I think I have just heard the answer to what I have alleged and it is definitely in the affirmative. It sounded a lot like a plea of guilt over there.
Today the opposition is saying that there is a question of privilege. Of course there is no such issue before the House. This would be at best a point of order if it were valid.
The Chair is asked today to rule on the so-called “unorthodox behaviour of the government in having used time allocation at second reading of a bill on the third day that it is being debated in the House of Commons”.
Need I remind the House that in the U.K. House, for instance, every bill is time allocated to one day by definition at second reading, time allocated to around an hour at third reading, and now under the new parliamentary reform in the U.K. every bill will be time allocated in committee under what is called programming.
If using time allocation is unorthodox then I say a number of parliaments must be unorthodox. I will give an example of another parliament, more particularly the legislative assembly of the province of Alberta.
This issue has occurred pursuant to our standing orders. This procedure exists in our standing orders and has existed for some time. Yesterday I gave notice of my intention to move this motion today. Not once was it challenged at the time that the notice was provided to the House.
Today the motion was moved, and only after the motion was voted on, only after the point became moot, did the hon. member actually raise it as an issue.