a majority. Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois strongly dissent, characterizing the effort as an undemocratic attempt to stifle oversight. MacKinnon maintains the change upholds parliamentary tradition and ensures committees function efficiently. 4100 words, 30 minutes.
Consideration of Government Business No.9 Members debate a government motion to adjust the composition of standing committees following recent floor crossings. Conservatives and the Bloc argue the proposed "supermajority" undermines democratic norms and accountability by ignoring the will of the voters, while Liberals maintain that increasing their committee membership simply aligns with Westminster traditions to reflect their new majority standing in the House, stressing the importance of collaboration and unity. 6400 words, 40 minutes.
Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders Members debate Motion No. 9, which restructures parliamentary committees to grant the governing Liberal Party a majority. Conservative and Bloc MPs condemn the move as an undemocratic power grab designed to limit legislative scrutiny and oversight of government initiatives and scandals like ArriveCan. Conversely, Liberal members argue that parliamentary tradition necessitates that a majority in the House must be reflected in standing committee composition. The House ultimately votes to pass the motion. 41200 words, 6 hours.
Ojibway National Urban ParkPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition on behalf of my constituents.
The petitioners highlight that the threat of wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters is on the rise as a result of climate change; that mass casualty events, including the 2018 Fredericton shooting and the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster, leave scars on their communities for years afterward; that evacuations, property loss, grief and uncertainty resulting from emergencies have shown to have lasting impacts on mental health and can exasperate mental illness; that, in November 2025, a grizzly attack on a school field near Bella Coola in British Columbia severely injured students and a staff member, leaving students and families in the wider Nuxalk community coping with ongoing trauma, which highlights the need for accessible mental health supports in remote communities; that Australia, New Zealand and the United States have introduced federal frameworks for addressing mental health following large-scale emergencies; and that the federal government is involved in emergency management, often in collaboration with provincial, territorial and indigenous governments.
The petitioners call on the federal government to support Motion No. 20 and work with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples, labour unions and other stakeholders to develop and implement a national strategy for addressing the mental health impacts of emergencies, including those arising from natural disasters and mass casualty events.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present several petitions today on behalf of British Columbians and my constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford regarding the salmon allocation policy. Petitioners note that the proposed changes by the government, which could compromise recreational access to coho and chinook, could undermine cultural sensitivities and the long-standing traditions of British Columbians who just want to fish with their families and eat healthy wild salmon.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from very concerned people in the Indian Head area who are expressing their outrage and their opposition to the Liberal decision to close down the Indian Head agricultural research farm. This farm has provided invaluable research for the agricultural sector so many farmers could have access to better crop varieties and better soil management. There have been all kinds of benefits from the research that has happened there, and the Liberals are shutting this research centre down.
The petitioners are calling on the government to reverse this decision so that farmers can continue to benefit from the world-class research done there. This is not just about the jobs that are being lost in the Indian Head community. It is about the broader impact on the entire agricultural sector from across the country. If the government is serious about food security and innovation research, it will reverse course. That is what these petitioners are calling for.
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, as it always is, on behalf of the wonderful individuals and parishioners of St. Margaret's Parish in Midland, Ontario, many of whom I hold dearly. These petitioners are concerned with the expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying illness is mental illness. They are encouraging the government and Canadians to support those living with mental illness with supports as opposed to offering them MAID and encourage all legislators in the House and the government to support Bill C-218.
Terry Dowdall Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the great residents of Simcoe—Grey and, more specifically, the township of Clearview. The Department of National Defence has purchased 700 acres of prime agricultural land to build an over-the-horizon radar system. The residents there are stressed and concerned. In order to do phase two, the department needs up to another 3,000 acres to make the radar run at its peak performance, so petitioners are worried that the government might expropriate. There are concerns over the environment as well. This property is beside the Minesing Wetlands.
Between food security and environmental issues, there are great concerns, so the petitioners are calling on the government to stop the building of the over-the-horizon site on this already purchased property, to prevent future acquisition of the prime farmland of the township of Clearview and to register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 950, 951, 952, 953 and 954 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would then ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to finish the second half of my speech concerning Motion No. 9.
