Debates of April 27th, 2026

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is probably worse. That is right. Every day that goes by and he does not show up, it gets worse. Former prime minister Harper showed up. Even Justin Trudeau showed up; he is worse than Justin Trudeau. They showed up. They had the decency to face this chamber and to face committees.

The committees do great work. For example, we all remember the great arrive scam app that the government was held responsible for. It was discovered in committee. The great work of our committee members exposed the millions of taxpayer dollars that were wasted by the Liberal government. We remember the WE Charity scandal, where the Liberals were lining the pockets of their friends, their insiders. There was also the SNC-Lavalin affair, where they tried to pressure the Attorney General at the time. We remember the green slush fund, which was another massive abuse of power, of money. Do members remember the Aga Khan scandal, where they took money and they were found guilty of ethics violations? These were all things that happened and were exposed through committee.

I know the Liberals are upset. They are very upset, because they want power. It is all about power for the Liberal government. That is all it cares about. We can forget the last Liberal government, which they claim is the new government now; let us talk about the so-called new government. We have asked their finance minister to show up at committee. This is because we all heard about the $90 billion the government wants to spend on the Alto train. The minister of finance's partner is an Alto executive. There is $90 billion of taxpayer money going to the finance minister's partner.

The Liberals do not want to talk about the issue at committee. The minister refuses to show up. Just this morning we talked about PrescribeIT, another boondoggle by the government, hundreds of millions of dollars wasted. If it was the Liberal members' money, they would not be spending it. It is hard-earned taxpayer dollars. We have called that out at committee. They are sending billions of dollars to entities that are tied to Brookfield. The Prime Minister is a shareholder. It is his former employer. These are all things that Canadians care about. We do not want corruption in our country.

If the Liberals have nothing to hide, why not let the committees do their work? Canadians voted for a minority government. The people spoke. They knew what they wanted. They wanted the opposition to hold the government accountable. Yet again, with this new motion, the Liberals are trying to hijack those institutions as well. They will be rushing through legislation. They might go in camera, hiding everything from the public's view. We need tools to do the job. Strong oppositions make for stronger government. When we shine the light on the government, the Liberals are forced to act and actually do their job.

However, for some reason, and it is a growing trend, no matter at what level, they are afraid of questions. They are afraid to answer. This means they are afraid of Canadians. They are trying to silence the voices of Parliament. Members on different committees do a fantastic job. They do hard work, they research, and their team comes prepared to make things better, to make democracy better.

I know Canadians are demotivated because when I go back to my riding, I speak to constituents and I get phone calls. They are losing faith in our democratic institutions. Some of the comments I have heard are saying, “My voice does not matter anymore.” “Why would I vote?” “Why am I a part of this system?” That creates this negative image of politicians and of Parliament, but it also puts Canadians in a very demoralized state. When Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, they want to know that the things happening in this chamber are actually in their best interest.

With this government, again, it is control, censorship and shutting down Parliament. I can tell members that on this side of the House, with these great colleagues, we are not going to give up. We are not going to stop. We are going to hold the government to account every single day because that is what we were elected to do in this chamber. Whether it is through committees, questions here in this chamber, petitions or town halls, Canadians are going to see every single one of our members holding the Liberal government accountable for its actions. We are going to watch. We are going to raise concerns. We are going to be a loud and proud opposition, and we will hold the Liberals accountable.

Our country is worth fighting for. Our people, who sacrifice so much, are worth fighting for. The potential of our amazing country is worth fighting for. That promise of Canada is worth fighting for. We are not going to stop. We are going to hold the Liberals accountable. We will keep that fight going right to the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we have an amazing country. It is the best country in the world to call home. We have a Prime Minister and a government that work every day of the week to build Canada strong for all of us.

The member talked about abuse of power. We could easily talk about the past, about “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power" and the evidence that was compiled. We could talk about the dozens of infractions. However, let us put the past behind us and talk about going forward.

All that is happening in this motion is that we are recognizing that if a party has a majority of seats on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets a majority of seats in the standing committees. That is the history and the tradition of Parliament here in Canada and the Commonwealth. Does the member believe in that principle?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the tens of thousands of folks who elected me. I believe in the millions of people who voted for this opposition to do our job to hold the government accountable.

