44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 11, 2022 02:00PM
Mr. Speaker, platforms are in; users are out. The CRTC has been very clear that it has no interest in regulating the cat videos put up on TikTok and Twitter. It is the platforms that would be regulated with this legislation, not the users.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, but more importantly to address the fake outrage that continues to ensue as it relates to anything that comes from the other side of the House, such as the fake outrage from the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo just a few moments ago about time allocation. What the member for Hamilton Mountain was trying to say to him was that there have actually been more Conservative speakers speaking to this bill during second reading than every other party combined.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: There we go, Mr. Speaker. This has been heavily debated by Conservatives, despite the fake outrage from the member, but we continue to see it nonetheless. I have heard a number of things said in the short time we have been debating this bill this evening, and I am going to address some of them.
First of all, one of the most recent questions, and I think it was the last question from a Conservative member, was about the discoverability portion and how it would be decided to inform the CRTC. If the member reads the bill, he will know that it specifically says that it would be an open public consultative process. That is exactly how it would happen. The member should know that, because I know he has read the bill, but this goes to my point of the fake outrage.
Here is the thing. I can understand where the Conservatives are coming from right now. A year ago, they were successful when it came to generating that fake outrage. They were successful. Now, though, they are not. This issue does not have anywhere near the traction it did a year ago, because people have come to realize that maybe they were sold the wrong information when they were being told by Conservatives that their rights would be restricted.
I will go back to another thing that was falsely said in this House a few moments ago by the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, when she talked about algorithms. He specifically said that—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Did I get the name not 100% accurate?
An hon. member: The gender was wrong.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: My apologies—
388 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 7:48:59 p.m.
- Watch
Order.
Let us slow it down. I know we have a lot to talk about tonight.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I know the member is a he. He and I will quite often talk to each other back and forth across the House, but we use our first names, which I am not allowed to do when I am giving a speech.
Nonetheless, he referenced algorithms specifically, saying that the government would have the ability to control these algorithms that would impact what people see. If we look at page 14 of the bill, there is a whole section about restrictions and “computer algorithm or source code”. It is in the bill.
It states:
The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.
Why would members from the Conservative Party continually bring up this issue, when it is written right here in black and white in the bill? One has to wonder.
I will go back to fake outrage. The Conservatives want to generate this fake outrage because they want to stir up controversy. They want people to believe that we live in a country that is not free. Look at the almost leader of the Conservative Party of—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I hear some cheers. I know who is on the side of the member for Carleton.
Let us look at the member for Carleton. His whole campaign is focused around the idea that Canada is not a free country. I have news for my colleagues across the way. They may have heard of Freedom House. It is a bipartisan-supported organization in the United States that was started in 1941 during the Second World War. Freedom House ranks countries throughout the world with respect to the degree they are viewed as a free country. Canada is ranked fifth out of all countries in the world. We scored 40 out of 40 points when it comes to political freedom. We scored 58 out of 60 points when it comes to civil liberties. Where are they getting this? They do not have to agree with this organization that has been around since 1941 that has—
Mr. Damien Kurek: Thank goodness Alberta is here.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously I am hitting a nerve. The Conservatives are very concerned about this and will not stop heckling me because they do not want Canadians to believe that we live in a free country, and I cannot understand that. Why would they run an entire political organization based on the premise that Canadians are not free? It is so incredibly ludicrous, but we see it time after time. It is what the member for Carleton's entire campaign is based on. It is what the fake outrage we see, time after time, from the Conservatives is based on. It is indeed what this particular issue is to them.
This is a bill to make sure that the proper measures are in place to protect Canadian content. That is what this is about. It is about working with those web giants and the very large distributors of content to make sure they pay into the same fund that radio and TV stations and other broadcasters have had to pay into for decades, so that we can preserve Canadian content like The Tragically Hip from my riding of Kingston and the Islands. That was an incredible success story of Canada. Back in the day, bands like The Tragically Hip would not have been able to get on the radio had it not been for some of those requirements that were there, and had it not been for money that was put aside to help promote Canadian content. That is what this is about.
