Lamoureux, a parliamentary secretary to the House leader, defends the government’s affordability programs — the national dental program for seniors on fixed incomes and the school food program he says feeds 400,000 children — and presses Bill C-34’s digital safety commission, which he says gives the law teeth through fines. He turns most exchanges into a direct question for his opponent, asking, “Does the member support the principle of having a commission?” He also raises hospice and palliative care in debates on medical assistance in dying.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
B
The average grade of 690 analysed statements. 111 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
78 / 100 over 690 statements
Signal70 / 100
Relevance79 / 100
Reasoning73 / 100
Respect100 / 100
Clarity91 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →Wording that hides who did something, or who will.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.Less often than most members.What the tags mean →
Averaged over the 690 of 803 statements graded so far.
“Debates about medical assistance in dying need to include how families and health workers support people at the end of life. We need to do more to support hospice and palliative care. I want to know what the member thinks about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on the many debates that have taken place in the House of Commons in regard to medical assistance in dying, one thing that really needs to be talked about as part of this discussion is how health care professionals, family members and the facilities out there all come together to support a loved one. I think of things like hospice care. I believe we need to do more on hospice care. I think we can do better in terms of palliative care in different facilities. I am wondering if the member had the opportunity to reflect on those types of issues, because they all feed together with medical assistance in dying.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, as I reflect on the many debates that have taken place in the House of Commons in regard to medical assistance in dying, one thing that really needs to be talked about as part of this discussion is how health care professionals, family members and the facilities out there all come together to support a loved one. I think of things like hospice care. I believe we need to do more on hospice care. I think we can do better in terms of palliative care in different facilities. I am wondering if the member had the opportunity to reflect on those types of issues, because they all feed together with medical assistance in dying.
“I want to know what the member thinks about including hospice and palliative care in our debate on this bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the debate that will take place on this legislation and how part of that debate should include things such as hospice and palliative care. I would ask for his thoughts on those important issues.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the debate that will take place on this legislation and how part of that debate should include things such as hospice and palliative care. I would ask for his thoughts on those important issues.
“The Conservatives are being silly. Our school food program feeds 29,000 children in Manitoba and 400,000 across Canada. The Prime Minister made it permanent, but that Conservative member voted against it.”
“Mr. Speaker, we see the silliness coming from the Conservative Party. Let me give the member a tangible example. Let us think of my home province of Manitoba: Under the national school program, 29,000 children are being fed in schools. Across Canada, it is 400,000. This Prime Minister is the one who made it a permanent program. On the other hand, the member who just posed the question voted against that. Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.”
Mr. Speaker, we see the silliness coming from the Conservative Party. Let me give the member a tangible example. Let us think of my home province of Manitoba: Under the national school program, 29,000 children are being fed in schools. Across Canada, it is 400,000. This Prime Minister is the one who made it a permanent program. On the other hand, the member who just posed the question voted against that. Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.
“The Prime Minister is following the same ethics rules that Stephen Harper followed. The Conservatives should stop attacking his character and start working with us to help the economy and make life more affordable.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the member worked with Stephen Harper, the rules we have were established, and the Prime Minister today is following the same rules as Stephen Harper. The biggest difference is that the Conservatives tend to want to be in the gutter consistently with character assassination, when we have a Prime Minister who is doing a fine job of representing Canadians and building a healthier and stronger economy. It is time that the Conservatives start providing action on the many initiatives, whether it is on the issue of affordability or building that—”
Mr. Speaker, when the member worked with Stephen Harper, the rules we have were established, and the Prime Minister today is following the same rules as Stephen Harper. The biggest difference is that the Conservatives tend to want to be in the gutter consistently with character assassination, when we have a Prime Minister who is doing a fine job of representing Canadians and building a healthier and stronger economy. It is time that the Conservatives start providing action on the many initiatives, whether it is on the issue of affordability or building that—
“The Conservatives need to stop attacking the Prime Minister's character. The Prime Minister is focused on building a stronger, healthier economy for everyone, and the Conservatives should recognize the good things this government is doing.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is frankly really and truly quite shameful the way in which the Conservative Party wants to continue the character assassination of the Prime Minister. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister is focused, as the government is, on building a stronger and healthier Canada, a Canada that works for all. The Conservatives need to get out of the gutter and start recognizing the many positive things that are happening as a direct result of this government and this Prime Minister reaching out and building that stronger and healthier economy. It is time to step up—”
Mr. Speaker, it is frankly really and truly quite shameful the way in which the Conservative Party wants to continue the character assassination of the Prime Minister. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister is focused, as the government is, on building a stronger and healthier Canada, a Canada that works for all. The Conservatives need to get out of the gutter and start recognizing the many positive things that are happening as a direct result of this government and this Prime Minister reaching out and building that stronger and healthier economy. It is time to step up—
“Our government has helped people with costs since taking office. We created a school food program that feeds 400,000 children and a dental program for seniors on fixed incomes. The Conservatives voted against both. Moderate Conservatives should speak up for Canadians and push out the far right.”
“Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister with a new government. From day one, the issue of affordability has been important not only to the Prime Minister, but to every Liberal member of this caucus. At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. What members will see is that we brought forward programs such as the national food program for our schools, which feeds 400,000 children. The Conservatives said no to that. We brought forward the national dental care program, which provides dental services for seniors on fixed incomes. The Conservatives said no to that. Somewhere within that caucus is a small fraction of Progressive Conservatives. We need those Conservatives to stand up, start speaking on behalf of Canadians and get rid of the far right.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, 18 months ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister with a new government. From day one, the issue of affordability has been important not only to the Prime Minister, but to every Liberal member of this caucus. At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. What members will see is that we brought forward programs such as the national food program for our schools, which feeds 400,000 children. The Conservatives said no to that. We brought forward the national dental care program, which provides dental services for seniors on fixed incomes. The Conservatives said no to that. Somewhere within that caucus is a small fraction of Progressive Conservatives. We need those Conservatives to stand up, start speaking on behalf of Canadians and get rid of the far right.
“A doctor who provides assisted dying wrote that just knowing they qualify helps people suffer less, gives them a choice, and lets them focus on living. I want the member to tell me what he thinks about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to quote an article that was written by Stefanie Green, who is the main practitioner and founding president of the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers. It reads: As a practitioner...I can tell you that...if I can tell someone they are eligible for an assisted death, regardless of if they ever pursue one or not, I see their suffering reduced. Rather than feeling helpless, they become empowered with choice. And in that remarkable moment, I watch them almost immediately stop focusing on how they are going to die, which is something they have been so fearful of, and begin to concentrate instead on how they plan to live for the time they have remaining. I am just wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that particular quote.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to quote an article that was written by Stefanie Green, who is the main practitioner and founding president of the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers. It reads: As a practitioner...I can tell you that...if I can tell someone they are eligible for an assisted death, regardless of if they ever pursue one or not, I see their suffering reduced. Rather than feeling helpless, they become empowered with choice. And in that remarkable moment, I watch them almost immediately stop focusing on how they are going to die, which is something they have been so fearful of, and begin to concentrate instead on how they plan to live for the time they have remaining. I am just wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on that particular quote.
“The federal government is investing heavily in health care and created a dental program for seniors on fixed incomes. Conservatives voted against that dental care. Instead of complaining, they should help their local projects access federal funds, just like I do.”
