Canada Labour Code   they are studying. I am glad to do that, but on occasions like this one I have to ask myself just how democratic the House is. Imposing time allocation on the bill at both report stage and third reading stage is simply not democratic. Scheduling third reading on the shortest debating day

Division No. 137  Mr. Speaker, I will talk about successor rights as that is what we are debating today. It is unfortunate that we are now facing time allocation which means there will only be a few more speeches on this topic. Ten minutes of it just went down the drain due to some kind

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure  Mr. Speaker, in regard to the last two suggestions made with respect to dealing with time allocation and giving the Chair more power, I did mention them fleetingly in my remarks about time allocation. It is one of the things I said in the debate. The government is very eager

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure   have looked at having a mini question period immediately before the government House leader, or any other minister for that matter but generally speaking it is I who does it, invokes time allocation. This could be a 10 minute period where members could ask the government to explain

Canada Elections Act   this bill back in the House from committee for less than three hours of debate and the government House leader was standing in his place moving time allocation on this bill and closing down the debate. What could possibly be the emergency that would require the closing down of debate

Canada Elections Act  Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak to the NDP amendment to Bill C-24. Just before I do that, it is incumbent upon me to mention that the government has moved time allocation, which is the 84th or 85th time that it has done that to us. The unusual situation in this case

Standing Orders   of an appointment would cause the appointment to be withdrawn unless the government responded by introducing a motion reinstating the appointee. The tenth point is one which we are discussing today and that is time allocation and closure. We are actually discussing closure and we think

Standing Orders   that the leader of the government first abolish the other House where nobody is elected and where members only represent themselves or the government. Time allocation motions were first introduced in the House of Commons in 1971. At that time, the government said that they would only be used

Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985   to consider it. When a bill is under time allocation it is appropriate to debate the use of time allocation. Time allocation has nothing to do with the principle of the bill. Yet it is fair game to debate it because time allocation was used to advance the bill through parliament

Employment Insurance Act   to somewhat address the crocodile tears we hear from the members opposite when it comes to closure or time allocation. Especially galling, I think, are the reformed Alliance people. It was not so long ago that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Alberta cabinet and the Alberta

Employment Insurance Act  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on employment insurance revisions. Before I do that, I want to make a few comments about the unconscionable action of the government in invoking time allocation today. It used to be that governments invoked closure, which basically

Aboriginal Affairs  Mr. Speaker, this is a bit unusual as a question. The House leader of the hon. member's party and her own backbench MP filibustered the bill and now she is asking us whether we will time allocate to undo the filibustering of her colleague and then whether we will allow a free

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act   a time allocation motion could be moved and applied to the bill. If it is not, then it is a regular government motion and the only way to bring a close to it, if the government chooses to do something to close it, is to use closure, Standing Order 57, as has been pointed out

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention a situation which arose yesterday in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources during a debate in connection with a time allocation motion presented

Business of the House   intention regarding time allocation since he already has given notice of time allocation on Bill C-10A? Could he also advise the House, so we could all know what we are doing this afternoon, whether his whip, using the rules, will defer today's vote to a future date?