Debates of April 27th, 2026

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the member from British Columbia on her insightful and interesting speech. It is clear at times like these that all political parties have different perspectives to offer on the issues we are debating. I found the Green Party's perspective relevant and interesting.

Under the circumstances, I was wondering about something. In her speeches in the House, the member often acts as the voice of Parliament's conscience. I think that is how she tries to do her job, at least sometimes. Does that famous conscience tell her that the government is on the right track or the wrong track right now?

Personally, I get the impression that the government is taking advantage of its honeymoon period to take increasingly authoritarian action, and that is dangerous because it sets precedents. Obviously, we have not reached the point where democracy is at risk, but still, I find these actions troubling. They are leading us down a slippery slope. They are not constructive and they do not build trust.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed Bloc Québécois colleague. I think he is right. To answer his question, I think that the current government is on the wrong track. The government has done away with programs aimed at addressing the climate crisis. It has passed bills that violate the rights of refugees, for example.

The government has lost sight of several priorities. I used to think that the Liberal Party shared these priorities, but not anymore.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I listened carefully to what my Green Party colleague had to say. Unlike the Bloc Québécois member, who refers to her as a member from British Columbia, I refer to her as a member of the Green Party. That is simpler and members know right away who I am talking about. It is like the good old days because the member is now sitting on the same side of the House as the official opposition like she was in 2015.

Speaking of elections, I would like to remind the House that, tomorrow, it will be exactly one year since almost all members of the House, except two, were elected. It is rather odd that the government wants to shut down debate on a democratic issue on the eve of the anniversary of the 2025 election.

In her case, the member was elected to the House of Commons for a fifth time. Since we are talking about elections and anniversaries, I would like to hear her thoughts on the importance of respecting the will of Canadians as expressed at the polls without taking floor crossers into account.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true. It is almost the anniversary of the election and there are several members for whom this is their first year in the House. I very much regret that they have not had the experience I had. I worked for the Progressive Conservative government. I was not a party member, but I worked for Mr. Mulroney's majority government. There was more democracy back then. There was more commitment to the environment and to human rights.

I am disappointed. We must establish systems that work for humanity and for the planet. We must not give in to the current power of a government that has a Prime Minister who is very popular, but not very democratic.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the Green Party member, who represents a riding in British Columbia. I commend her on her intervention and for having the determination and endurance to rise in the House even though she is her party's only representative. That is entirely to her credit.

While I do not want to play up her seniority too much, my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has been here since 2011, if I am not mistaken, and she has seen a lot of water flow under the bridge. Some members are new here, arriving just after the by-election a few weeks ago. As my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk said, tomorrow will mark one year since a number of new members arrived in the House. However, they are seeing the government engineer a majority in a highly questionable way and impose a gag order on the first day of this majority to alter the composition of committees in an equally questionable way.

I would like to know whether this is the government's idea of democracy and parliamentarism. I would also like to know whether my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands has any advice for the new members who have just taken their seats in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, here is my advice. If they want to make a difference for their grandchildren, then the members need to immediately reject the opinion of their party whip. They need to show moral courage for the sake of our grandchildren and our county. To make a difference, it is vital that every member is able to exercise their rights in the name of democracy, not merely for the sake of the leader's power.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not speak French, but I am learning French on Duolingo every day. Today, I reached a 1,068-day streak.

One would think I would know, or I should know, more French by now.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands referenced early in her speech that the fact that we are turning the House from a minority to a majority is an unprecedented scenario. Would she acknowledge that this is the first time in Canadian history that it has also been the result of a concerted campaign from the PMO?

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

Mr. Speaker, as far as we know, there has never been an effort to recruit MPs to shift from a minority government situation to a majority. As I mentioned, it is not unusual to see members cross the floor. Again, there is nothing particularly against our principles, but I think it does tend to, increasingly out there in the hustings, feel a bit fishy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Grande Prairie.

I said in my maiden speech, when I got to this august chamber, that this seat does not belong to me. Indeed, it belongs to the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I am a mere custodian of it. I say that to make the point that Parliament itself, this House of Commons, these institutions, are bigger than any of us as individuals. They are bigger than all of us even as a collective. These institutions matter more. This place matters more than the political ambitions, motivations and decisions of the people who get to come here every election.