“Mr. Speaker, has the member actually approached the province and said, “There is a federal fund of $5 billion. If there is a project here, what is being done to try to access some of those dollars?” I can tell the member that I have done that. The member talks about dissing seniors. Let us remember, we have a dental program for seniors, including seniors that are on a fixed income in the member’s own riding. Yet the Conservatives vote against that. Dental care is a part of health care. Conservative members should talk to a senior that needs to get dental work done, and they will have a better appreciation of that. The federal government understands the issue of health care. We are doing what we can to support our national health care system through transfer payments and targets, investing in capital. The federal government is stepping up. The Conservatives need to step up where they can.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, has the member actually approached the province and said, “There is a federal fund of $5 billion. If there is a project here, what is being done to try to access some of those dollars?” I can tell the member that I have done that. The member talks about dissing seniors. Let us remember, we have a dental program for seniors, including seniors that are on a fixed income in the member’s own riding. Yet the Conservatives vote against that. Dental care is a part of health care. Conservative members should talk to a senior that needs to get dental work done, and they will have a better appreciation of that. The federal government understands the issue of health care. We are doing what we can to support our national health care system through transfer payments and targets, investing in capital. The federal government is stepping up. The Conservatives need to step up where they can.
“The Conservatives' plan to license doctors across Canada is not realistic because provinces control doctor licensing. The federal government helps by encouraging provinces to recognize foreign credentials and by setting aside $5 billion for hospital projects. We need provinces and universities to work together so qualified doctors can actually practice.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to be kind. The blue seal program the Conservative Party talks about, at the national level, is just not real. I think there are some people within the Conservative Party who understand that. Maybe some do not. I used to be the health care critic for the Province of Manitoba. The issue of doctors and the placement of doctors, and so forth, is the responsibility of provinces. The biggest barrier in terms of recognizing doctors is not a federal initiative. Often a federal government can encourage and promote provinces to get doctors recognized. It saddens me when doctors or potential doctors are leaving the province of Manitoba and going to other jurisdictions, even countries such as Australia, where they become doctors but then come back and are not getting recognized. This is a serious issue. The federal government is doing what it can to promote and encourage things such as mobility across Canada. We need more of that. We need our health care professionals to get better recognition for the skill sets they have. I remember an incident when I went to a furniture store on St. James Street. This happened when I was the health care critic. The province was actually busing pregnant women from Brandon, I believe it was, to the city of Winnipeg because we did not have enough doctors in Brandon to deliver babies. Meanwhile, the guy who was selling me furniture had delivered babies in India for years. He gave me the impression that it was hundreds of babies. He could not get his credentials recognized in Canada. The provinces play a critical role in the numbers of doctors. The stakeholders we are talking about deal with universities, our professional organizations and provincial governments, working more closely at resolving the issues, such as residency positions in hospitals, and, again, educational facilities. From a federal government perspective, we not only have had a Prime Minister who has actually made a commitment to preserving the strength of our health care system from a federal perspective, but we are also doing more. To give a specific example, we have now put aside $5 billion for capital health care expansions. For the first time, we are saying that we are going to give x number of dollars for capital so we can get capital expansion strictly with health care. I, for one, am hoping for things such as some money going toward expanding the number of beds at the Seven Oaks General Hospital. I would like more money invested in research and health care, in particular cancer research out of the Health Sciences Centre. There are incredible people who work there. The federal government is stepping up. The federal government has stepped up in the past to deal with things such as palliative care and mental health. Yes, we have the Canada Health Act. It is important that we look at ways in which we can support our—”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I want to be kind. The blue seal program the Conservative Party talks about, at the national level, is just not real. I think there are some people within the Conservative Party who understand that. Maybe some do not. I used to be the health care critic for the Province of Manitoba. The issue of doctors and the placement of doctors, and so forth, is the responsibility of provinces. The biggest barrier in terms of recognizing doctors is not a federal initiative. Often a federal government can encourage and promote provinces to get doctors recognized. It saddens me when doctors or potential doctors are leaving the province of Manitoba and going to other jurisdictions, even countries such as Australia, where they become doctors but then come back and are not getting recognized. This is a serious issue. The federal government is doing what it can to promote and encourage things such as mobility across Canada. We need more of that. We need our health care professionals to get better recognition for the skill sets they have. I remember an incident when I went to a furniture store on St. James Street. This happened when I was the health care critic. The province was actually busing pregnant women from Brandon, I believe it was, to the city of Winnipeg because we did not have enough doctors in Brandon to deliver babies. Meanwhile, the guy who was selling me furniture had delivered babies in India for years. He gave me the impression that it was hundreds of babies. He could not get his credentials recognized in Canada. The provinces play a critical role in the numbers of doctors. The stakeholders we are talking about deal with universities, our professional organizations and provincial governments, working more closely at resolving the issues, such as residency positions in hospitals, and, again, educational facilities. From a federal government perspective, we not only have had a Prime Minister who has actually made a commitment to preserving the strength of our health care system from a federal perspective, but we are also doing more. To give a specific example, we have now put aside $5 billion for capital health care expansions. For the first time, we are saying that we are going to give x number of dollars for capital so we can get capital expansion strictly with health care. I, for one, am hoping for things such as some money going toward expanding the number of beds at the Seven Oaks General Hospital. I would like more money invested in research and health care, in particular cancer research out of the Health Sciences Centre. There are incredible people who work there. The federal government is stepping up. The federal government has stepped up in the past to deal with things such as palliative care and mental health. Yes, we have the Canada Health Act. It is important that we look at ways in which we can support our—
“I want everyone to agree to end debate early and start private members' hour now.”