As I mentioned earlier, the Liberals view the House not as a House of Parliament, it seems, but more as a theatre for themselves, where they tolerate no criticism and all they expect from people in the House are gratitude and cheers for their empty, performative politics. They very much live by Jean Chrétien's attitude of “It's called question period, not answer period.”
There is a former Liberal MP from the House named John Stewart, who actually went on to the other place to be a senator. This is not the Jon Stewart whom the current Prime Minister loves so much. Senator Stewart stated about proceedings in the House, “slipping things through the house may seem smart in the short run. In the long run it works to discredit both the government and parliament.” I could not agree more, and Motion No. 9 discredits both Parliament and the government.
I am going to go over a couple of examples of how oversight has exposed some of the corruption, some of the issues, with the current government.
In the 42nd Parliament, when I was first elected, Liberals, when they had a majority with the current government House leader as their lead on the operations committee, brought through what was called the “vote 40 slush fund”. This was a $15‑billion slush fund set by the government, which presented it with no backing of what the money would be spent on.
Again, I go back to King Edward when he formed the Model Parliament in 1295 and said, “what touches all should be approved by all”. The government seems to think that what touches all should be just approved by the Liberal government. The slush fund was $15 billion. When we asked one of the Liberal officials what the money was for, he said that it was presumptuous that the government would explain to Parliament what that $15 billion was for before we approved the spending.
Vote 10 of the Treasury Board is normally about $200 million or $300 million. In the 42nd Parliament, under a majority, the government ran that up to $1 billion a year. For decades, it had been in the low ten millions, 20 millions or 30 millions of dollars. The government moved it up to $1 billion a year. It rammed it through because it had a majority. What happened in 2019 when the Liberals lost the majority? They backed away from the vote 40 slush fund, and it has not raised its ugly head again.
In the operations committee, we were able to expose the ArriveCan scam that the government desperately tried to cover up. People remember that the Liberals tried to say that it was a life-saving measure and that it cost only a few million dollars, but of course, it cost well above $60 million.
There was the GC Strategies scandal, in which two people working out of the basement of a house racked up $15 million, $20 million or $30 million in billing to taxpayers. With McKinsey & Company, another one, $120 million from the government was paying off its friends and insiders. We were able to expose that because we had an ability to keep the committee going and not be shut down by the government. Billions of dollars was spent by the government on management consultants at the same time as the Privy Council came to us and said that actually there were people within the government who could do the work, but it was still going out to McKinsey and other management companies to spread Canadian taxes around.
Of course, there was the millions of dollars spent on the New York consul general's apartment on Billionaire's Row. The government desperately tried to shut that down. We were able to expose the spending because we had the ability, and they did not have the Liberal numbers to shut it down.
In the public accounts committee, on which I sat, there was the issue of green slush fund, which of course had been approved by the then industry minister, who is now the finance minister. There was the Trudeau Foundation scandal. We were able to force ministers to actually show up. Of course in ethics, there was the WE scandal and there was showing the current Prime Minister and his conflicts. There was also the “other Randy” issue.
I want to finish with a couple of quotes from Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker. Pearson said he recognized that the health of Parliament has to rely on the opposition's “right to oppose, attack and criticize”. Diefenbaker said, “freedom always dies when criticism ends.” That is what Motion No. 9 is about: ending the criticism of the government. Again, the Liberals want solely an audience, not an opposition to stand up for taxpayers.
Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing OrdersGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think we should be looking at the motion for what it is. It is very straightforward.
For majority governments, there is parliamentary tradition, not only here in Canada but also outside it in the Commonwealth. If a majority of membership makes up the House of Commons, a majority of membership makes up our standing committees. There is a very good reason for it. There is no reason for us to go against a tradition that has actually been very effective for Canada as a nation for generations, and I would hope the Conservatives see the value of it. I am sure that if the shoe were on the other foot, they would probably see the value in it.
