- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- South Shore—St. Margarets
- Nova Scotia
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $136,927.65
- Government Page
moved:
That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 15.
11 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was a very interesting speech from my colleague, who is the chair of the industry committee and does great work on that committee. I enjoyed my few short months on the committee serving with him.
I have a specific question about the issue of balancing an individual's privacy rights with the expectation that corporations and services actually use the individual's data to give the individual a better experience: In order to have a better legal standing to protect an individual's privacy rights, could the member tell us why the government did not put fundamental privacy as an individual right in clause 5, the purpose of the bill?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the first half of the member's speech was a bit about this bill. The last half, obviously, was not.
She is a member of the government, and in 2017, it sent a letter to a company in B.C. that said it is okay to be bought by a state-owned enterprise from China. The former minister of industry said that. The company in China was called Hytera. In 2019, the government did not even do a national security review of this, nor of the acquisition of our only lithium mine, Tanco, in Manitoba.
Can the member enlighten this House, with her extensive reading of the bill, by telling us which clause in the bill will stop that from happening in the future?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I also enjoyed our time sitting next to each other during the long hours into the evening on clause-by-clause. We had a lot of fun joking back and forth. That is part of the fun we can have sometimes in this place, regardless of the party.
In answer to the member's question, I do not think there is an actual number, but there were dozens more witnesses we were trying to hear from. I do not think the committee ever settled that 20 hours would be the limit. In fact, committees often change the number of witnesses once they are into the committee and say they should hear from more people. We thought we should perhaps hear from a few more witnesses to get a more balanced approach so we could have more discussion about the amendments that were being proposed in clause-by-clause.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what is frustrating is the mischaracterization. The original motion on Hockey Canada actually came from the Conservative Party, just to make sure the record is straight.
As a person who has managed to sit in a couple of these meetings recently, I found the presentation by the member interesting because he spoke mostly about getting to clause-by-clause. What he did not talk about was the fact that the committee is in charge of its own destiny. Most committees will adjust their speaking and hearing schedules of witnesses as the testimony comes. This committee refuses to do so. The reality is that there are a lot more Canadians who want to speak on this bill. It is a part of the democratic process to hear from Canadians, so that during clause-by-clause consideration there will be better amendments. Perhaps that is something the government does not understand, because this is a very flawed bill.
I would like to ask the member this. In his speaking notes, he referred to content creators being able to access various funds to improve and support their quality like traditional broadcasters. Where exactly in the bill does it describe how a content creator is able to do that?
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