I have always venerated this institution. Indeed, I have always been fascinated by it. Even going back to when I was a university student involved in politics, I loved partaking in model parliament. I loved taking the opportunity to learn more. Perhaps it is why I have never been reprimanded for not addressing my comments through the chair or not doing some of those other conventions: I have been a student of parliamentary history.

It was an honour the first day I walked into this chamber, and it remains the honour of a lifetime to be here.

It has been saddening in that same vein to see how, for the Liberal government and specifically the Prime Minister, Parliament is a mere annoyance. We have seen the ignorance in this place: the fact that the Prime Minister has a question period attendance rating that is a fraction of that of his predecessors; the fact that he loves “showboating”, to use a word he is fond of, with fake executive orders that have no legal standing in our country; and the fact that he has been doing everything but governing in this place, governing in this chamber.

To govern in this chamber is to be held accountable to Parliament as the collective body representing the will of the Canadian people. Parliament is a body comprising fellow custodians of this chamber, who are sent here with very similar mandates from each of their respective constituencies and constituents. However, we see in the motion before us today that the government does not believe it can win the game, so to speak, so it is changing the rules. It is changing the rules to suit its political ambitions, irrespective of the will of the Canadian people and irrespective of the norms, conventions and traditions of this place.

It should be known to everyone here that Canadians do not, in fact, elect a government; they elect a Parliament. Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary since Canadians elected me, alongside all of my colleagues from all parties. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. The message Canadians sent in doing that was that they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term. I question why they would do that. However, while they were prepared to give the Liberals a fourth term, Canadians wanted their power to be checked by a strong, robust opposition.

Now, my Conservative colleagues and I have held up our end of the bargain as His Majesty's loyal opposition. We supported and improved legislation such as Bill C-5, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16, which is before the justice committee right now. We opposed dangerous bills, such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-9, which the Liberals wanted to wave through without scrutiny and accountability. We worked collaboratively across party lines. We represented the will of Canadians, who elected MPs to champion, for those of us on the Conservative side of the aisle, the values of liberty, personal responsibility and, yes, fiscal discipline.

However, what we have seen over the last year is that when the Liberals do not get their way, they scream obstruction. Opposition is not obstruction. We have seen this in a minority Parliament. I recall when Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had one just a few years ago. A minority Parliament requires the government to find dance partners, so to speak, to find collaboration and earn collaboration from opposition parties. The idea of holding opposition parties hostage to support bad legislation, which is what the Liberal government has tried to do, is not what a minority Parliament is supposed to be.

We have seen under this arrangement, specifically at committees, a situation in which the Bloc has held the balance of power. I have seen votes in which Bloc and Conservative support was enough to pass a motion against the will of the Liberals. I have seen Liberal and Bloc members pass motions against the will of Conservatives. On a rare occasion, I might have even seen Liberals and Conservatives vote together, with the Bloc being the odd party out.

Even when we have lost a vote, frustrating as that may be, I can take comfort in the knowledge that the Liberals were forced to co-operate with someone. They had a check, however modest, on their power. Today, the Liberals would enshrine their desire for a legislative blank cheque, stacking parliamentary committees to reflect their morally illegitimate majority. I say illegitimate majority because it was crafted not by the democratic will of Canadians but by the Prime Minister sending out his cabinet ministers to peel away the unscrupulous and the shameless opposition MPs who hold the will of the Canadian people in as little esteem as the Liberals do.

This morally illegitimate majority is the consequence of that which they now seek to ratify by stacking the deck on committees. Committees are not the property of the government. They are creatures of Parliament. In many ways, they are where the real work happens, where scrutiny can happen, where amendments can happen and where real vigorous debates on the merits or lack thereof of legislation happen.

If the government can manufacture a majority at will, scrutiny is merely choreography. They are seeking to not have a check on their power and to not have scrutiny of their legislation but rather to have a rubber stamp on anything they want to do.

I am reminded of a quote from John Diefenbaker. In April 1957, he was speaking at Massey Hall in Toronto, and he said, “The sovereignty of the people is delegated to Parliament, not to the Executive.”