The government made backroom deals to manufacture this majority. If the Liberals had some decency, they would keep our committees the way they are, let Canadians hear the truth, stop this power grab and stand up for democracy.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, by every objective measure, the Liberal government has had more ethics violations and has been accused of more corruption than any government in Canadian history.

My hon. colleague gave an excellent speech outlining some of the concerns he has in regard to what the government will do when it is given more power. Could he expand on that a little further and help Canadians understand the fear they should have when the government tries to take more power?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolute power comes with absolute responsibility as well. We have seen a pattern in the past. The member talked about ethics violations. The government has been found guilty of 10 ethics violations. Guess what. The punishment was 200 bucks.

If it was not for the work at our committees, and if it was not for the work of the opposition, the Liberals would try to hide from those scandals, and Canadians would never know.

If they are not afraid of the work they are doing, let the committees stand. Let Canadians see the truth. When we shine a light on the government, we make better government. That is our job, and we are not going to stop fighting for that.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, who does this motion give control to? Does it give control to the Parliament or to the Prime Minister's Office? What are we trying to hide here?

I would like the hon. member to list all of the compromised situations we are going through right now with the party opposite. What is it going to do in the future? Who is going to hold the Liberals accountable? With this makeup of committees, I do not think anybody is going to know what they are doing.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned that in my speech. It is a great question. It does require some follow-up. We have seen the Alto scandal that is unfolding in front of us. That is a big problem. The PrescribeIT scandal that we asked the AG to investigate today is a massive scandal. There are tons of others.

For example, today the Liberals announced the bankers special fund for debt, where they are going to be putting billions of dollars into some sort of debt financing, which is going to, again, open the government up for more scandals. It is a slush fund the Liberals are setting up. Where there is money, they have a history of corruption. They have been caught in the past.

We are going to keep on fighting that good fight. We are not going to stop. I know they want us to stop. They are trying very hard. We are not going to stop. We are going to keep fighting, and we are going to hold them accountable.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an expression that describes Canadian election outcomes: The people are always right.

What did the people of Canada collectively decide as the outcome of the last election?

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they wanted a minority government where there were checks and balances in place, where we held the Prime Minister accountable, where we held him to his promises. The Prime Minister has broken all his promises. He is making up things as he goes. He is literally trying to control and censor Parliament. He is trying to take control of committees so he can push his radical agenda on Canadians. That is not what they signed up for. We are going to make sure we hold him accountable for that.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been meeting with many people in Montmorency—Charlevoix recently. I have been having a lot of meetings. People are becoming increasingly interested in politics. I had a really interesting conversation with one woman who came to see me. She said something that really stuck with me. She told me that she was not really sure what we were doing in Ottawa, but she did not think the Liberal government was there for the people. She said that if no one were keeping a close eye on things, she thought everything would go off the rails.

The woman in question does not have a background in political science. She has not read the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. She does not know what an oversight committee is. Still, she instinctively understood something that is fundamental to our democracy, something the Liberals seem to forget far too often, specifically that democracy works best when the opposition is able to do its job. It makes everyone better.

What we are debating today with Motion No. 9 is not really a matter of parliamentary procedure. It is not really a technical debate about committee composition. I believe it is a much simpler and more fundamental issue for democracy. The real question is this: Who is monitoring the government?

I was sent here by the people of Montmorency—Charlevoix. They are workers, families, retirees and entrepreneurs. These are people who get up in the morning. They pay their taxes. They work hard. They expect the government to respect them, not just by saying that it has the right to do something because it is in the fine print. No, the government shows respect by respecting the spirit of the law. Ethics are more challenging than the law itself.

Let us talk about rights. Being a member of Parliament is not a right. It is not a title. It is not a career. It is not something that is owed to us. It is a privilege granted to us by citizens. Our mission is to serve Canadians. With that privilege comes a responsibility that I take very seriously. I want to make sure that somebody is watching, that somebody is asking the tough questions and that somebody is holding the Liberals accountable.

Our colleagues on the other side of the House do not seem to like that mission very much. I will give a very simple example. Last week, I was at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. A Liberal was serving as chair. During my colleague's opening remarks, she interrupted him six times in six minutes just as he was preparing to ask a question. It was because she did not like what he was saying. It was not the version she wanted to hear, so she took it upon herself to interrupt him over and over.

