Sitting 111 — April 27, 2026

The sitting was dominated by two linked items: the passage of Bill C-225, a private member’s bill on intimate partner violence, and a prolonged debate on Government Business No. 9, a motion to change the composition of House committees to give the Liberal government a majority on every committee. The central political argument was over the legitimacy of the government’s newly acquired majority, secured through floor crossings and by-elections, and whether it was entitled to a committee majority.

Bill C-225, Bailey’s law, would amend the Criminal Code to treat intimate partner homicides committed in a context of coercive control as first-degree murder, create a specific offence for intimate partner violence, strengthen bail provisions with a reverse onus for repeat offenders, and extend the initial detention period for seized property to 180 days. The bill was sponsored by Frank Caputo (CPC) and supported by all parties; the government accepted 18 of its own amendments and three opposition amendments at committee. Conservatives argued it was necessary to close gaps in the justice system that had allowed predictable tragedies, citing the murder of Bailey McCourt hours after her attacker was released on bail. The Liberals and Bloc Québécois also spoke in favour, with the government House leader confirming Liberal support. The bill passed third reading on division.

Government Business No. 9, a motion to increase the size of most standing committees from 10 to 12 members by adding two Liberal members, was the subject of a closure motion moved by government House leader Steven MacKinnon after only a few hours of debate. The government argued that a party with a majority of seats in the House should have a majority on committees, citing Westminster tradition and the principle that committee composition should reflect the House. Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois opposed the closure and the motion itself, arguing that the majority was illegitimate because it was manufactured through floor crossings rather than earned at the ballot box, and that the proposed 7-4-1 split (Liberal, Conservative, Bloc) would give the government a supermajority of 58% of committee seats when it held only 51% of House seats. The Bloc proposed a 6-4-1 split as more proportional. The NDP and Green Party also opposed the motion, with Elizabeth May (GP) arguing that the recognized-party rules had been misinterpreted to exclude smaller parties from full committee membership. The government rejected a Conservative amendment that would have preserved the existing opposition majority on oversight committees such as ethics, public accounts and government operations. The closure motion was adopted on a recorded vote.

Oral Questions focused overwhelmingly on the economy and government spending. The Conservatives repeatedly accused the Prime Minister of “credit card budgeting,” claiming he had added $90 billion in net new spending since taking office, doubling the deficit left by Justin Trudeau, and driving up the cost of living. They demanded he cap the deficit at $31 billion. The government replied by citing International Monetary Fund data showing Canada had the strongest fiscal position and second-fastest growth in the G7, and by listing investments in infrastructure, the Canada Strong sovereign wealth fund, and programs such as the groceries and essentials benefit, dental care and child care. A secondary theme was seniors’ financial insecurity, with the Conservatives citing a poll that half of Quebeckers over 50 feared running out of money in retirement; the government pointed to its increase in the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the dental care plan. Other exchanges covered the Sunrise pipeline expansion, the PrescribeIT program (where the Conservatives called for an Auditor General investigation into $300 million in spending), and the need for a wage subsidy to prevent layoffs due to U.S. tariffs.