SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Jun/16/23 12:30:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is about to rise for the summer, but once again, the government is showing us that, despite its coalition with the NDP, it cannot manage the House agenda without having to ram through legislation by using time allocation motions. This is unfortunate, because the government is responsible for the agenda and the business of the House. If only it had managed things differently, we could have gotten through the bills that it wanted to see passed before the summer without having to adopt all these time allocation motions. As we saw this week, the worst part is that the government even moved a time allocation motion to change the Standing Orders, which is completely unacceptable and breaks with every tradition, since major changes are normally made by consensus. Will the Liberals admit that they are simply incapable of managing the House and that they could not care less what the opposition parties think?

156 words

Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23

Hon. Sean Fraser

Jun/16/23 12:35:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel this question period is a reunion among friends. I mentioned my friend with whom I sat on the transport committee for a few years. The next two questioners I have spent considerable time on the finance committee with, which I very much enjoyed. I cannot speak for His Majesty's loyal opposition, but I can observe from my own perspective a desire to interfere with the government's agenda for fear that people may actually see that the government is advancing measures that help people in communities. I believe there is a dissonance between the Conservatives' perspective on time allocation today compared with when they actually held government prior to October of 2015, a time when we will see hundreds of examples of the government of the day using this very specific remedy in order to advance legislation when opposition parties were in disagreement. I sense that when time allocation is being objected to on an area where significant debate has already taken place and where I expect potential unanimous agreement, this is more about the political effort to make sure the government cannot advance its agenda to help Canadians rather than it is the need to exhaust debate further. These issues have been litigated in this chamber and in the other place. They would render inadmissible people conducting themselves in a way that seriously injures international peace and security. This is something I hope we can get behind, because the criminals responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the criminals responsible for the death of Mahsa Amini and for the many other protesters who have now been harassed, punished or killed do not deserve to come to Canada.

287 words

Context: House Hansard - 215 - Jun/16/23

Hon. Sean Fraser

Jun/16/23 12:48:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with enormous respect for my colleague, it is revisionist history to suggest time allocation is being used more now than ever in history. I would point him to the many instances when the former House leader of the Conservative government, when it was in power before October 2015, implemented time allocation measures on hundreds of occasions in order to stifle debate. The reality is, we use it sometimes and not others because it makes sense sometimes but not others. When there has not been sufficient debate to bring forward the best ideas from parliamentarians who represent communities across Canada, then I do not think we should be moving forward with time allocation. It is the same when there is not an opportunity for people to have put their voices on the record in an attempt to further the debate and potentially change the legislation for the better. Those are opportunities where we should give space for people to contribute their ideas further. When there is such widespread agreement, when people have had the opportunity to put their voices on the record and when there is not a lineup of speakers who are still trying to improve the quality of the laws we are debating, it is entirely appropriate to use time allocation to prevent opposition parties from using procedural delay tactics designed to prevent the government from implementing the agenda it has committed to Canadians that it would implement. This is a perfect example of when time allocation is appropriate. There is widespread agreement, and there has been sufficient debate. We can all move forward knowing that this is going to improve the quality of our sanctions laws and inadmissibility regime in Canada, and I think it is appropriate that we wrap this debate up and continue to work on the things that matter most to Canadians.

309 words