I am not even referring to the 17 and a half hours of Liberal monologue that was used to prevent the Minister of Finance and National Revenue from testifying about a recusal he himself had made and failed to follow through on. It was a perfect demonstration of what lies ahead if this motion is passed today. In a parliamentary democracy such as ours, oversight is not optional; it is not a courtesy the government extends to the opposition. It is the foundation upon which everything else rests.

Let us look at the facts. They are pretty straightforward. A year ago, Canadians gave the Liberals a minority mandate. It was not a majority. It was a clear minority, sending a message that required no interpretation: The people told us to co-operate and work together in the interest of Canadians. Committees were set up to respect the people's vote. They were composed of four Liberal members, three Conservative members and one Bloc Québécois member. The chair was either a Liberal or a Conservative, depending on the type of committee. For oversight committees, the chair came from the opposition. Why was that? It was to make sure that the government could be held accountable for its decisions.

Eleven months later, after backroom deals and undemocratic negotiations that ignored Canadians' voting rights, the Liberals scraped together a slim majority. The very next morning, what did they do? They brought forward a motion to take control of the committees. That was the first thing they did with their fragile majority. The very first thing was to try to get the upper hand over the people whose job is to monitor them.

Even Radio-Canada, on what I would describe as a very pro-liberal panel, characterized the Prime Minister's approach as authoritarian and described Motion No. 9 as an abuse of power. That is quite something, coming from CBC/Radio-Canada.

Let us also talk about the mechanics of the Liberals' fragile majority. Let us talk about the floor crossers. Every time a member crossed the floor to join the Liberals, the timing coincided perfectly with a period of political pressure on the Liberal government. Just as the Liberals presented the largest deficit budget in Canadian history and the public was still waiting for results, one member turned his back on his constituents and crossed the floor. Just as he was facing uncomfortable scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest, the Liberals recruited him.

Another example was when the government needed to change the narrative. Members will recall that it was because the Leader of the Opposition travelled all over the world, appearing on podcasts to convince the American public that Canada is still needed and that it is a strong ally. The Leader of the Opposition travelled all over the world and was highly respected.

The Leader of the Opposition had been pitch perfect. The Liberals needed to change the narrative about their failures, so, lo and behold, someone crossed the floor. We were told that it was a matter of conscience and personal convictions. That was not a coincidence; it was a pattern. It is clearly a strategy.

I am going to explain what Motion No. 9 does in a language that everyone will understand, especially at this time of year. Let us imagine that we are in game seven of the playoffs. The series is tied at three wins apiece. The arena is packed to the rafters. Millions of people across Quebec are watching the game. The blues are on one side, the reds are on the other. The third period starts. The referees hit the ice. What do they do? They head over to Jon Cooper, high-five the players, have fun with them. They take a little sip from the team's cup. They chat with Jon, who points at certain players. They take notes. Fans start wondering what is going on. What is worse, the commentators are already announcing the final score. Those same reporters are saying that the Habs took a beating before the third period even began.

What would people say? Would they accept that outcome? Would that inspire confidence in us all? Does that sound like an honest game? No, it does not, because everyone understands a basic truth: A person cannot judge their own case. That is exactly what Motion No. 9 does, in the end. It turns the Liberals into very biased referees.

We are not talking about abstract committees. We are not talking about committees that produced no results. We are talking about committees that, among other things, probed the ArriveCAN scandal, in which $59 million of taxpayers' money was spent on an app that should have cost a few million dollars, with contracts awarded without a call for tenders to a four-person firm working out of the basement of a house not far from Parliament. It took nine different investigations to start scratching the surface of that scandal, and it all started with an oversight committee.

An oversight committee launched the investigation into the Liberal green fund. An oversight committee first addressed the issue of foreign election interference before the inquiry into foreign election interference was launched. It was also oversight committees that shed light on the Prime Minister's potential conflicts of interest with Brookfield. If, in the near future, Canadians stop hearing about scandals, it is not because there are no more scandals. It is simply because the government paid off the referees.

I am going to say something that may surprise my colleagues on the other side of the House. I understand the theory behind what they want to do. Traditionally, a majority government holds a majority in committees. It is true that this is a parliamentary convention. If the Liberals had received a clear mandate from Canadians a year ago to ensure that their election platform was fulfilled and if everyone had gone to the polls to vote for a majority government, I would not be here debating today.