The Prime Minister could learn a great many things from John Diefenbaker. One of the lessons is that government is about accountability, not control. Another lesson is that parliamentary scrutiny should be welcomed and not scorned. As evidence that these Liberals are uninterested in accountability and collaboration, one need only look at how they rejected our modest amendment to the very motion we are debating today, which would have preserved the status quo on oversight committees such as ethics, government operations and estimates, among others, committees that are not responsible for reviewing legislation but are tasked with being a watchdog on the government.

Why the Liberals do not want to cede control on a committee overseeing ethics, I think, is becoming more apparent by the day. That is precisely what we are looking at here: a government that does not wish to engage in Parliament, a Prime Minister who holds this institution in contempt and a government that does not want to engage in something so seemingly beneath it as seeking and preserving the will of the Canadian people to enact its legislative agenda.

The motion that we have before us today, which I will be opposing, does not strengthen Parliament. It sidelines it. That is something that every member of the House should reject.

I go back to the comment I made earlier about when the Liberals try to invoke obstruction as a narrative. We have given them much of what they asked for when they sought permission to do things that will build the country up. Bill C-5 is a great example of this. They said they wanted monumental, sweeping authority to approve major projects. We said we would love to see major projects. We gave them permission to do this and the framework to do it. No major projects have materialized. Here we are a year later: The Liberal government has promised much and has delivered little.

The one mechanism that could be preserved to ensure that Parliament remains in keeping with what Canadians elected was a committee structure that would force members of Parliament and would force government members to do what the Liberals claim they have wanted this whole time, which is collaboration. No, they are laying their demands bare today with the motion. They do not want collaboration. They do not want co-operation. All they want is capitulation. We say no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the comments that the member has put on the record are interesting. I disagree with most of those comments. As I have illustrated before, the Prime Minister has talked about working in collaboration. We saw a good example of that earlier this morning. We have a majority government, yet we passed a member of the opposition's legislation through on third reading. The collaboration is what is important.

When we take a look at the standing committees, it is very simple. If we have a majority of members that make up the floor of the House of Commons, we get a majority on the standing committees. Every Prime Minister who has had a majority has had that situation. I do not think we should be trying to pass judgment on individual members. I think we should be recognizing and supporting parliamentary tradition. Does he not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite likes to say that the Liberals are interested in working with all parties.

Interestingly enough, the new Liberal member of Parliament for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong had a very different story to say. In fact, she said that she was trying to get federal attention and investment in her riding, but did not get so much as a response until she crossed the floor to the Liberals. She said, and this was after she crossed the floor, “It went really nowhere, until I crossed the floor. This is what I'm hoping will be the result.”

These Liberals are only interested in working for Liberals.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Elgin—St. Thomas—London South on his speech.

In the speech that he gave here in the House, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said, “We are proposing to adjust committee membership proportionally to reflect the party standings in the House. It is as simple as that. There are no games, no untoward tactics and no strategies here.”

He also said, “My fear is that some members across the aisle are more interested in scoring political points and creating divisions for their own partisan gain, at a time when we really need to co-operate and collaborate in good faith to deliver on issues of critical importance for our country.”

He then went on to say, “Collaboration is the approach to politics that Canadians...want in this place for all elected representatives. They do not want partisan gamesmanship.”

Does my colleague think that is what the Liberals are doing?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. I think that my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois asked some valid questions about the formula the Liberals are using, but I also think that it is important to look at how this majority came about.

We have never seen a government use defections as a tactic to secure a majority that Canadians did not elect. Canadians do not want the Liberals to have complete control over the parliamentary agenda in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we saw in Bill C‑11, the military justice system modernization act, that even though the committee had unanimous agreement on amendments, when it came to report stage the amendments were all stripped out.

The government is already all-powerful in here, in what it wants to get done. What other aspects of committees will the government now control, besides amendments and the other things we do in committee, for example, scrutinizing bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not just about amendments, as the member indicates; it is also about the agendas for committees. There are a number of committees that engage in studies that want to invite ministers to appear. As we have seen in the case of the ethics committee, the Liberals have staged a massive filibuster to block the finance minister from having to testify about his clear conflicts of interest on the $90‑billion Alto boondoggle.

