Elizabeth May Speaks on Motion 9 to Give Liberal Party Majority in House of Commons Committees

Added: 2026-04-28

[00:00:00]Spanish Gulf Islands.

[00:00:01]>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[00:00:04]>> Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak.

[00:00:09]It is always an honor to rise here in this house. Uh now I have the honor of debating uh M9 an essential motion which has to do with uh how to put this innovative and unprecedented changes to committee membership topic is before us. It is certainly uh 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 that and there's no question on the numbers there are now more liberal MPs uh than there were after the election and the result is that we have moved from a minority parliament to a majority parliament. It gives me an opportunity Mr. speaker to get to some of the basics that we very rarely get to talk about in this place of assumptions that are made about the nature of committees, the assumptions that are made about the rights of individual members. uh and unquestioned in the way this motion is put forward is the notion which I actually wrote to the prime minister after the election and said please don't forget to include when you're considering committee makeup the very respected and experienced parliamentarians who happen at the moment to be in an in an unrecognized party. I was speaking not of myself in the Green Party, but of at that point seven new Democratic Party MPs who were experienced parliamentarians and thoughtful and had all of them good experience on committees. We knew we had a lot of new MPs being elected here. We have seen problems where committees can become overtaken by an effort to filibuster, but it's not always the case. And certainly experienced MPs with committee experience are worth consideration to put on committees. So that certainly doesn't isn't immediately the issue at hand with the numbers and rejigging the numbers to ensure that there's a liberal majority of committee members on those committees. But it is worth and I I I'm unfortunately in a position where I can't tell you what the prime minister thought about my proposals because although I put a lot of thought and effort into that letter, I didn't get so much as a courtesy. We've received your letter and we'll get back to you at some point when we have absolutely nothing better to do and can consider it. But I I went through the research to confirm what I understand to be the case, which is the status of every member of parliament. I put it the other day to the honorable government house leader who agreed with me. Oh yes indeed, all members have are equal in this place. Oh yes indeed, we all have equal rights, said the honorable leader of the government in the place. But that's obviously, yes, that's our fiction, but our reality is somewhat different. I had more rights in this place when I was first elected in May of 2011 than I have today. Larger parties, and this 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 discover what a larger party wants to do when they're in government. It's a kind of an endless cycle and it's not really in the interest of democracy. It's also not what happens in other parliamentary Westminster parliamentary systems around the world. So since I'm going to spend a bit of time now going back through what are the recognized party rules? What does it mean to be a recogni a member of a recognized party? What are your rights in that situation? I would say that I did double check 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, nothing's changed in our rules, that in 1963, Parliament passed a law that created the concept of a quote unquote recognized party and the larger parties o, you know, without any self-interest, the larger parties decided larger parties should by right have money in order to support the work in parliament because larger parties have so much more work than smaller parties because the the the fiction So they need public funds to do the work of MPs in parliament. So that's the recognized party law from 1963. It's got been unchanged. It says 12 members and you get money. That's all it says. It does not say anywhere if you have fewer than 12 members, you don't get as many questions in question period. It doesn't say anywhere. If you have fewer than 12 members, you have no right to be a full member of any standing committee. I double checked with the clerk and whereas I suggested to the clerk and I hope the clerk doesn't mind me recounting a conversation. I don't think it was terribly private where I said well this constitutes really a bad habit this practice of saying you member for Sanage Gulf Islands can't sit on any committee you get one question once a week at the end of question period etc. U that's not part of the recognized party law. That's a bad habit. And the clerk put it in more parliamentary language. It's a practice of longstanding.

[00:05:35]In other words, I hadn't got it wrong.

[00:05:37]There's no law or rule that says members of parliament from whatever size party can be full members of a standing committee. It offends no rule. It offends no law. It just ignores a practice of long-standing but adheres far more closely to our beautiful fiction that all members of parliament are equal to every other member of parliament and the prime minister is merely primoscent of paris prime minister of par first among equals. We know that what happened when they created the recognized party rule was they created two tiers of MPs. those in larger recognized parties. And for for citizens who may be watching this discussion, the minute you get 12 members of parliament, you get about a million dollars in extra resources from the parliamentary budget to support your parliamentary work. We have had cases, I won't mention them, where parties have used the money they get for parliamentary work and quite inappropriately and I would say illegally used it for partisan purposes, but that's a separate question. The money is the only thing the 1963 recognized party law is about. Rights to participate in committees are not part of that. Neither are rights in question period part of that, etc. So then we go, Mr. Speaker, to how far and wide is this practice in Westminster parliamentary democracy? How much did this Canadian idea of recognized parties catch on? And the answer is not at all. Not anywhere.

[00:07:10]We're the only Westminster parliamentary democracy that ever created the idea that there were two tiers that larger party MPs or their parties get money.

[00:07:20]>> Order. The only member for Al Gangquin Renfruit Penrook on a point of order.

[00:07:24]>> Speaking to the motion and the motion being the composition, the number of positions the Liberals are putting on committees, not whether or not a a party is act what is a party. That's not the discussion here. is the number of people allowed.

