6887","static/chunks/6887-ccdfe176d8e60771.js","2958","static/chunks/2958-5bde9c6d896654a5.js","793","static/chunks/793-d1eb689d9edee967.js","5521","static/chunks/app/politicians/statements/%5Bid%5D/page-7e0f3867022802a1.js"],"Divider"] 45:T6b4,

Madam Speaker, this is an important philosophical debate, particularly coming from the Minister of Justice.

Anyone knows that justice is about due process. It is about the structure that we put in place for a trial, for a jury to review things and then for a bill to come into law.

The minister used the argument that this legislation was overly debated at committee, that amendments were made. That is the role of committee to debate amendments, but that does not in any way detract from the purpose of debate in the House.

Then the minister used the argument that the bill was 20 years coming. Clearly then perhaps the legislation should have been brought in earlier. However, by no means does that support the argument for shortening the period of time it is debated at each stage in the House of Commons. It undermines the very purpose of the House of Commons. If we do not need time to debate an important bill in the House of Commons at each phase, then what is the purpose of us being here?

The minister is focusing on the area of consensus, but, again, that is not the point of debate in the House of Commons. It is around those things on which we do not agree.

How can the minister justify shortening the important process of time and the very nature of debate on such important legislation such as the Divorce Act.

Leona Alleslev

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)