“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. so we can begin private members’ hour.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I suspect that if you were canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. so we can begin private members’ hour.
“We need a commission to enforce rules and protect children online. Commissions like this work well in Canada, and a committee can still improve the rules later. Does the member support creating this commission?”
“Madam Speaker, the CRTC is a great example of a commission that has worked well for Canada. We would establish a commission that would have the expertise to deal with protecting children in Canada. We would have regulations, and the committee would have ample opportunity to look at ways they can be potentially modified, but the principle of a commission would ensure that there is enforcement and real progress on protecting our children. Does the member support the principle of the commission?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, the CRTC is a great example of a commission that has worked well for Canada. We would establish a commission that would have the expertise to deal with protecting children in Canada. We would have regulations, and the committee would have ample opportunity to look at ways they can be potentially modified, but the principle of a commission would ensure that there is enforcement and real progress on protecting our children. Does the member support the principle of the commission?
“I support this bill because it protects children from harmful online content. It creates a team of experts that can fine social media companies and chatbot services. I want to know if the member agrees we need this group to hold these platforms accountable.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member put on the record. I too am very much concerned about things like algorithms. I am very much concerned about the harmful content out there today. That is why Bill C-34 would establish a framework that would see regulations put in place to protect the children of Canada. That is a significant thing. Not only would it put in place regulations or allow for them, but it would also put in place a commission. Through that commission, we could see fines. The bottom line is that there would be more accountability on things like service providers, platforms, AI chatbots and so forth. Does the member agree with the principle of having a commission to ensure that we see follow-up, a commission that has a high level of expertise on the issue?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member put on the record. I too am very much concerned about things like algorithms. I am very much concerned about the harmful content out there today. That is why Bill C-34 would establish a framework that would see regulations put in place to protect the children of Canada. That is a significant thing. Not only would it put in place regulations or allow for them, but it would also put in place a commission. Through that commission, we could see fines. The bottom line is that there would be more accountability on things like service providers, platforms, AI chatbots and so forth. Does the member agree with the principle of having a commission to ensure that we see follow-up, a commission that has a high level of expertise on the issue?
“I want this bill to pass because it protects children. It sets rules for social media and AI chatbots, and it lets a new commission fine companies that break them. I want my colleague to speak about why passing it matters.”
“Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to have discussions with my seatmate. I know how important this issue is, and I appreciate that she has consulted with young people. Bill C-34 would put in, through law, regulations that would protect children across the nation. I see that as a very strong positive. Not only would it provide the opportunity to have regulations for service providers and AI chatbots, but it would also provide the opportunity to institute fines through the establishment of a commission. I am wondering if my friend could provide her thoughts on how important it is that we bring forward the legislation and ultimately see it pass, because it is all about protecting our children.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to have discussions with my seatmate. I know how important this issue is, and I appreciate that she has consulted with young people. Bill C-34 would put in, through law, regulations that would protect children across the nation. I see that as a very strong positive. Not only would it provide the opportunity to have regulations for service providers and AI chatbots, but it would also provide the opportunity to institute fines through the establishment of a commission. I am wondering if my friend could provide her thoughts on how important it is that we bring forward the legislation and ultimately see it pass, because it is all about protecting our children.