It alarms me to hear the Conservatives play with the importance of that cultural identity just for a tiny bit of what they perceive to be political expedience to help convince Canadians they are not free. It is absolutely crazy when we listen to the narrative that continually comes from that side of the House on issues like this.
I know the Conservatives are champing at the bit to ask me a question. Perhaps one of them can identify somebody other than Michael Geist, who they quote time after time in the House. Can they can quote somebody else, or make reference to somebody who also feels the same way, and can honestly speak to this issue in the same way?
When we talk about ensuring that we put the right measures in place, we are really talking about ensuring that the cultural identity of Canada exists in perpetuity: It exists into the future, so that future generations can celebrate the same success stories of small artists and small bands that had the opportunity to grow and prosper in our country, and not neighbouring countries that have 10 times the population and can be quite overbearing and dominate us from a cultural perspective, from time to time. That is what this is all about. That is the whole purpose.
I know the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells was talking earlier about MAPL, and having to identify with two of four areas of Canadian content. That is where those ideas came from, back in the day. That is what was intended to help preserve Canadian content.
When we look at amending the legislation, we are talking about amending legislation that has not been touched since 1991. I was in grade 10 in 1991, maybe grade 11. What was a popular song then? MC Hammer, I think, was the big artist at the time. That is the last time this legislation was updated. MC Hammer was wearing his big, baggy pants, dancing around in music videos on MuchMusic.
If anyone suggests for a second that there is no need to update this legislation because things have changed, it is a new world now and things are different, I can only imagine what people were saying back then, in the early nineties. I wonder if there are the same arguments coming forward: that TV and radio are dominant now, and we are never going to be able to affect it. It is such a defeatist attitude to have, and it is an attitude that we are seeing time after time from the other side, specifically as it relates to this particular issue.
I am very much in support of protecting and promoting Canadian culture. That is what this bill would do, and I look forward to this bill going to committee so that we can continue to improve it, get it back to the House and pass it.
1116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am never one to back down from a challenge. The member challenged us to find individuals who might have something to say against this bill, other than Dr. Geist. Andrew Coyne, the columnist for The Globe and Mail; Dr. Irene Berkowitz, senior policy fellow at Ryerson University; Matt Hatfield, campaigns director at OpenMedia; Peter Menzies, former CRTC chair; Monica Auer, the executive director of Forum for Research and Policy in Communications; Scott Benzie, managing director of Digital First Canada; Oorbee Roy, digital content creator, and actually a witness at the Canadian heritage committee; and Darcy Michael, at committee and a digital content creator as well, all spoke against it, as did Morghan Fortier, Skyship Entertainment for YouTube. Those are just a few that my friend across the way seems to have forgotten.
Not only do Michael Geist, and we on this side of the House, oppose this bill, but millions of Canadians across this country oppose it, as well.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is great. Why have they not brought any of those names up before? There is only one name that keeps coming up over and over again in the House. It is the only name that they keep referencing.
I am really glad that the member was able to pick up his bill kit from the whip's desk at the back, come out here and read a bunch of names to me, but I would suggest to him that he start using those names, and that some of the members start quoting other references and sources.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.
I just want clarify that, in 1991, people in Quebec were listening to L'amour existe encore by Céline Dion.
I also want to remind the member that, at the time, Céline Dion was enjoying great success, but there were also people like Caroline Desbiens who, even though she may not have been a superstar, was also succeeding, and that the CRTC made it possible to manage all those fine people.
I have a question for my colleague. Why are our Conservative neighbours questioning whether the CRTC will be able to do its job when the legislation comes into force when the CRTC has always been able to do its job?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I regret that when I gave the example, the first one to come to my head was MC Hammer. I should have thought of a Canadian artist, and I apologize for that.