Does the member not believe that we should be following parliamentary tradition?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like the government to respect the parliamentary tradition of “what touches all should be approved by all”. Again, I keep going back to the original Model Parliament's being called. The very point of having a Parliament is approving such things. The member opposite voted in favour of the vote 40 slush fund. He voted in favour of taxpayers' money continuing to go out the door without oversight or approval of Parliament, violating the very reason Parliament exists and violating the very reason the Westminster system exists.
If the member opposite wants to follow a parliamentary tradition, he should follow the one originally set by King Edward: “what touches all should be approved by all”.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised to hear the member for Winnipeg North refer to parliamentary tradition when asking my Conservative colleague whether he thinks we should follow parliamentary tradition. My colleague just answered the question, but I find that quite rich considering that parliamentary tradition would require, say, that the composition of committees follow the composition of the results of the general election that kicked off the current legislature.
I would like to ask my colleague something. Does he think that our Liberal colleagues have fallen for the spin, as we say in proper political parlance? Did they drink the mystery Kool-Aid and now genuinely believe that the Liberal government's current actions respect parliamentary tradition regarding the composition of committees?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is right. The Liberal members want to respect parliamentary tradition when it benefits them. Anything else they throw in the garbage, along with any sense of accountability, oversight or transparency. That is a Liberal government. The Liberals like parliamentary tradition if it suits them. If not, they dispense with it.
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, I find today's debate rather odd. Just a few days ago, by-elections were held in three ridings, one in Quebec and two others in the Toronto area. The next day, the Prime Minister said that he would continue to work with the opposition because that is what Quebeckers and Canadians wanted.
What is happening today is the exact opposite of that. We are concerned about increased arrogance and contempt for the parliamentary process and the workings of Parliament, which require an opposition that makes its voice heard and that, when necessary, works with a government that is willing to listen, take into account the concerns raised by the opposition and address them. Let us be clear: The 343 members of the House represent citizens who have a right to be heard.
To follow up on what my colleague just said in answer to my previous question, I would like to know what he thinks of this approach. Is he also concerned about the approach we are beginning to see from this Liberal government?
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he was going to do politics differently. It is clear that he is not. His politics are like the empty, performative politics of every member of the past Trudeau government and the current government. They are just empty, performative politics that suit the Liberal Party and serve the Liberal Party but do not suit Parliament and do not serve democracy or accountability.
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because what we are witnessing is not just another procedural move in the House. It is something deeper and far more concerning. For the past number of months, we have watched a pattern unfold that points to the reality of our democracy and its being under pressure, yet Canadians are not hearing about it.
It is not leading in the national news, and it is certainly not being examined with the seriousness it deserves. Instead, Canadians are being told a different story. They are being told that everything is normal and that this is politics as usual, but it is not. By-elections have been framed as sweeping wins for the government, as validation of a majority, but that all those by-elections did was keep the main election results the same.
The majority was secured through active recruitment of opposition members. Canadians elected balance and accountability, and what they are getting instead is a slow erosion of that balance, happening right now in front of them. It is not being resisted by the very institutions that should be asking the hardest questions: How was the majority actually secured, how did we get here and why are the Liberals actively recruiting members of the opposition for power?
Inside the House we know exactly what this means. Committees are where accountability happens. It is where the government is tested. Now, through a series of calculated moves, the government is trying to control them. It does not stop there. This majority was secured through the active recruitment of opposition members, members who were elected under one banner, by voters who trusted them to represent a certain set of values and are now being drawn into another. Where is the scrutiny? Where are the questions from the media asking why this is happening?
Instead, too often the narrative shifts. The focus turns to blaming Conservatives for raising concerns rather than to examining the actions these concerns created in the first place. Even more concerning is what we have heard from some of the members who have crossed the floor. Most avoid speaking openly about it at all, but one openly admitted discomfort with the democratic process itself, specifically with the election of the Deputy Speaker. Crossing the floor became, in part, a response to that frustration.
Let us think about that: a dissatisfaction with democracy, followed by a decision that helps consolidate power in the hands of the government. It is a complete dumpster fire. That should concern every single member of the House, regardless of party.
