Steven MacKinnon
Gatineau, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“[ Translation ] We have come here to Ottawa with different solutions to the challenges we currently face, but let us be very clear: We are united in this chamber by our love for the Parliament of Canada and for Canada itself.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to adjourn for the summer, I would like to express my gratitude to a few people. [ English ] I want to extend my personal thanks to everyone here on Parliament Hill.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are at the end of a session, and I wish the Leader of the Opposition, his colleagues and obviously his family a restful summer, as I wish for all my colleagues on this side of the House. I want to point out that we are finishing one of the most productive legislative sessions in recent history.”
“[ English ] I want to thank my colleagues, the 174 proud and committed Canadians who serve their people proudly every day. [ Translation ] I do not want to overlook the contribution made by the other parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us talk about generations and generational investments. We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Quebec's and Canada's French-speaking culture. That is something that the Bloc Québécois did not even ask for in its budget requests.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have been having an interesting conversation this week in this very forum. The Conservatives pretend to stand up for and care for vulnerable people in this country, yet every time we propose a program, a tax reduction or a hand-up to people, they vote against it.”
The complete record
Every one of 827 lines we hold for Steven MacKinnon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 17.
“Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that my colleague, the Minister of Finance will bring in an exciting update that will tell Canadians about the major progress that we are making in building Canada strong. Yesterday, I asked Conservatives to table a detailed list of spending cuts they propose, because they talk about inflationary spending. I hope my hon. colleague can help me. Is the Canada child benefit inflationary spending? Is the dental care plan inflationary spending? Is old age security inflationary spending? Are Canada student loans inflationary spending? Could the member tell us—”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that my colleague has a big heart. That is why we were a bit surprised that he voted against the OAS increase, the dental care program, the school food program and the Canada child benefit. He voted against all that, despite his big heart. We have challenged the Conservatives to tell us what cuts they are proposing. Will my colleague table in the House of Commons a list of the cuts the Conservative Party is proposing?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We have searched the annals of history, not just in Canada, which, of course, goes back to 1867 and our House of Commons, but indeed in Westminster Parliaments from time immemorial, and we are unable to find an example where members from one party constituted a majority of the seats but did not constitute a majority in the other institutions of that House of Commons or that Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy, which makes the decisions, has decided on a funding formula, indeed, for parties of the House, which has no connection to the item at hand. I would simply say to my hon. colleague that we are all equals in the House. The member and I, the Leader of the Opposition , and the Prime Minister are all equals when we meet in this place. We all enjoy one vote each. We all enjoy the same privileges and the same ability to compel accountability, to vote on budgets and to govern in the best way possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois cares about the rules of the House. That is why it is rather disconcerting that the Bloc Québécois is not saying whether it will abide by the principle that dates back to the very origins of our parliamentary system, namely, that a majority in the House of Commons is recognized in all its bodies, including House committees. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will support that principle in its remarks and in its official position. I would also point out to my colleague that we have not made any changes to committee membership as far as the Bloc's representation is concerned, so I do not know what we would have had to negotiate with them.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was in your chair at one point. He knows that over the years the House of Commons has decided to give three committees, the government operations, public accounts and ethics committees, the ability to be chaired by an opposition member. We of course will be continuing that practice, and those committees, guided as they are by opposition members of Parliament, will be able to continue to call witnesses, call for documents and examine any issue that they choose in their wisdom.”
“Mr. Speaker, I spoke about this at length in my speech. The principle is the same: A majority in the House of Commons means a majority on all House committees. [ English ] A minority situation for a government in the House of Commons would obviously require a re-evaluation and a re-ordering of those committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker of the House of Commons is not called upon to break a tie on every vote here in this chamber, we also do not believe that a committee chair should systematically be called upon to break a tie. That is why we added two members from the party in power, without diminishing the Bloc Québécois's or the Conservative Party's representation.”
“The first is that we believe that committee work makes better parliamentarians, and the second is that we believe in the productive and collaborative power of committees when they come together to do the hard work to improve government proposals. (1530) [ Translation ] We believe in these things because we believe in the power and integrity of our institutions, and those institutions become strong, resilient and effective when those who question and oppose certain proposals are seen and heard in the process. That is how we build resilience and collaboration, and in doing so, we show Canadians that even when people disagree on certain points, we can all agree that Canada has immense potential. That is what makes Canada strong.”