The member is absolutely correct. The CRTC has been able to do this in the past. There is no reason to assume that the CRTC has not been able to do this in the past. As a matter of fact, when the Conservatives get up to criticize the CRTC, as they do with this side of the House and with cabinet in particular, they just start attacking individuals, such as the Chair, or saying this person was going out for beers with that person, rather than actually trying to ever get to the heart of the substance. It is what they do repeatedly. They just attack individuals. They see that as somehow a path to being successful in politics, and I would argue that it is not.
To the member's point, the CRTC is extremely capable of doing this. I have faith the CRTC can do this. It does have experience, having done this for several decades. I do not know why anybody would assume it was not going to have the same ability to do it moving into the future.
216 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, it is great the member made such a great statement about the importance of ensuring Canadian cultural content. What the bill does not specify, though, is how long it would take to make sure that large companies like Netflix pay their fair share.
I wonder if the member could share with us if the government will be transparent and make sure some of these profits are being shared with the public, as well as on which date they will be made to pay their fair share.
87 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact answer to that. I hope that question comes up in committee, because it is a very good question. We should have some kind of timeline as to when that would happen. I encourage the member, or her representatives on the committee, to make sure the point is brought up. I am unaware if she is on the committee. It is a very valid question.
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand virtually to join members this evening to contribute to this debate. I am currently in my home riding and am honoured to recognize and acknowledge the territory of the WSANEC nation. I raise my hands to all of them and say hych'ka siem, which is in the language of the traditional people of this land. I hope that Bill C-11 will actually deliver on some of the ideas to increase the indigenous content in what we see from our broadcast media in this country. We have a lot of work to do.
I want to address the bill. I have thought a lot about it, and in some of the debate, the notion that we need to do more for Canadian content has been somewhat ridiculed because there is Canadian content in things like The Handmaid's Tale. Why would we think that needed more Canadian content?
Just for fun, I looked up some of the things that one could think of as Canadian content that never was, like Dudley Do-Right. I grew up with Dudley Do-Right, the accident-prone Canadian Mountie who of course had nothing to do with Canada. It was produced by the people who did Rocky and Bullwinkle. It was in the 1960s that I used to watch that. In 1999, there was a Hollywood film based on the cartoon, and of course none of the people involved were Canadian, and the indigenous characters, who were played in ways that were racially and culturally inappropriate and offensive, were played by actors who were not themselves indigenous. We can go way back, if we want to look for Mounties, to find Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald from the 1930s, with a score from Oscar Hammerstein, singing Indian Love Call.
It is absurd to think for one minute that a Canadian Mountie makes a show Canadian or that the inclusion of an indigenous character makes it appropriate. It is laughable. We really do have to pay attention to raising up Canadian content.
I can share with colleagues that countries with much smaller populations than Canada has, like Norway or Denmark, have really extraordinary hit programs that people watch even if they have to put up with subtitles. They watch Borgen or watch the Occupied series. Canada has amazing talent, and it is time to make sure that we are not undermined by online streaming.
I am therefore very sympathetic to many of the goals of this bill. It has amendments to the Broadcasting Act, and because the Broadcasting Act protects freedom of expression, we are not going to lose freedom of expression. However, that does not mean I do not have some concerns that I share with other members here.
I want to thank Paul Manly, by the way, the former member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, because he took on all the workload of Bill C-10, which involved a lot of time developing amendments and being stuck in committee, where nothing was moving, and then we had an election. I did want to get out a public thanks to Paul.
I will turn to the things that really need work. The whole piece around the community element needs work. The broadcasters within community radio and community television that take on the role of community really want the community element definition fixed. One of the key concepts that I hope the committee will take on, in listening to community broadcasting, is to make sure that community broadcasting, by its definition in Bill C-11, is understood as fully community run. It is a really important point and we want to take that forward. I will be working in committee as a non-member of committee to get some amendments made so that the act really protects community-run content.
