44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 13, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for this bill, along with the broadcasting bill, for several years. In this case, it is about levelling the playing field so that the print media can thrive in a media landscape dominated by the omnipresence of new technology.
Does the parliamentary secretary think this bill will actually enable the print media to thrive in today's context?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on April 28, the government introduced Bill C-19, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, at first reading. Although the bill passed at second reading under time allocation on May 10, the printed version of the bill presented in the House and received in the lobby differs from the one on the House of Commons' LEGISinfo site.
Members may therefore have received two different versions of Bill C‑19. The paper version contains 477 clauses on 421 pages and actually ends abruptly under the heading “Commission” at paragraph 68.2(b).
The virtual document contains 502 clauses on 440 pages and includes three schedules. That means pages 422 to 440, which include clauses 477 to 502, are missing. Either the wrong version was provided to opposition members when the bill was introduced in the House, or the wrong version is being provided to members and the public on LEGISinfo. I believe the correct version is on LEGISinfo, but I would like confirmation from the government on that.
The paper version clearly states that it is an advance copy that must be formatted and reprinted by Parliament, but still, it is missing roughly 20 clauses and 20 pages. We are talking about an omnibus bill of over 400 pages. We are accustomed to using the copies provided by the government, clearly for environmental reasons, but also because we have, and we want to maintain, confidence in the consistency of the documents tabled and printed in the House.
The opposition parties must simply trust the government on a number of occasions, including when bills are introduced, when budgets are tabled and when the business of supply is being considered. It is therefore important for us to check the content of the bill and ensure that there are no hidden surprises between the hard copy provided to the opposition and the one found on the House website.
When a government bill is tabled, it is customary for the government to publish the contents of the bill immediately after tabling it. However, if the paper version the opposition receives is incomplete, how can we comment on the bill? Could the government manipulate the information provided to the media? Which version of the bill should we now use for the committee study?
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 728: “In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced.”
Are we at that point? I do not think so, but there has been a real mix-up involving the hard copies provided to the opposition and the printing of the bill.
On April 22, when the bill was tabled for first reading, the Deputy Speaker clearly stated, as is customary in the House, “Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed”. I ask that the Speaker provide clear rules for ensuring that the printed copy provided to the opposition is complete when the bill is introduced in the House, given that this has a direct impact on our ability to answer questions from reporters.
558 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your ruling and your clarifications.
However, I lament the fact that the courtesy copies we are given so that we can start studying bills cannot be relied on until they have been authorized and checked by the Speaker.
This seriously undermines members' trust in the government. According to the Speaker's ruling, we should not rely on the documents given to us by the government. I will take note of that and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am somewhat surprised that my colleagues' speeches are so short.
I will jump right in and say that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill S‑223, the former Bill S‑204, which should have passed in the last Parliament.
Bill S‑223 explicitly makes it a crime to travel abroad to receive a transplanted organ that was removed without free and informed consent and obtained for consideration. Put simply, it prohibits individuals from engaging in a practice abroad that is prohibited in Canada.
The Criminal Code prohibits the exploitation of individuals, which includes organ and tissue harvesting. This bill provides an additional tool to thwart criminal groups and to combat organ trafficking, which speaks to the social and economic inequalities that still exist on this planet.
The Bloc Québécois hopes that Bill S‑223 will be passed quickly, as the former bill was.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