However, that is not what happened. A minority government was elected, but it engineered an artificial majority through timely defections, dubious funding, promised perks, trips, and potential or actual investments in certain constituencies. The first thing this government is doing with that majority is locking down the oversight mechanisms.

Men who built our democracy long before my time have explained it better than I can. John Diefenbaker, Canada's 13th prime minister, said that “freedom always dies when criticism ends”. Lester B. Pearson, our 14th prime minister, who was a Liberal, said that the health of Parliament relies on the opposition's right to oppose, attack and criticize. Mr. Pearson understood that the health of democracy depends on an opposition that can do its job. This is not a Conservative idea, but a democratic one. It is quite simple to understand.

What the opposition is asking for today is simple and reasonable. It costs nothing, unless a government has something to hide. Let the Liberals have their majority on legislative committees. That is their right. However, for committees that have an exclusive mandate to monitor the government—the public accounts committee, the government operations committee, the ethics committee—we need the current composition to stand. That is the balance that Canadians have asked for, the balance that allowed a light to be shone on the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest, apparent conflicts, violations of his conflict of interest screen and phony recusals that undermine Canadians' trust in our institutions. That is the amendment we are proposing, and I urge every member here to ask themselves one question: If, in the future, a government is elected that we do not trust, would we want to have tools to monitor it?

The woman I met was right when she said that if no one keeps a a close eye on things, everything will go off the rails. When the priority of a government with a new majority is to gain control over the people who monitor it, I can say that this woman was right. If Motion No. 9 is adopted as is, the next time that this woman is proven right, no one will be able to tell her so.

In closing, the opposition exists for several fundamental reasons. We are here to analyze, to ask questions on behalf of those who sent us here. We are here for the workers of Montmorency—Charlevoix who pay taxes and want to know how their money is being spent. We are here to hold the government to account. I will say one last thing. We are here because Canadians from Victoria to Gaspé deserve a government that is not afraid to answer questions. We must reject Motion No. 9.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said this a great deal already this afternoon: It is a fairly straightforward motion that says that if a party makes up a majority of the membership on the floor of the House of Commons, it gets to have a majority of the members on the standing committees.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives are putting forward an argument. If a party had a 172‑seat majority and one person walked over to the opposition, the opposition is saying that it would be taking the position it is taking right now. That would be ridiculous. We know that it would not do that.

Let us take a look at the tradition, heritage and history of Parliament. I think we recognize that a majority is in fact a majority that should be on the standing committees.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not a very good question, but I will answer it. If my colleague wants to talk about history, we can say that the past 11 years have been quite disappointing in terms of this government's decisions. As I said in my speech, I think it is very important to stop focusing on the minutiae and the right to do something. The Liberals are always telling us that they have the right to do this or that, even if it is unethical. There is a comma or a period in the law somewhere that gives them the right to act that way. However, who makes the laws?

Ordinary people are fed up with this. They want a government that prioritizes ethics, a government that understands that doing what is ethical is harder than doing what is allowed. They want a government that will be there for them. Citizens created institutions to serve them, not so that those institutions could serve themselves.

My response to my colleague is that perhaps the government should adapt to the citizens who voted for it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech. He concluded his speech by saying that we need to vote against Motion No. 9. We can debate the substance of the motion, and I would tend to agree with him on that.

That being said, what truly bothers me, what irks me and what is so contrary to my values is the way the Liberals are preparing to pass Motion No. 9, in other words, by imposing closure. That does not work. That takes the debate out of the equation. What I find particularly rich and particularly difficult to accept is the fact that the first thing this Liberal government does as a majority government is to use a closure motion to shove down our throats an overhaul of committees that is not even representative of Parliament.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. If that is the Liberals' first move as a majority government, what does he think the next three years have in store for us?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague. I think we all know the answer. We have seen it. I, for one, came face to face with it last week when I sat through an intense 17‑and‑a‑half‑hour Liberal monologue that was intended to ensure that a minister who had recused himself but did not want to come and answer questions would not be called to appear. We saw it last week when my colleague started speaking and was cut off six times by the Liberal serving as chair.