I am also concerned, frankly, about criticisms of the overreach of the CRTC's authority. We should really look at them. I am not sure where I come down on this yet, but Michael Geist, who is a really knowledgeable expert on media, is concerned that there would be an increased and expanded CRTC authority. I did used to practise in public interest law, and I went through some really long, mind-numbing hearings on, for instance, the review of revenue requirements for Bell and the breaking up of Bell, and all the things the CRTC did. It is a very powerful administrative body, and I wanted to mention that to colleagues.
A lot of the councils and advisory bodies to government, like regulatory agencies, generally provide advice to the government. In the case of the CRTC, it has decision-making authority and can only be overturned by a cabinet-level decision, so it is really important that we are careful. This is our one opportunity to really say what the CRTC is supposed to do and what it is not supposed to do. It is what we do when we are legislating, so let us make sure we get that right.
I have to say my confidence in the CRTC was shaken when I realized that it had put Russia Today, RT, on cable networks across Canada. It is a disinformation source that has undermined this country's democracy. I do not know how anyone ever concluded that this was a good idea, but I would like to make sure that we know we have given the CRTC the right instructions by legislation to make sure it is regulating and protecting Canadian content, and ensuring the survival and flourishing of our artistic community, our indigenous community and the French language.
We need to have French broadcasting. That is essential to our multicultural country. I am not convinced that Bill C‑11 has this quite right. It is not perfect, at least not yet.
The other piece I really want to mention is what we do about online content and social media. I know that the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells made reference to this, but I really want to commend the recent work of former chief justice Beverley McLachlin and the quite brilliant academic director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill, Taylor Owen. They make a very important point: Regulate the system, not the speech.
I really think that our social media approach should not be to look for when there has been a transgression and then go out and punish. I do not think the government or the CRTC should be trying to figure out when speech is hate speech or when it is libellous. We need to create a system where social media enterprises have to themselves take on the responsibility to be fully transparent and accountable.
I am going to read this into the record, before I run out of time. It is from an article by former Supreme Court chief justice Beverley McLachlin and Taylor Owen:
For too long the issue of online harms has been erroneously framed as one of individual bad actors and the regulation of speech, but the problem is one of systemic risk and it must be addressed as such. Canada now has the chance to learn from and build on the policies attempted in other countries and get it right.
That is from the recent May 9 article “Regulate the System, Not the Speech”.
We can do this. Whether it is through this bill or the many others that are looking at social media, we have to fix this. I will close here and just say this. Let us get Bill C-11 to committee. Let us get it right.
1285 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the reflections of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on what we have heard from the Conservatives. They make some very strong points about freedom of speech, but how does that compare with their party's policy toward the CBC, which they say they would defund and basically try to get out of the news business? Is there a conflict there that she could comment on?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, honestly, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells, who is a dear friend, may be conflating some things there, because it is not so much freedom of speech that is offended by calling for the end of the CBC. Really, it is about making sure we have a public broadcaster that can deliver things that the private sector does not care about.
I lament how many cuts have been made to the CBC. We have lost the suppertime news. The swim coach, believe it or not, in our fitness program in Parliament used to be Pierre Lafontaine, the former Olympic swim coach. He helped me and my dear friend Joy Smith, who used to represent the Conservative Party, learn to swim. We all learned how to swim really well because Pierre Lafontaine helped us. Pierre Lafontaine said that when CBC lost the suppertime news, it stopped covering local sports. That was a great way to get more kids involved in sports and more parents involved, because the CBC used to have enough money to cover local tournaments and local events.
Our news media in this country, whether community suppertime news or national news coverage, has suffered from being undermined. Private sector companies like CTV and Global have been undermined by competition from all kinds of news sites, Google and so on. This took away their advertising revenue at the same time that they have had cutbacks. We need to fund the CBC properly.
As far as freedom of speech goes, again, the Broadcasting Act says that freedom of expression is protected. That is clear. The charter protects freedom of expression too. However, nobody has the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. We have never had that right. That is freedom of speech misused. It is not an absolute right; it never has been.