“This motion does not call that objective into question. [ English ] I will return to what we have proposed. Our government has a majority of seats in the House. All we are asking of the House is that the structure of committees reflect this reality. We have committed to the parties and to Canadians that we want Parliament to work for Canadians, and we have committed to doing this work constructively and in collaboration with other parties. We have been doing just that, and it has been delivering results for Canadians. We have proposed a model for committees that would not reduce the number of opposition members on committees, for two reasons.”
“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. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the government believes that the party that has a majority of seats in the House of Commons should have a majority of seats in parliamentary committees. This concept is as old as our parliamentary system itself. (1525) [ Translation ] We want to bring Canadians together in a time of unity. Our government has worked, and will continue to work, with all provinces and territories—regardless of their political leanings—to build Canada strong. The House of Commons will always be the people's House of Commons. Our government will be accountable to the House and to Canadians for all our actions.”
“Collaboration is the approach to politics that Canadians tell me, and I know they tell the opposition, they want in this place for all elected representatives. They do not want partisan gamesmanship. Let me make one thing clear. The Conservatives have said they will bring forward an amendment to the motion that would leave three of the opposition-chaired committees as they currently are: with a majority of opposition MPs. Our view is that this amendment is not proper. We would oppose it. Let me repeat the reason for this. There is an undeniable long-standing principle in Parliament that a party that has the majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees, not just in some committees but in all committees. There are not two tiers of committees in Parliament, and the principle applies to all of them equally.”
“There are also Order Paper questions, petitions and late shows in the House. Further, I suggest that there are the informal mechanisms, such as speaking with ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries about issues of interest or concern respecting their portfolios, and obtaining technical briefings from departmental officials. These are effective accountability and transparency measures that I would continue to encourage members to leverage. 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.”
“Their opportunity to make a persuasive case for their proposals would remain intact. Ministers would continue to testify at committee and be held to account. Government officials would continue to testify before those same committees. Furthermore, the opposition gets 45 minutes each and every sitting day in question period to hold the government to account. Opposition members have 22 opposition days a year to move motions on issues of importance to them. Members will continue to have a variety of ways to obtain information from the government to hold it to account. There are the formal mechanisms I have mentioned, such as having ministers appear at committees to testify and to answer questions on a range of issues, such as legislation, studies and, obviously, the estimates.”
“9 is a reasonable proposal, consistent with long-standing practices of the House and other Westminster parliaments. [ English ] Our government fully believes in the productive functioning of the House and its committees. I see the motion as an opportunity not only to deliver on this promise to Canadians but also to reset our comportment and to refocus our combined efforts to deliver real and meaningful results for Canadians. For those members who claim that the motion would lessen their ability to hold the government to account, I say this: Not a single opposition MP would be removed from any committee. Their ability to propose motions, studies and amendments to legislation would remain intact. Their ability to have different MPs from their caucus participate in committees as associate members or substitutes would remain intact.”
“I will now go back to the practical effects on committees and the important work they do. An important aspect of committees is that they provide a mechanism for members to cultivate and refine their parliamentary skills and enhance their political expertise in the areas within the mandate of these committees. Not only does being a member of a committee help develop parliamentary expertise in legislative matters and policy development and analysis, but committees can and should be a forum where members work together to address issues and promote the interests of Canadians. Through this work, members build relationships that may be a little less partisan and lead to more productive conversations on policy issues important to their constituents and to Canadians. I believe that Government Motion No.”
“9 to ensure that no party that is eligible to sit on committees would lose any members on those committees. This was a deliberate decision on our part. We could have proposed to closely mirror a membership structure of previous majority governments, which would have required removing members of the official opposition from committees. We chose not to do this. We chose the inclusive approach. We chose the collaborative approach. (1520) [ Translation ] The reason we did that is that we are serious about our intention to work constructively and collaboratively with other parties to advance an agenda that is delivering for Canadians right now. It is not a political talking point. This is something that we see as important, if not paramount, at this time for our country.”
“If, by some turn of fate, a government were to lose its majority over the course of its mandate, opposition members would surely want the memberships of committees to reflect party standings and the composition of the House. This point is beyond debate. In fact, I would assert that if this scenario were to play out, I would fully expect that, without agreement of the parties to proceed, an opposition party would simply use an opposition day motion to implement a change in the composition of committees to reflect the standings in the House. That would result in one day of debate on an opposition day motion, a mechanism that would obviate any amendment unless the party proposing the motion agreed to it, followed by a vote. I would further assert that the government has taken an approach with Government Motion No.”