The Liberals do not want us to question their decisions because they think they are right. They are here for themselves, not for the people. Let me tell members something: We need a strong opposition. We need a Parliament that respects the opposition's work. It is high time the Liberals got that through their heads.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about a voter in his riding who understands that the Liberals are not here to defend the interests of ordinary Canadians and Quebeckers.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. How do his voters feel about the fact that, even though Canadians elected a minority government and a strong opposition, the Liberals want to take control of committees so they do not have to co-operate with any other parties anymore?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the member asked his question in French. I thank him for that. Bilingualism is an asset, and we are seeing that here today.

It is simple enough. The public is watching. They thought that Parliament would be forced to collaborate, that Canadians would finally have a Parliament that puts the public's interests first, rather than a government that only puts its own party's interests first. What we are experiencing here is the complete opposite.

This is how it has been from the start. Every week, we are accused of blocking Parliament's work, even though we are suggesting ways to improve the Liberals' proposals so that everyone benefits in the end. The Liberals do not like that. What they want is simply what they want, when they want it and how they want it. Unfortunately, that is not what the public voted for. It is high time the Liberals realized that this is not an autocracy, but a democracy.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today. It is always an honour to rise in the House. I am speaking today as part of the debate on a key issue, specifically government Motion No. 9. The purpose of this motion is to introduce changes that could be described as innovative. These are unprecedented changes aimed at altering the composition of committees.

We know what the topic is before us. It is certainly unprecedented because the situation is unprecedented. We have never had in this place a change after an election where the composition of committees is to be changed because, according to the government, there are now more Liberal MPs than there were after the election. There is no question regarding the numbers: the result is that we have moved from a minority Parliament to a majority Parliament.

It gives me an opportunity to get to some of the basics that we very rarely get to talk about in this place, which is assumptions that are made about the nature of committees and the rights of individual members. Unquestioned, in the way this motion is put forward, is the notion I wrote to the Prime Minister about, after the election. I said, “Please do not forget to include, when they are considering committee makeup, the very respected and experienced parliamentarians who happen at the moment to be in an unrecognized party.” I was speaking not of myself and the Green Party, but of, at that point, seven New Democratic Party MPs who were experienced, thoughtful parliamentarians who all had good experience on committees.

We knew we had a lot of new MPs. We have seen problems where committees can become overtaken by an effort to filibuster, but it is not always the case. Certainly, experienced MPs with committee experience are worth consideration to put on committees. That certainly is not immediately the issue at hand with the numbers and rejigging the numbers to ensure that there is a Liberal majority of members on those committees. I am unfortunately in a position where I cannot say what the Prime Minister thought about my proposal because, although I put a lot of thought and effort into that letter, I did not get so much as a courtesy reply, “We have received your letter and we will get back to you at some point when we have absolutely nothing better to do and can consider it.”

I went through the research to confirm what I understood to be the case, which is the status of every member of Parliament. I put it the other day to the hon. government House leader, who agreed with me. “Oh yes indeed, all members are equal in this place. Oh yes indeed, we all have equal rights,” said the hon. leader of the government in the House. Obviously, yes, that is our fiction, but our reality is somewhat different. I had more rights in this place when I was first elected in May 2011 than I have today.

As is always the case, larger and more powerful parties spend a great deal of effort to reduce the rights of smaller parties. Smaller parties and opposition parties spend a lot of effort trying to scupper what a larger party wants to do when it is in government. It is kind of an endless cycle and it is not really in the interest of democracy. It is also not what happens in other Westminster parliamentary systems around the world.

I am going to spend a bit of time now going back through the recognized party rules. What does it mean to be a member of a recognized party? What are their rights in that situation? I double-checked with our Clerk before I wrote the letter to the Prime Minister, to say, “Am I right? Is it the case?” I just wanted to double-check that nothing has changed in our rules. In 1963, Parliament passed a law that created the concept of a recognized party. Without any self-interest, the members of the larger parties decided larger parties should by right have money in order to support their work in Parliament. Because larger parties have so much more work than smaller parties, goes the fiction, they need public funds to do the work of MPs in Parliament. That is the recognized party law from 1963. It has been unchanged. It says that if they have 12 members, they get money. That is all it says. It does not say anywhere that if the party has fewer than 12 members, they do not get as many questions in question period. It does not say anywhere that if they have fewer than 12 members, they have no right to be a full member of any standing committee.