[00:07:40]>> I I thank the member from Algunquin Ren for PEM for her intervention. I will say we allow broad um uh latitude on on discussions and and and and I I think I see I see where the member's going uh relating it back to the uh to the the question of hand. So I'll allow the member to to carry on. What I'm putting forward is entirely on point to the motion we have before us because the assumption that underlines what the government is doing with this motion is that it was beyond even consideration that there should be seats on that committee for members of the New Democratic Party or for Green Party or for any members who happen to sit in this place as independents. There is no rule against it. And I think most members of parliament, if I gave a pop quiz, will be surprised to hear that we are the only Westminster parliamentary democracy that uses this concept of a recognized party at all. And then beyond that, when you're looking at the results after an election, if you're looking at proportionality, which is the at the essence of the government's position in motion nine, because they now have a majority of representation in this place, and we want committees to actually reflect the way people voted in terms of the number of seats reflecting on committee, the number of of votes obtained in a in an election to reflect democracy of this house into each committee. I think it would have been worthwhile although I know that the the the it wasn't considered by the Liberal benches that to consider proportionality would include the approximately somewhat under 8% of Canadians who didn't vote for any of the recognized parties. So that would be some representation on committees which the Liberals could have still in putting forward motion nine have considered and I think they should have considered. And as I said I wrote the prime minister about composition on party of committees at the very beginning of his mandate to suggest we want committees to work and experienced parliamentarians from any party should be consider considered for full party membership because it offends no rule at all. And it just is reflecting more of the principles on which we believe this place to be founded that in a Westminster prior democracy.

[00:09:56]>> We're all equal here.

[00:09:59]We all are meant to have the same rights, the same powers, the same tools in our toolbox to find solutions for Canadians.

[00:10:09]>> Speak to this motion. It actually is important and directly on point to point out that the recognized party law has been misunderstood for many decades now.

[00:10:21]And it would be a good time when we're in this unprecedented transition. Again, back to what our House of Commons stands for. That's the reason that it's not an offense under parliamentary rules for someone elected as a conservative to decide to go sit with the Liberal Party anymore than when a Liberal member of parliament from Paul Martin's immediately deceased cabinet, uh, David Emerson comes to mind, who was elected as a liberal. And when former Prime Minister Steven Harper swore in his new cabinet, there were there were jaws dropping all over the place as the limos pulled up in front of Rito Hall and famous liberal David Emerson got out to be sworn as a member of Steven Harper's cabinet. This is a perpetual problem in Parliament is it's really awkward because most people have short memories and forget they're living in a glass house. And when you live in a glass house, it's not a good idea to throw stones. So floor crossing, you can say many things about it, but it's not against our rules and it certainly isn't a surprise and certainly depending on who's just gained the person who crossed the floor. I lost a dear friend. She's still a friend, but I I I lost a friend when the member for Frederickton 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. And under our system of Westminster parliamentary democracy, we don't put forward candidates to act as cardboard cutouts as proxy representatives of the leader who can't be present everywhere with a recorder button that you can push to hear the voice on a some kind of tape cassette, which I'm using a very oldfashioned reference. I'm sure that with all the social media and AI that we have, we could actually get a hologram leader of the party to travel around with every candidate and actually seem to be speaking to their constituents. But the point is, we run as individuals. We're elected in our writings by our constituents.

[00:12:28]>> And the only place we can find a job description for what we're supposed to do as members of parliament, because there isn't a very handy job description, is found in our constitution. And all it says is that members of parliament represent constituencies.

[00:12:41]So back to the con back to M9.

[00:12:45]What we're doing here is not a big surprise.

[00:12:48]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 will create a president that the Liberals today may regret they have put in place for a future occasion. I'm particularly com I found particularly compelling the argumentation from the member from Son uh deput the member for St. John positively contributed to this debate today. She did her research and found evidence that there was not uh obstruction in committees >> in the last number of years.

[00:13:29]Parliamentary committees have not been blocking government legislation.

[00:13:32]Sometimes it's actually been liberals in control of parliament who've actually filibustered their own legislation.

[00:13:41]Sometimes we've seen that in fact right before the last election we had a long period of time where the whole House of Commons was caught up in a conservative motion on a motion of matter of privilege before committee. I think all of us who were serving at that time will remember it as a sort of a long and painful version of Groundhog Day where every day we got up and debated the same thing. But 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. So 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 committees to function well, there needs to be a basis of trust and respect in this place. And since I was first elected, I've seen it deteriorate. One of the things that deteriorates trust and respect in this place, Mr. Speaker, is when members of parliament are bulldozed by the party with more power. I've experienced, just as a matter of the record, more bulldozing since the April 28th 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 C5 very quickly with full Conservative Party support, no obstruction, no interfering with the Liberal government's agenda. things were moving with a lot of cooperation except for those of us who objected and and those of us who were not in recognized parties have as I said fewer rights today than I have 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 in from 2011 until the co outbreak. So Mr. Speaker with these points I know that the the debate is going to come to an end very shortly. I don't want to use my full time allotted because I'm I'm certain that um I think my points have been made pretty clearly at this point. I would ask that when we look at this again that I hope that proc will be engaged to study committee membership. I hope that 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 and it it does get very Orwellian. All MPs are equal, but some are more equal than others. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I urge this place to defeat the motion before us and attempt if we possibly can to build the place not on right makes right, numbers rule all, but can we get to a place where we have real conversations, real study, and respect democracy and the people who sent us here. Thank you, Mr. Take her.