Prebudget Consultations   and development. On that point, I come from London, Ontario, where we have medical and industrial research. It is about time our granting councils not only get further increases to their research budgets. The indirect costs of research, which were made as part of a one-time allocation last

Kyoto Protocol  Yes, the Alliance members applaud the filibuster. They like the filibuster because they know the inevitable result of a filibuster must be a time allocation motion like the one we are discussing at this time.

Kyoto Protocol  Mr. Speaker, as a party we are always offended when we see government motions for time allocation or closure, and we feel that way with regard to this one, although, as we have made very clear, we are in support of the resolution to move ahead on Kyoto and that we should do so

Privilege   of everyone to time allocation of the initiative. That was done, voted on and accepted by the committee. I understand in addition to that, the chair granted an additional courtesy to the hon. member, notwithstanding the program and motion to which the committee had agreed. Finally

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   of estimates to the committee of the whole for debate for up to five hours each before the May break, as well as a 30 minute debate with the responsible ministers on motions, time allocation and closure. As well, it addressed the notions of tightening the sanction for questions on the order

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  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the issue of modernization in this place. I honestly believe that we need to have a long hard look at the excessive use of time allocation and closure and bring back meaningful debate. Quite likely very soon, the House will be asked

Parliamentary Reform   and may in fact be pointless, either not going on at all or going on with more focusing of the debate in a more formalized or other chamber. It may mean simply using this room in a different way. That is a totally off-the-cuff opinion, but in my view this is an issue of time allocation

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  . Having time allocation with respect to amendments at the committee level would make it easier for the executive branch and not for Parliament. The two initiatives that the member for Peterborough spoke about would move the yardstick. He is trying to help the parliamentary process

Parliamentary Reform   a motion of time allocation or closure is heard. We still think that the Speaker should have the authority to protect Parliament and a minority point of view in Parliament from being abused in a time-allocated way by the majority. It is not unusual for speakers in other parliaments

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

Supply   am not holding my breath. On the other item, the thought of somehow equating this with closure of debate is debasing the currency and is most unfortunate. The House will know that the closure rules, the time allocation rules, are in the Standing Orders. I am not inventing