“I support this bill. It protects Canadian children and helps make our communities safer. I thank the secretary of state for her work on it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to personally express my appreciation for and thanks to the secretary of state. She has been leading the fight here, with a number of legislative initiatives to make our communities safer, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the entire government caucus, working with a couple of other ministers. I believe she is right when she says that this is a very important aspect of protecting the children of Canada, and it complements many other initiatives. This Parliament has brought forward a historic number of pieces of legislation to make our communities safer, and I want to express my appreciation, as I know many of my constituents do, for what she has been able to accomplish.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I want to personally express my appreciation for and thanks to the secretary of state. She has been leading the fight here, with a number of legislative initiatives to make our communities safer, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the entire government caucus, working with a couple of other ministers. I believe she is right when she says that this is a very important aspect of protecting the children of Canada, and it complements many other initiatives. This Parliament has brought forward a historic number of pieces of legislation to make our communities safer, and I want to express my appreciation, as I know many of my constituents do, for what she has been able to accomplish.
“This bill protects Canadian children from harmful content online. It creates a digital safety commission that can fine companies that break the rules. I want to know if the member supports this bill and the commission.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we recognize that Bill C-34 is all about protecting the children in Canada. It would complement the wonderful job that parents and guardians provide, but it recognizes that the Internet is seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and that there is harmful content there. What we are hoping to see from the Conservative Party is support in principle for a digital safety commission so that when we have the regulations, they would actually be enforced with, potentially, things like fines. There has to be a consequence that gives the legislation teeth in its actions to protect our children. In principle, does the member support the legislation and, in particular, the commission?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we recognize that Bill C-34 is all about protecting the children in Canada. It would complement the wonderful job that parents and guardians provide, but it recognizes that the Internet is seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and that there is harmful content there. What we are hoping to see from the Conservative Party is support in principle for a digital safety commission so that when we have the regulations, they would actually be enforced with, potentially, things like fines. There has to be a consequence that gives the legislation teeth in its actions to protect our children. In principle, does the member support the legislation and, in particular, the commission?
“We should vote on this bill all at once, not split it up. It is about only one topic, which is medically assisted dying. Committee is the right place to study the details and make changes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-41, the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. Bill C-41 proposes substantive amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with medical assistance in dying. As a result of these amendments, other acts of Parliament would be amended as a consequence for the sole purpose of the amendments made to the Criminal Code respecting the medical assistance in dying regime. Paragraph 12.50 of the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states in relation to the division of an omnibus bill, “The Standing Orders define an omnibus bill as a bill intended to modify, repeal or enact more than one law with no common thread or which concern unrelated topics.” The stated bill, Bill C-41, deals with the singular issue of medical assistance in dying and no unrelated topics. The member has clearly acknowledged this in his intervention when he stated, “I recognize that these matters concern medical assistance in dying.” To demonstrate how closely intertwined the two medical assistance in dying matters addressed in the bill are linked, I would draw the attention of members to subclause 5(9), which states, “A mental illness is not an illness or disease in respect of which an advance request may be made.” The bill clearly deals with medical assistance in dying as a common element and theme and contains no unrelated provisions dealing with unrelated matters. Taken to its logical end, if what the member is proposing were to be accepted, each and every bill the government introduces that contains a common element and deals with no unrelated matters could be subject to multiple votes at the second reading and third reading stages and would put the Speaker in an awkward position to classify bills according to how strongly some members feel about the subject matter contained therein. I submit that the appropriate place for members to consider the clauses of the bill is at committee where, unlike at second reading, members may propose amendments or simply vote against clauses they oppose. I conclude that Bill C-41, for which the substantive proposed amendments relate to the medical assistance in dying regime in the Criminal Code, does not in any way constitute an omnibus bill and, therefore, the application of Standing Order 69.1 does not apply. I would encourage the House to expeditiously refer the bill to committee where members can examine, consider and propose amendments to the individual clauses.