Government Services Act, 1999  . It is really not resolving it. It is sweeping it under the carpet, trying to hide it or get rid of it. The consequences are still there. We see it all the time in the House of Commons with the government's use of time allocation and closure. Is it not interesting that less than six years

Excise Tax Act  Mr. Speaker, I will use my time in this debate to talk about two specific aspects of the bill. One is the use of time allocation, and I will speak specifically about the blended sales tax. It is important that we have the facts on the record. As of December 10, 1996

Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995   of the House to ensure the legislative agenda is adopted. The government has various tools at its disposal. Hon. members opposite could get up and quote chapter and verse on the evils of time allocation and probably on the evils of closure. As a member of the opposition I opposed those

Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Liberals seem to be so sensitive about the issue of time allocation. Let us go back to 1956. Mr. Speaker, you were but a young lad I am sure. The Liberal government of the day decided that a crucial parliamentary debate, a debate

Division No. 319   the House why I believe that. A short time ago we all witnessed time allocation for the 48th time in the last two sessions of this House. Time allocation is basically when the government says that it will limit debate on a bill because it does not see it as being important enough

Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act  Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on finally having his bill brought before us at third reading. Unfortunately, it came before us after time allocation was invoked at each stage of the bill. The minister said that this bill respects the finest traditions

Division No. 265   to be, which brings me to the matter of time allocation. We are now debating with a gun at our heads. In the 35th Parliament the government used time allocation 32 times and closure three times. In this the 36th Parliament the government has already used time allocation nine times

Points of Order  . In the last Parliament a motion was moved restricting the use of time allocation and closure. It stated that for the remainder of the session the Chair could not receive such motions. Perhaps you will remember that one, Mr. Speaker. I think you were in the Chair when the motion was moved

Parliamentary Reform   understood why it is that for some bills on which I have wanted to enter into debate I have been unable to do so because of time allocation and closure, yet we find ourselves now, and very frequently, with no legislation before the House. Why is it that some members are prohibited from

Parliamentary Reform   benefits. There has been less use of time allocation, which I am sure members across the way would be happy to hear about. There has been more time available for debate on each bill. There has been more debate on committee reports and government policy. As well, there have been greater

Parliamentary Reform   around 1932 and I forget why. It was used once during the pipeline debate in 1956 and once during the flag debate in 1966. Closure had that kind of frequency. Time allocation was introduced in 1972 to assist with the need to get useful information through the House. It was used

Parliamentary Reform   debates when we have time allocation and closure. There used to be a situation where members of Parliament were questioning and they would stand on points of order, or alleged points of order, about whether the government was justified in moving time allocation when the opposition

Time Allocation  Mr. Speaker, in opposition the Liberals howled at Brian Mulroney with righteous indignation over his government's use of time allocation to ram through legislation. With such sincere compassion for democracy, one would expect this Liberal government's record in the use of time

Points Of Order   of mechanisms to hold up debate, to speed it up, to limit its length, it must be an exception. We all agree on that. Today the official opposition and the other parties are complaining of what seems to us to be an excessive use of time allocation motions by the government. I think

Points Of Order  I too have searched through the books which would say that the Speaker has the discretion after the government has brought in time allocation 20 times. Some people would say 20 times is too much. Other people would say, as you have, that because it broke a standard which was set