It is not just about amendments; it is about avoiding ministerial accountability at the committee level, where members get the chance, not just in a 35‑second question period slot but in a real substantive way, to question ministers who right now desperately need the accountability and scrutiny.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was mesmerized by the speech my colleague just gave. It is remarkable the lengths to which the Liberals will go to get their hands on power. That has been the Liberal story through all of history.

I will give the Liberals credit for one thing: their ability to seize power and take credit for doing absolutely nothing. They are truly masters of illusion. Never has a government been given so much credit for doing so little. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that doing little might be an improvement over what the government has done, in some cases causing Canadians to fall backwards.

The current Prime Minister ran the last election on grand promises. I think we can all recall the grand promises to reverse the Trudeau era and bring back prosperity and hope to Canadians. He went to great lengths to explain how he would reverse the policies of his predecessor, saying that the Liberal Party of the past was no more and that he would be coming in with a new vision for Canada. He said that he would reverse the anti-development Trudeau era and that he would build new infrastructure in this country to get more product to new markets, specifically saying that he would approve and build pipelines and infrastructure in our ports to ensure that we could get our products to places that had never seen Canadian product.

He said, “We will need to do things previously thought impossible at speeds we haven't seen in generations.” He went on to promise that he was going to make life affordable and bring down the price of groceries and homes. He asked to be judged by the prices on grocery-store shelves, that he would get a deal done with Trump and that he would negotiate a win on trade by July 21. I will point out that the year that he made that promise was for July 21, 2025, nearly a year ago.

He said that he would get new trade agreements done and would diversify our trading relationships. Now, a year later, absolutely nothing has been done. There are no new pipelines, no new infrastructure that has even been proposed and every one of Trudeau's anti-development laws are still in place. Unfortunately, he has made it worse. He has layered on additional red tape and more bureaucratic hurdles.

When we look at where we are today compared to where we were even a year ago, we have to compare ourselves to our international partners. When we look at the G7, we rank the worst in household debt, food inflation and housing costs. Canada currently has the only shrinking economy and the second worst unemployment rate in the G7.

With this motion the Prime Minister currently has before the House, the Liberals are taking the unprecedented move to rig the government in their favour and ensure that all of this accountability that Canadians deserve would be wiped away. They know they have failed to fulfill the promises that they made to Canadians, and they know that by rigging committees and ensuring that they have the majority on committees, all these uncomfortable questions would disappear. It is a clear effort by the Liberals to stack the deck.

I want to explain the egregious nature of this stacking of the deck. I think it is important for Canadians to understand the real assault on the democratic rights of Canadians that is currently being undertaken.

In the last election, the Liberals won the election by 43.76%, and that translated into 49.27% of the seats in the House of Commons, which was already overrepresented vis-à-vis what the Canadian people had voted for, but that is how our system works. After the floor crossings, the Liberals now have 51.4% of the seats. Again, let us remember that this is the first time in Canadian history where a Prime Minister gave favours to individuals to cross the floor, moving them from a minority government to a majority government. The Liberals now have 51.4% of the seats in the House of Commons, but Motion No. 9 would give them 58% of the seats on committees.

Canadians have been told that committees are where the real work of the House of Commons happens. They are where we dig deep, get to the nuts and bolts, and pull back the curtain to discover what is actually happening. Obviously, in this chamber, it is oftentimes dramatic speeches and a fair bit of cut and thrust, but at committees, that is where there is the opportunity for parliamentarians, on behalf of our constituents, to drill down to find out what is happening.

However, through the unprecedented measure the Liberals are now undertaking, the Liberals would go from having won just under 44% of the popular vote to getting 58% of the seats on committees, where the real work of Parliament happens. To give a little context, due to five members of the House of Commons crossing the floor, the Liberals now believe they are entitled to 52 new positions for Liberals on the House of Commons Standing Committees.

The media has taken notice. I will read into the record what Andrew Coyne had to say about the Prime Minister. He said, “This is a government and a Prime Minister with an autocratic streak a mile wide.” Althia Raj, who was also quoted on CBC, said, “This Prime Minister definitely has an authoritarian streak.”