“A party that has the majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees. This is at the core of our Westminster system of government. The motion proposed by the government would do just that. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice , fourth edition, states on page 790, “Party representation on committees reflects the standings of recognized parties in the House”. At the beginning of a Parliament, at the beginning of a new session of Parliament or, in some cases, from time to time, motions respecting the composition of committees are agreed to in the House in collaboration with the parties, without any debate. For those members who might take umbrage with Government Motion No. 9, I want to point out the counterfactual.”
“We need to move ahead with committees that work hard to closely scrutinize legislation to make it better while holding public hearings on a range of critical policies where Canadians are demanding action. Let me turn to the proposal contained in Government Motion No. 9. This is a routine motion that should not be seen as controversial. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons establish the number of members on each standing committee, and as such, any change to the numbers requires the House to adopt a new motion. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , first edition, makes it clear on page 819, where it states, “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” There is an undeniable, long-standing principle in Parliament.”
“These challenges include dealing with the development of trade irritants and relationships with our partners and navigating in a very uncertain geopolitical landscape. Although we spend time in the House of Commons debating these issues and discussing important strategies and policies to address these challenges, the true work of developing detailed and constructive solutions often falls to committees. [ English ] The Prime Minister has been clear. He expects to see a Parliament that delivers results for Canadians, and he expects Liberal MPs to work collaboratively with their colleagues on all sides of the House. We need to move ahead with a House of Commons that works together on the many challenges of our times.”
“For all of these reasons, I call on fellow members of Parliament to take a reasoned and reasonable approach to this motion as they participate in this debate. [ Translation ] I want to start my remarks by stating the obvious. Parliamentary committees are the workhorses of Parliament. Committees receive their mandates from the House and carry out studies, review bills and conduct investigations relevant to their mandates. Not only are committees the proper forum for detailed consideration of bills, as the House only debates the principles and scope of bills at second reading, but they are also the proper forum where government members can engage with members of other parties to reconcile their differing perspectives for the benefit of their constituents, and more broadly, for Canadians. These are very challenging times.”
“He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Government Motion No. 9, which addresses the composition of committees of the House and joint committees. This is an important matter because it strikes at the very heart of how our Parliament performs its duties. The question is simple: Should a party that has a majority in the House of Commons also have a majority in parliamentary committees? I believe the answer is clear, it is undeniable, and it is yes. It should have a majority in committees. This is one of the very principles that underlie the work of this place. It is a long-standing tradition of our Parliament, and moreover, it is basic logic. A majority in one place, the House, clearly translates to a majority in another place, the parliamentary committees that are an extension of the House.”
“Motion moved: That, for the duration of the 45th Parliament: (a) Standing Order 104(1) be amended by replacing the words "consist of 10 members" with the words "consist of 12 members"; (b) paragraph (a)(i) of the order adopted on June 5, 2025, be rescinded, and Standing Order 104(2) be amended by replacing the words "consist of 10 members" with the words "consist of 12 members" and by adding after the words "12 members" the following: "which shall be composed of seven members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québecois, except for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which shall consist of 10 members and be composed of five members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois, and for which the lists of members are to be prepared, except as provided in section (1) of this standing order, shall be on:"; (c) for greater certainty, the membership of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be increased by two members of the House of Commons from the government party and the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations be increased by one member of the House of Commons from the government party; (d) the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential alterations to the Standing Orders, including to the marginal notes; (e) paragraph (a) of the order adopted on November 20, 2025, be amended by replacing the words "11 members of the House of Commons, including five members of the House of Commons from the government party," with the words "12 members of the House of Commons, including six members of the House of Commons from the government party,"; (f) paragraph (b) of the order adopted on February 13, 2026, be amended by replacing the words "10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party," with the words "12 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including seven members of the House of Commons from the governing party,"; (g) notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, the whip of the recognized party affected by the above changes to the composition of committees submit his membership changes to the Clerk of the House following the adoption of this order, and these changes be effective immediately; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has adopted this order, and inviting Their Honours to concur in the changes made under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this order.”
