“The Liberals keep cutting off debate on bills. This bill is supposed to help people trust Parliament, but shutting down debate does the opposite. I want the government to explain how this builds trust.”

“Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 78(3), commonly known as time allocation, is currently the Liberals’ favourite dish. What we just witnessed is something that the Liberals have now done multiple times. Bill C‑25 is intended to increase public trust in Parliament and its institutions by preventing excessively long ballots, which can cause confusion. I would like the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader to tell us whether he truly believes that this is the way to strengthen public trust in Parliament. What his government is currently doing is just the opposite: It is quashing debate by resorting to time allocation for one bill after another and even for the economic update. I would like my college to tell me explicitly whether he thinks this will strengthen public trust in Parliament.”

“I want to know if my colleague agrees that the government waited too long to change riding names. I promised my voters a name that actually represents our whole area, and this change should have happened a long time ago.”

“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. My colleague did not get to finish his speech, but I imagine he had a great deal more to say. It is actually quite remarkable that Bill C-25, which amends an act, also changes the names of certain ridings. It has been over a year and a half since the last election. I made a promise to my constituents to give the riding a name that better represents it. I wanted it to be called Rimouski—Neigette—La Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques. The current name, Rimouski—La Matapédia, does not reflect the entire territory. I would simply like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees, based on his experience, that it would have made more sense not to wait a year and a half before changing the riding names. This work could have been done a long time ago, rather than putting it off indefinitely.”

“I am worried about a rule in this election bill. It stops people from signing more than one candidate's nomination form. Signing a form just means you agree someone can run. It does not mean you support them. Stopping people from signing more than one form goes too far.”

“Mr. Speaker, what a shame there is no unanimous consent. We would never have turned down an opportunity to be educated and informed. I do not understand why they denied it. It would have been instructive. Returning to the speech by my colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River, whose thoroughness I appreciate, there is something in Bill C-25 that concerns me somewhat. I agree that we should tighten the parameters a little, particularly when it comes to the endorsing candidates. However, when we collect signatures for a nomination form, which many of us have done, we make a point of telling people that this is not an endorsement of the candidate or the party. It is a recognition that this person is eligible to stand as a candidate in an election. In proposing this measure, which prevents people from signing multiple nomination forms in the same election, it seems to me that we are going against that principle in a way. Saying that people can only sign one form is a bit like saying that by signing a nomination form, that person is endorsing that particular candidate. I feel that this measure may go a bit too far. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.”