Even the media on CBC is responding in complete disgust and disbelief that the Prime Minister would undertake this. At a time when Canadians desperately need more accountability in the House of Commons, the Liberals would remove that accountability through this motion.

When we look back at previous scandals of Justin Trudeau, we saw the WE Charity scandal entirely exposed because of the work of the committees. The SNC-Lavalin affair was a scandal that demonstrated just how much the then prime minister Justin Trudeau was trying to manipulate a court process, which was completely exposed because of the work of a standing committee. The green slush fund scandal was completely exposed because of the work of a standing committee. The arrive scam scandal was exposed because of the work that was done at committee.

This is what the Liberals currently want to stop, because before our committees right now, we have Liberals who will not let witnesses stay at committee when it comes to witnesses such as Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, who has been the whistle-blower on the working conditions for the Chinese manufacturers of the Chinese EVs that the government wants to import to Canada.

The ethics committee is currently being filibustered by the Liberals to make sure that issues before that committee will never see the light of day. We are currently also seeing the Liberals filibustering at the fisheries and oceans committee to ensure that those scandals never see the light of day. We are also currently witnessing a filibuster at the health committee, where Liberals will not allow the PrescribeIT scandal to come to the light of day. At transport, the Liberals are filibustering a Bloc motion, supported by the Conservatives, to force the Liberals to produce documentation. The human resources committee is currently being filibustered by the Liberals.

The Liberals are doing all of this, including this motion, to ensure that these scandals never see the light of day. We will continue to oppose and fight this.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are debating history and past scandals today, I would love to share dozens of them. I have a book of over 100 scandals from the days of Stephen Harper, when the member's current leader was involved. If the member wants to get a copy, he can come on over and I will show him some of the quotes, which include contempt of Parliament.

At the end of the day, a party has a majority of the seats on the floor of the House of Commons. According to the rules, and according to our parliamentary heritage, which is not only in Canada, but also in the Commonwealth, that means that majority should be extended to the standing committees. That is what we are doing. To try to say there is a Conservative and Bloc alliance, and everything they do in committees is absolutely wonderful and delightful and in the best interest of Canadians, is balderdash.

Does the member really believe that we should be going against parliamentary tradition because—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. chief opposition whip.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, did members notice something? The member did not mention one of the scandals. He says there are hundreds, but he could not name one.

I will tell members about one. The Liberals howled for days to force a minister to resign from the House of Commons because, on one of her expense accounts, there was a $16 glass of orange juice. That is what the Liberals howled at for weeks. That minister resigned because there was an expense for $16 of orange juice.

We have $500,000 catering bills for the Prime Minister on his private jet. The Liberals have nothing to teach us about honour. They only have—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by the chief opposition whip. Having served as a whip myself, I know that it is a very demanding role that also requires a thorough understanding of parliamentary procedures. I have a question for my colleague.

As we speak, there are two or three committees that are at a standstill, including the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are filibustering and refuse to discuss issues that require transparency and testimony so that we can examine matters that are somewhat sensitive but necessary. Right now, it is the Liberals who are filibustering in the committees.

We are not opposed to committees having a majority, but we believe that seven Liberal members is excessive. It is an abuse of power. We wonder if the official opposition whip feels the same way we do.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear what is happening. The Liberals, having won a minority, want the power of a majority. There have been floor crossings that bring them over the technical definition of a majority, but now they are demanding 58%, nearly 60%, of the seats on standing committees.

Currently, most committees are seized by Liberal filibuster. Effectively, that means that, if the Liberal members keep talking, the chair cannot move to a vote for the issues that are before those committees. That means that nothing will happen until such time as the Liberals can force this motion through the House of Commons, giving them the effective majority on every single committee.

Obviously, the purpose of this entire process is to ensure that nothing happens at those committees that the Liberals do not agree to, specifically transparency.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a thoughtful speech. Conservatives believe Parliament should hold the government accountable, not make it easier for Liberals to avoid scrutiny. Even today, the Liberals are filibustering at the ethics committee.

Can my colleague explain how these proposed changes would impact the function of Parliament and how we ensure that Parliament works for Canadians, not just for the government of the day?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the entire reason that the Liberals are bringing forward this motion is so the committees would work for the Liberal Party of Canada rather than the people of Canada.