I want to make this real for Canadians. Over the past months, opposition members have come forward to say they have been approached; conversations have happened behind closed doors; pressure, subtle or otherwise, has been applied; and Canadians have not heard about it. These are not rumours. These are conversations taking place behind the scenes, away from public view and away from accountability.
I can tell the House that I was one of those members who was approached. I was asked to cross the floor. I was asked to leave behind the people of Kitchener Centre who had elected me as a Conservative, in exchange for aligning myself with the government. That matters, because when elected representatives are quietly courted to change sides, when the balance of Parliament is being reshaped through backroom conversations, we are no longer operating in the spirit of the democratic mandate Canadians gave us.
This is not just about me. It is about the people I represent. Kitchener Centre is not just any riding; it is Canada's innovation capital. It is one of the most dynamic regions in the country, a hub for innovation, arts, culture and creativity. It is a place where start-ups are built, where entrepreneurs take risks and where the future of Canada's economy is being shaped every single day.
The people in my community understand systems, incentives and when something does not add up. When they see a government attempting to reshape Parliament, not through voters but through recruitment, they recognize it for what it is. I want to speak directly to them for a moment. They deserve transparency, accountability and a government that reflects the choices they made at the ballot box.
Right now, what is being left out is scrutiny. Recruitment that deserves attention is not being covered. Patterns that raise questions are being dismissed. Democracy does not function on silence. It depends on transparency and on the willingness to ask the hard questions, even when the answers are uncomfortable.
That brings us back to the motion before us. What we are seeing is a government that is not content with the mandate it was given, a government that is looking to expand its power not through democracy or the will of Canadians but through procedural control.
That is the reality, and it raises a simple but important question. If the roles were reversed, would Conservatives reshuffle committees if we had a majority government? The answer is yes, but that is what Canadians would have voted for. However, we are missing one important question here. If we were elected in a minority Parliament, would we go against the voters, recruit members from other parties and manufacture a majority that Canadians never approved? The answer to that is no, because we believe the mandate given by Canadians matters. We believe the balance they choose should be respected. We believe accountability is not something to be avoided, but something to be upheld.
This is bigger than one motion. It is about whether we accept a path where power is quietly consolidated, scrutiny and opposition are weakened and the voices of Canadians are overwritten. It is about whether we stand up and say that our democracy is worth protecting and that the choices Canadians make matter.
Canadians are not asking for perfection from their government, but they are asking for honesty. They are asking for a system that reflects their vote, not one that works around it. When trust in that system starts to erode, it is not easily rebuilt.
What we are debating today may seem procedural to some, but Canadians understand fairness when they see it, and they understand when something crosses the line. Changing the rules after the fact, reshaping Parliament to avoid scrutiny, is not fairness. It is a shift away from the very principles that hold this place together. If we allow that shift to go unchallenged, we set a precedent not just for the government but for everyone to follow.
This moment matters. This is why we are speaking up and not backing down. No government, regardless of party, should be able to rewrite Canadians' choices. Conservatives will continue to stand against this, to call it out and to uphold a Parliament that reflects the will of the people, not the ambitions of power. This country and the democracy that defines it are worth protecting.
Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing OrdersGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of the last federal election. Canadians responded very favourably to our new Prime Minister when he talked about working together as a team to build a stronger, healthier Canada that is strong for all and looking for collaboration, for people to work with. If we have individuals who want to be a part of that team, I see that as a positive. Yes, we got a majority through three by-elections where a majority of Canadians voted for those three candidates.
Having said that, the very substance of the motion we are dealing with today is to have a majority, as we have in the House, in our standing committees. That is a parliamentary tradition. Does the member support parliamentary tradition?
Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, yes, a year ago Canadians elected a minority Liberal government that promised it would be collaborative with the members of the opposition and make changes in a collaborative manner. What we are seeing now is another broken promise from the Prime Minister because in no way is it collaborative to stack committees so that we cannot hold the government to account and be able to properly scrutinize legislation.
Not only is that a power grab, ensuring it is stacking the committees. The government would have the majority with one additional member, but instead of going with that, it wants two to really ensure that our voices are—
Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing OrdersGovernment Orders
