“Canadians elected us to deliver an ambitious agenda, so it is with regret, but full transparency, that I want to inform you that, under the circumstances, the government will need to use time allocation more often in order to implement the real change we promised,” [Chagger] says."

Count me among the unconvinced. This is a government that spent a considerable amount of parliamentary time and expended more than a little rhetorical ferocity on M-103, which we were told at the time was merely a necessary symbolic exercise. ('No attack on freedom of speech here!' we were assured.) Those less prone to naivety more likely viewed it as opportunistic ideological posturing. In any case, the motion's proponents strenuously argued that it had nothing to do with actual change (and particularly the kind of change to which, according to polling, the public was demonstrably opposed) so perhaps Chagger might want to reconsider the merits of her argument.  The Libs can't have it both ways.