“I oppose the government cutting debate short on this bill. The Liberals are behind on their schedule, and they are not letting us do our job of debating bills for Canadians.”

“Mr. Speaker, after 11 summers in the House, it is interesting to see what happens, typically, every year in June, under this government. The Liberals cannot manage their agenda throughout the entire year, so they fall so far behind. They have put us on late-night hours, where we are sitting until midnight, and even then they have to cut debate short with these time allocation motions because they cannot handle the fact that we are here to debate on behalf of Canadians who have sent us to this place to debate the government bills and to make sure they are the best they can possibly be. I strongly oppose the time allocation motion, which will shut down debate once again, just as the Liberals have been doing in committees any time we try to hold them accountable for their failed attempts at governing this country.”

“The government had all year to pass this bill, but now it is cutting off debate. This bill is not controversial and could have passed normally. I want the government to explain how ending debate helps transparency.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to express that this is my first full year in the House, and I find it a bit disappointing, in fact a lot disappointing, that the government had all year to get this work done, yet it is imposing closure. A bill such as this, which arguably does not have a lot of controversy attached to it, would have been very easy to pass with the process that we had allowed, yet we have these games from the Liberal government. We are here to work as long as possible to make sure that we shine the light of transparency onto everything the government is doing, and I really would appreciate a comment from the government as to how transparency is served by closure.”

“The government is trying to stop debate on this election bill too quickly. This bill affects our democracy and every voter we represent. We are ready to work as long as it takes to debate it properly.”

“Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleagues and I have zero issue with putting in the work and putting in the hours. We will work on weekends. We will work during the summer. We will do whatever we can to support Canadians. The problem we have is that the bill is about elections. All 343 members of the chamber would be affected. All the millions of people whom we collectively represent would be affected. It is a bill about the nature of democracy. The Liberals have allowed, I believe, two members to speak to the bill about the most fundamental institution in a democratic country, and now they are trying to shut down debate. They are trying to silence members of Parliament who may have a lot of things to offer about this. This is perhaps not surprising, given the way the Prime Minister has decided to try to circumvent Parliament, circumvent the House of Commons and not rise during question period. Is the member the House leader because he shares the Prime Minister’s contempt for Parliament?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Respect 87 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “shares the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament”.

  See full analysis →

“My riding is huge, and MPs in Alberta represent far more people on average than MPs in other provinces. I want the government to redraw riding boundaries more often than every 10 years so votes can be equal.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up riding size as an issue. He said that his riding is about 20,000 square kilometres. Mine is 83,600 square kilometres, so I feel that it is an even worse situation. The hon. member said he wanted all the votes to be equal. Would he endeavour to have the review a little more often? I know that in Alberta, we each represent 115,000 people on average, far more than members in some of the other provinces do. Would the Liberals consider shortening the time for the review rather than having it every 10 years?”

“I want to know why the government is rushing to debate this election bill instead of dealing with the economy and crime. The next election is years away, and this bill does not even fix political money rules between elections.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us expand on what the government House leader just said. Given the fact that the proposed changes in Bill C-25 would do nothing for the inter-writ period as far as election financing is concerned, and given that the government has complained so much about other pieces of legislation dealing with economic and crime issues, I find it kind of odd, since the ill-gotten majority the Liberals have means that the next election, in theory, is not going to be for another three years. Why would they use the extended hours at the end of the session to discuss an election bill, when it would not do anything in the inter-writ period?”

“The government is rushing to change our election laws instead of giving us time to debate them. They should focus on high prices, crime, and the economy instead of changing election rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal government scandals, foreign interference concerns and loss of public trust, the government wants Parliament to rush through the bill and change the rules governing federal elections. This process deprives Canadians of a fulsome debate. Why is the government focused on rewriting election laws instead of rebuilding the trust that Canadians have lost? They need trust brought back to democratic institutions. That is not what the Liberals are doing. They have spent years undermining that trust. Why do they not work on affordability, crime prevention and economic growth so Canadians can once again trust what their government is doing?”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “After more than a decade of Liberal government.”

  Said 13 times by 11 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

“The government is shutting down debate on our election laws. The bill has some good steps to stop foreign influence, but outside groups could still use foreign money to get involved in elections. We need to keep debating this.”

“Mr. Speaker, by moving this motion, the government is shutting down debate about the very underpinnings of our democracy: our elections. There are a number of concerns that I could have raised. There are some positive things in here. For example, when it comes to foreign influence, there are some positive steps, but it still remains open in terms of so-called third parties being able to bring in foreign influence to engage in partisan activity. Does the member find it ironic that the government is shutting down debate on the very underpinnings of our democracy in an anti-democratic way like this?”