“On Monday, we will resume consideration at report stage of Bill C-11 , the military justice system modernization act. [ English ] Next Tuesday, we will begin debate at second reading of the very exciting Bill C-28 , the Canadian space launch act, followed by the spring economic statement at 4 p.m. Finally, on Wednesday, we will start second reading debate of Bill S-3 , an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have taken careful note of those questions from my hon. colleague, and perhaps I could offer a challenge in return. If he could work with his colleagues over the weekend so that we get a list, a very precise list, of all of the things that constitute, in their minds, inflationary spending, we would certainly rush to agree to have them table that document and would take a look at it before the Minister of Finance rises next week and gives his spring economic update. [ Translation ] In the meantime, this afternoon, we will move on to consideration of Government Motion No. 9 on the composition of committees. Tomorrow we will continue consideration at second reading of Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act.”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps a multiple choice question would help the member. Is it the Canada child benefit? That is $6 billion. Is it Canada's national school food program? That is $400 million. Is the Canada groceries and essentials benefit an inflationary expense? The Canada workers benefit is $3 billion. The old age security program is $7.5 billion. Which of those choices do the member and his leader see as inflationary spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, we are a bit puzzled over here. Is dental care an inflationary expense? Are school meal programs an inflationary expense? Is support for Quebec workers and industries that are feeling the pinch from the U.S. tariffs an inflationary expense? What exactly are these inflationary expenses? Where is the document that the member intends to table to provide a detailed list of the inflationary expenses he would like to debate here in the House?”
“Mr. Speaker, we can believe the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, or we can believe the International Monetary Fund, which says that Canada has the best fiscal situation in the G7 and has lots of fiscal capacity. Do colleagues know what we are going to do? We are going to use that fiscal capacity to build Canada, to build it strong, to build with Canadian products and with Canadian men and women in the skilled trades. We are going to build projects from coast to coast to coast in this country, and we are going to build it over the objections of that member.”
“Mr. Speaker, dental care is not pathetic. School meal assistance is far from pathetic. The Canada child benefit is far from pathetic. It is far from pathetic that this government offered a 10¢-per-litre savings on gasoline and diesel this week. The member rejects any assistance and then accuses us of doing nothing. Why do this member and his colleagues not stand up and speak out against their leader to demand the same assistance that we are offering—”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows full well, having been here for several years, that he has consistently voted against the Canada child benefit, against school meals, against the Canadian dental care plan, and against both the one-off and sometimes permanent assistance we have offered to Canadians specifically to tackle the issue of affordability. We acknowledge that affordability is an issue; it is the reality. Why are the member and his colleagues so determined to reject any assistance we propose for the most vulnerable Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, indeed, world events and a number of disruptions around the world have caused prices to increase. The government has been there with a timely reduction in fuel taxes, including on cars, trucks and airplane flights. In the month of June, we will see the first payment under the groceries and essentials benefit. That is all on top of 22 million Canadians getting a tax reduction from this government, which is the first thing we did. We have been there for Canadians on affordability. We know they need it and we will continue to do that.”
“moved: Motion That, pursuant to Standing Order 111.1(2), and in accordance with subsection 79.1(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-1, the House approve the appointment of Annette Ryan as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that tomorrow, during Routine Proceedings, the government intends to introduce Motion No. 359 to approve the appointment of Annette Ryan as Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member knows this full well, because he is subject to the same rules as the 343 members of the House: Everyone who holds important positions in the government must abide by the strictest code of ethics in the world. We will continue to do so, just as the Minister of Finance is doing so diligently.”
“Mr. Speaker, what Canadians are witnessing, and what they are quite rightly sick of, is Conservative filibustering, obstruction and getting in the way of the plans for our economy, the plans to build this country, the plans to attract investment, to diversify trade and put men and women to work while getting Canadians' costs down. The Conservatives have been obstructing that for months now, and one can only hope we will get a respite from that.”
“Mr. Speaker, as the member knows because he lives under the same rules, all members of the House, all public office holders in Canada, live under some of the strictest ethics rules in the world. The Minister of Finance rigorously follows these rules, as must all members, and he will continue to do so.”
“Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague will surely acknowledge that, today, in his riding and in all 343 ridings in Canada, the price at the pump will be dropping by 10¢ a litre for gasoline, four cents a litre for diesel and four cents a litre for jet fuel. We are providing this temporary support because an international conflict is causing oil shortages. The Government of Canada is proud to add this measure to all of the other measures that it has already put in place to ease the burden on Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, today is the day we implement the 10¢-per-litre reduction on gasoline in Canada, and also the four-cents-per-litre reduction on diesel and the four-cents-per-litre reduction on jet fuel. These are important reductions. They go with the groceries and essentials benefit, which we have already brought into the House. The government is doing many things to help Canadians with affordability, and it must be pointed out that these many things are being done despite the obstruction and the opposition of the—”
“Tomorrow and Monday, we will resume consideration at second reading of Bill C-22 , an act respecting lawful access. [ English ] Next Tuesday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-10 , an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. On Wednesday, we shall commence debate on second reading of Bill C-21 , the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act. Finally, Thursday, April 23, shall be an allotted day.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend took a few liberties with the facts. However, if he wants to know generally whether the government is going to put in place measures to make sure that Canada has the strongest economy in the G7, then the answer is a resounding yes. I would simply point out that there is, in that number, a number of investments that, of course, reap returns that are brought back to Canada to help our pension funds pay their pension obligations to teachers, nurses, municipal workers, federal public servants and many other pensioners in the country. I am sure that is something the member wants to have continue. [ Translation ] As for the House, this afternoon, we will continue consideration at second reading stage of Bill C-25 , an act to protect our elections and our rights.”
“Mr. Speaker, we have the strictest rules in the world. We indeed have a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. This matter has been put before that Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as this member knows very well, many times, and they have found precisely zero. This is because the Minister of Finance rigorously follows the rules, as do we all. As for high-speed rail, which will go very close to, if not through this member's region, he should be ashamed of getting in the way of high-speed rail that Canadians look forward to.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat again for the hon. member that the Minister of Finance has followed the strictest rules in the world, and he has followed them to the letter. What this member needs to do is walk down to the front row and tell his leader to get out of the way and off the tracks, because high-speed rail is coming right at him. It is coming fast, and it is coming with Canadian steel, Canadian aluminum, Canadian lumber and Canadian workers barrelling right down.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada has among the strictest ethics rules in the world. All members of this House and designated public office holders must follow those rules to the letter, and that is certainly the case in the case of the Minister of Finance . However, let us talk about high-speed rail. The Conservatives are promising to cancel a nation-building and unifying project that would help build the country and change the face of mobility in Canada. We are going to press ahead. We are going to build high-speed rail, and we are going to get it done quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, I was proud to announce, together with my hon. colleague, the Prime Minister and many government members from Quebec and elsewhere, the start of the work to expand the port of Montreal in Contrecoeur. It is an interesting project, a megaproject in fact, that will increase by 60% the capacity of the port of Montreal. We are very proud of that. It is the latest example of how we are building Canada strong and great, with Canadian men and women and Canadian materials.”
“Mr. Speaker, we would like to welcome little Clémence. However, I would warn the member opposite that, when she grows up, he will have to answer some difficult questions. With eight children, the Canada child benefit starts to add up to quite a bit of money each month, and, unfortunately, the member opposite voted against it. We can spare pretty little Clémence a bit of disappointment if the member stands up and apologizes for having voted against such measures for her.”
“Mr. Speaker, I did not even have time to go over all the numbers, which are very, very encouraging. The member is likely well aware of the following, and if not, he needs a better researcher. Inflation in Canada in February was 1.8%. That is at the lower end of the Bank of Canada's target range. We are creating jobs and building this country, and we are doing so with Canadian workers and materials. We are going to build a very, very strong Canada while ensuring that wages, living conditions and quality of life improve for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are offering relief to Canadians, but the Conservatives are rejecting all of it. They reject dental care, they reject tax cuts, they reject GST cuts, and they still reject lowering the excise tax on gasoline and eliminating the carbon tax. Since my colleague is talking about comparisons with last year, I would like to point out that wages in Canada increased by 4.7% in the last year since the Prime Minister took office. In the United States, that increase is 3.5%.”
“It is the most closely monitored “industry” in Canada, but I also commend political parties that are made up of volunteers and are a public good. I am therefore wondering whether the member could elaborate on her vision of public funding in Canada, while acknowledging the groundwork that has been laid to ensure the integrity of our funding system.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague's speech, and I would like to reiterate that we should be proud of the fact that, in Canada, all parties represented in the House of Commons have made a solemn commitment to strengthen our democracy. One of the things that struck me was her remarks about political financing. In a way, René Lévesque was the father of public financing of political parties in Canada. Later, Mr. Chrétien essentially implemented the same system. The two original proposals contained provisions on public funding of political parties. Personally, I agree that political parties are a public good and are essentially made up of volunteers. They are entities unlike any others in our democracy, and our political parties are often put to the test and scrutinized.”