I double-checked with the clerk. I suggested to the clerk, and I hope the clerk does not mind me recounting the conversation, as I do not think it was terribly private, that this constitutes a really bad habit, this practice of saying that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands cannot sit on any committee and would get one question once a week at the end of question period, etc. That is not part of the recognized party law. That is a bad habit. The clerk put it into more parliamentary language: It is a practice of long standing. In other words, I did not have it wrong. There is no law or rule that says members of Parliament from whatever size party cannot be full members of a standing committee. It offends no rule. It offends no law. It just ignores a practice of long standing. However, it adheres far more closely to our beautiful fiction that all members of Parliament are equal to every other member of Parliament and that the Prime Minister is merely primus inter pares, first among equals.

We know that when the recognized party rule was created, it created two tiers of MPs. One is those from larger, recognized parties. For citizens who may be watching this discussion, the minute we get 12 members of Parliament, we get about $1 million in extra resources from the parliamentary budget to support our parliamentary work. We have had cases, and I will not mention them, where parties have used the money they get for parliamentary work quite inappropriately, and I would say illegally, for partisan purposes. However, that is a separate question. The money is the only thing the 1963 recognized party law is about. Rights to participate in committees are not a part of that, nor are rights in question period, etc.

Then we go to this: How far and wide is this practice in Westminster parliamentary democracy? How much did this Canadian idea of recognized parties catch on? The answer is, not at all, not anywhere. We are the only Westminster parliamentary democracy that ever created the idea that there are two tiers, that larger party MPs or their parties get money—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke is rising on a point of order.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion has to do with the number of positions the Liberals are putting on committees, not what a party is. That is not the discussion here. It is the number of people allowed on a committee.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke for her intervention. I will say that we allow a broad latitude on discussions. I see where the member is going, relating it back to the question at hand, so I will allow her to carry on.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am putting forward is entirely on point with respect to the motion we have before us. The assumption that underlies what the government is doing with this motion is that it was beyond even consideration that there should be seats on the committee for members of the New Democratic Party or the Green Party or any members who happen to sit in this place as independents. There is no rule against it. I think most members of Parliament, if I gave a pop quiz, would be surprised to hear that we are the only Westminster parliamentary democracy that uses this concept of a recognized party at all.

Beyond that, when we look at the results after an election, if we are looking at proportionality, which is at the essence of the government's position in Motion No. 9 because it now has a majority of representation in this place, we want committees to actually reflect the way people voted, with the number of seats at committee reflecting the number of votes obtained in an election, to reflect the democracy of this House into each committee. I think it would have been worthwhile, although I note that it was not considered by the Liberal benches, to consider that proportionality would include the approximately or somewhat under 8% of Canadians who did not vote for any of the recognized parties. That would be some representation on committees, which the Liberals could still have considered when putting forward Motion No. 9, and I think they should have considered it.

As I said, I wrote the Prime Minister about the composition of committees at the very beginning of his mandate to suggest that we want committees to work and that experienced parliamentarians from any party should be considered for full membership because it offends no rule at all, and it reflects more of the principles on which we believe this place to be founded in a Westminster parliamentary democracy.

We are all equal, and each and every one of us has the same rights, the same powers and the same tools to find solutions for Canadians.

When I speak to the motion, it actually is important and directly on point to point out that the recognized party law has been misunderstood for many decades now, and it would be a good time, when we are in this unprecedented transition, to go back to what our House of Commons stands for. That is the reason that it is not an offence under parliamentary rules for someone elected as a Conservative to decide to go sit with the Liberal Party, any more than it was for a Liberal member of Parliament from Paul Martin's immediately deceased cabinet. David Emerson comes to mind. He was elected as a Liberal, and when former prime minister Stephen Harper swore in his new cabinet, there were jaws dropping all over the place as the limos pulled up in front of Rideau Hall and famous Liberal David Emerson got out to be sworn in as a member of Stephen Harper's cabinet.

This is a perpetual problem in Parliament. It is really awkward, because most people have short memories and forget they are living in a glass house. When someone lives in a glass house, it is not a good idea to throw stones. We can say many things about floor crossing, but it is not against our rules, and it is certainly not a surprise, depending on who has just gained the person who crossed the floor. I lost a dear friend. She is still a friend, but I lost a friend when the member for Fredericton, elected as a Green, went and sat with the Liberals. I never said a single mean or nasty thing about her. Her reasons were her own.