310 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this evening I rise as an artist. People may not realize this, but in Montreal, 80% of the members of the artists' union earn less than $20,000 per year. That is kind of a big deal.
At one point in her life, a few years ago, Sylvie Drapeau, a hugely famous stage actor in Quebec, was getting cast in all the biggest roles. She played the Théâtre du Nouveau Monde, the Théâtre Jean-Duceppe, the Théâtre du Rideau Vert. She played lead roles in the evening and rehearsed during the day. Even when she was playing starring roles in all the top productions, she was earning just $35,000 per year, and she is an outstanding actor, probably one of the greatest actors Canada has ever known. Artists are starving, and the pandemic made things even harder.
What does my colleague think about the fact that we could have passed Bill C‑11 a year ago, which would have helped artists struggling to get by? I used a stage actor as an example, but the pandemic has also been very hard on television actors and musicians. What does my colleague think about the fact that, when the Liberals called an election, they delayed a bill that was needed to help our artists in Quebec and Canada earn a living?
233 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank my Bloc Québécois colleague because one of the goals of this bill is to protect artists, actors, creators and directors.
We need to protect their role in our society because that is our wealth, our roots as a society. Canada's true soul lies in our artists. We need to protect them. I totally agree, and it was not our idea, as members of an opposition party, to hold an election.
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to speak in favour of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.
This legislation passed through this House just last year after extensive Conservative filibustering, but it had to be reintroduced because it ended up dying in the Senate. I felt it particularly important to speak to this legislation because there has been a coordinated attack of misinformation and disinformation that has confused people as to exactly what this legislation would do. In my brief speech, I will touch on what this bill would do, what it would not do and some of the implications around the some of the misinformation.
Given that the media landscape has changed, our approach to it must also change to bring things into the 21st century. The online streaming bill does just that. Like we have always done for radio and television, now online streaming companies will be there to support and promote Canadian content. The bill does this by bringing online streaming services under the jurisdiction of the Broadcasting Act. This act has not been amended since 1991, and that was a very different time.
The bill would also do this by requiring online streaming services that serve the Canadian market to contribute to the production of Canadian content. In the same way that they benefit from accessing the Canadian market, they should be there to invest back into it. The bill would also ensure that broadcasters would showcase more Canadian content, as well as prioritizing content from Francophone, indigenous, LGBTQ+, racialized and other equity-seeking creators.
We have to ask ourselves why this is important. It is important because we consume media very differently in 2022 from how we did in 1991. If Canadians are anything like me, they do not have cable. If they have cable, they may use it just to watch sports these days. They probably do not listen to the radio much. They may access music through apps like Spotify, Apple Music and others. They may be watching television or movies through Netflix, Prime, YouTube or many of the other streaming services that have absolutely revolutionized the media landscape over the last two decades. In order to have a level playing field, these platforms need to be treated just the same as television and radio have been treated for decades.
Sometimes the question comes up about why we need Canadian content. Quite simply, it is because we are not American. We feel the impact and dominance of the America media and culture, and that is something that every Canadian is familiar with. We are inundated with American news, TV, movies, music and culture. The American media and entertainment industry is very much a juggernaut, with the ability to promote and broadcast its influence far and wide. In Canada, we see that.
The close and familiar nature of our cultures and histories, as well as the vast funding and institutional entrenchment of American media, have allowed it to flourish in our country, and there is no doubt that there is exceptional content coming from south of the border. However, our Canadian content creators are at a disadvantage without the same levels of inertia, funding and entrenchment that the American media have had for decades.
That is why we need to take action to ensure that Canadian culture and Canadian stories are still promoted and told. I think we would all agree that our own culture and history are distinct from those of the U.S. We have stories, ideas and creative expression that are uniquely Canadian, and it is the shared cultural fabric that helps define our national identity.