Under our system of Westminster parliamentary democracy, we do not put forward candidates to act as cardboard cutouts, as proxy representatives of the leader who cannot be present everywhere, with a recorder button that we can push to hear the voice on some kind of cassette tape. I am using a very old-fashioned reference. I am sure that, with all the social media and AI that we have, we could get a hologram leader of a party to travel around with every candidate and actually seem to be speaking to their constituents. However, the point is that we run as individuals. We are elected in our ridings by our constituents, and the only place we can find a job description for what we are supposed to do as members of Parliament, because there is not a very handy job description, is in our Constitution. All it says is that members of Parliament represent constituencies.

Back to Motion No. 9, what we are doing here is not a big surprise, but I do think there have been cogent arguments made by a number of opposition members as to why this is not a good idea and would create a precedent that the Liberals today may regret having put in place for a future occasion. I found particularly compelling the argument from the member for Saint-Jean.

The member for Saint-Jean contributed additional data to today's debate. She did some research and presented evidence showing that committees do not have a strong track record when it comes to creating barriers.

The member for Saint-Jean pointed out with evidence that in the last number of years, parliamentary committees have not been blocking government legislation. Sometimes it has actually been Liberals in control of Parliament who have filibustered their own legislation. In fact, right before the last election, we had a long period of time when the whole House of Commons was caught up in a Conservative motion on a matter of privilege before committee. All of us who were serving at that time will remember it as sort of a long and painful version of Groundhog Day, where every day we debated the same thing, and every time the Conservatives amended their own motion, they reset the clock and every Conservative member could speak to the same thing again and again. Therefore, the filibustering of one's own motion is not unheard of. Filibustering in committee, even for one's own bill, is not unheard of.

Committees need to function well, and for them to function well, there needs to be a basis of trust and respect in this place. Since I was first elected, I have seen it deteriorate. One thing that deteriorates trust and respect in this place is when members of Parliament are bulldozed by the party with more power. I have experienced, just for the record, more bulldozing since the April 28 general election in this place as a member of Parliament for the Green Party. I feel sort of more physical pain from the bulldozing that took place to get through Bill C-5 very quickly, with full Conservative Party support, no obstruction and no interfering with the Liberal government's agenda. Things were moving with a lot of co-operation, except for those of us who objected, and those of us who are not in recognized parties, as I said, have fewer rights today than I had when I was elected in 2011, because I can no longer stand with four other members of Parliament and insist on a recorded vote, which I was able to do from 2011 until the COVID outbreak.

I know that the debate is going to come to an end very shortly. I do not want to use my full time allotted, because I think my points have been made pretty clearly at this point. I would ask, and I hope, that when we look at this again, PROC will be engaged to study committee membership. I hope we will actually have a proper study and discussion of why we have misinterpreted the recognized party rules to such an extent that there are two tiers. It does get very Orwellian. All MPs are equal, but some are more equal than others.

With that, I urge this place to defeat the motion before us and attempt, if we possibly can, not to build this place on “might makes right” or “numbers rule all”, but get to a place where we have real conversations and real study and respect democracy and the people who sent us here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the situation that the leader of the Green Party finds herself in. I served in the Manitoba legislature, and there were often just two people. We never really had party status, except for the first few years. My daughter is the only Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. She has been able to pass legislation and resolutions and work her way onto committees. The leader of the Green Party is fairly effective in doing likewise, getting herself in a position where she can provide comments and so on.

I have also been in minority governments, in opposition and in government, and majority governments, in opposition and in government, and what we need to understand is that there is nothing in this motion that would take away anything from independent members. I was an independent member for many years.

I would ask the member, does she not support the principle, which is done reasonably well, that a majority in the House should mean a majority in committees?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North will recall that nowhere in my speech did I draw attention to any difficulties myself, as three of my private member's bills have become law. I think that exceeds the batting average for most. What I am pointing out is that members of committees should have been considered from more than just the three recognized parties. With only three recognized parties, power has shifted even more into a centralized role.

I agree that this motion does not change my rights, but it does give me an opportunity to point out that the recognized party rules are misinterpreted and misunderstood, and I am not an independent member. I am a member here on behalf of the Green Party of Canada.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the motion reeks of corruption. Can my hon. colleague tell us if the motion is for better governance or better damage control?

I know their party stands for transparency and accountability. Will this help the Green Party in that?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of every government I have witnessed is to accumulate more power for itself and generally more power for its prime minister. This is not the way of healthy democracies.