That, right there, is what this bill is really about. We have our own cultural fabric and our own Canadian identities, and we must work to protect our heritage from the influence of foreign media. It is unfortunate that this bill, which is aimed at protecting and strengthening our cultural heritage by requiring only web giants to pay into creating Canadian content, has been so mired in controversy and misinformation.
I want to take a moment to try to set the record straight on exactly what this bill does not do. This bill does not impose regulations on content that everyday Canadians post on social media. It does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content, creators, influencers or users. It does not censor or mandate specific algorithms or streaming services on social media platforms. It does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form, or create the conditions for Internet censorship.
This bill specifically carves out from the bill content created by users on social media platforms, except where that content is commercial content. That is defined by the regulator, which evaluates based on three elements, whether the content is monetized, whether it exists on another non-social media platform, and whether the content has a unique international standard code.
This measure is designed to standardize treatments of commercial content across all platforms. We have to ask ourselves why such an innocuous bill, which would support our Canadian cultural producers, would become so controversial. Who can argue with bringing our regulation into the 21st century? The answer is actually quite simple. It has been a coordinated campaign of misinformation and disinformation.
Members opposite and their party's communication apparatus have peddled misinformation claiming that the bill would silence Canadian online content creators, despite the fact that the bill explicitly excludes content creators. They have claimed that the bill would violate charter rights and limit free speech, despite its direct predecessor's having been through multiple reviews for charter compliance and the fact that the Department of Justice has found it fully compliant. Members claim that the bill would control what people can post on Facebook and Twitter, despite the fact that the bill has absolutely nothing to do with regulating online speech.
The scale of misinformation and disinformation around the bill has been so extreme that one would be hard pressed to believe that it came about organically. If we think that there is no way that this misinformed outrage is organic, we would be right. Rather, far-right organizations like Canada Proud have been working overtime, pushing falsehoods about the bill on Canadians. This of course is the same Canada Proud that was founded by Jeff Ballingall, also known as the digital campaign director of the former leader of the official opposition in the last election, as well as that of the likely future leader of the official opposition.
It is disappointing that the official opposition works with groups such as these, which employ tactics of misinformation and in this case, clear disinformation. In doing so, it actually undermines and compromises the fabric of legitimate political discourse in Canada, while also sowing division for political gain. In this case, it means siding with foreign web giants over the Canadian cultural sector, which is resulting in that sector's being left behind, especially in light of the serious impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the sector. It is bad enough that these tactics are poisoning debate in the House and on topics at the national level, but we know this is not an isolated example.
In the last election, in fact, the Conservative candidate in my riding did a mail drop a couple of days before the election, with a nefarious-looking picture of the Prime Minister saying that we were going to remove the exemption on capital gains for principal residences. I am sure many other folks in the House could give us many other examples.
Unfortunately, I have little confidence that the official opposition is going to cease with these disingenuous tactics. It is their MO, after all, but these insidious approaches are now poisoning debate all the way down to the local level. I bring the example of Squamish Voices. Squamish Voices began as a social media Facebook page and built up a following as a faux community group by promoting themselves on Facebook and asking very innocuous questions like what someone's favourite ice cream was. Having built up a very large following, they switched into launching a very dedicated campaign of attacks and character assassination on progressive elected officials by spreading misinformation. They spent over $25,000—
1390 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:23:39 p.m.
- Watch
There is a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would simply observe, note and call upon the constitutional requirement of quorum and question as to whether or not there is quorum in this place.
28 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/22 8:23:53 p.m.
- Watch
Let me consult with the Table. I understood that Motion No. 11 did not have a quorum requirement.
I appreciate the point of order, but the order is specific that at 6:30, there is no quorum required.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, further to that point of order, on page 186 of Joseph Maingot's second edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, there is a claim that I will quote, that “the courts might be effective in ensuring the observance of procedural requirements imposed by the constitution with respect to the enactment of legislation.”
Since Bill C-11 is currently being considered without quorum and quorum is a requirement of the Constitution, I trust the courts will take note of my interjection today in the event that Bill C-11 is challenged in a court in our country at some point.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