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South respecting the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-41, the medical assistance in dying safeguards act. Bill C-41 proposes substantive amendments to the Criminal Code to deal with medical assistance in dying. As a result of these amendments, other acts of Parliament would be amended as a consequence for the sole purpose of the amendments made to the Criminal Code respecting the medical assistance in dying regime. Paragraph 12.50 of the fourth edition of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice states in relation to the division of an omnibus bill, “The Standing Orders define an omnibus bill as a bill intended to modify, repeal or enact more than one law with no common thread or which concern unrelated topics.” The stated bill, Bill C-41, deals with the singular issue of medical assistance in dying and no unrelated topics. The member has clearly acknowledged this in his intervention when he stated, “I recognize that these matters concern medical assistance in dying.” To demonstrate how closely intertwined the two medical assistance in dying matters addressed in the bill are linked, I would draw the attention of members to subclause 5(9), which states, “A mental illness is not an illness or disease in respect of which an advance request may be made.” The bill clearly deals with medical assistance in dying as a common element and theme and contains no unrelated provisions dealing with unrelated matters. Taken to its logical end, if what the member is proposing were to be accepted, each and every bill the government introduces that contains a common element and deals with no unrelated matters could be subject to multiple votes at the second reading and third reading stages and would put the Speaker in an awkward position to classify bills according to how strongly some members feel about the subject matter contained therein. I submit that the appropriate place for members to consider the clauses of the bill is at committee where, unlike at second reading, members may propose amendments or simply vote against clauses they oppose. I conclude that Bill C-41, for which the substantive proposed amendments relate to the medical assistance in dying regime in the Criminal Code, does not in any way constitute an omnibus bill and, therefore, the application of Standing Order 69.1 does not apply. I would encourage the House to expeditiously refer the bill to committee where members can examine, consider and propose amendments to the individual clauses.
“This bill is about protecting children. Regulating social media, AI, and chatbots is a good thing. I want us to send this bill to committee to work out the details. I ask the member if he agrees with the main idea of the bill, and what he thinks about creating a commission to hold these tech companies accountable.”
“Madam Speaker, put very simply, this legislation is all about protecting our children. I think everyone in the House recognizes the value of that. Putting in regulations that would ultimately deal with social media services, AI, chatbots and so forth is a good thing. I believe the member would concur with that. There has been some misinformation. If we take a look at pornography, it is being dealt with in a very limiting way to protect the interests of children. There are also age verification issues within that. Would the member not recognize that the principle of the legislation is sound and that we need to get it to committee stage, where a lot of the details could be fleshed out? In particular, I am a big advocate of the commission. I think the commission is one of the ways in which we could see an enforcement of the regulations to hold these services and programmers to account. I would like his thoughts on that specifically.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, put very simply, this legislation is all about protecting our children. I think everyone in the House recognizes the value of that. Putting in regulations that would ultimately deal with social media services, AI, chatbots and so forth is a good thing. I believe the member would concur with that. There has been some misinformation. If we take a look at pornography, it is being dealt with in a very limiting way to protect the interests of children. There are also age verification issues within that. Would the member not recognize that the principle of the legislation is sound and that we need to get it to committee stage, where a lot of the details could be fleshed out? In particular, I am a big advocate of the commission. I think the commission is one of the ways in which we could see an enforcement of the regulations to hold these services and programmers to account. I would like his thoughts on that specifically.
“We made this bill to protect children online. Conservatives are only talking about the problem. Will the member support sending this bill to committee?”
“Madam Speaker, it seems that Conservative Party members are talking about the problem. We have a good understanding of the problem. That is why we have Bill C-34. It is there to protect the interests of children in Canada. Does the member support the principle of having the legislation go to committee?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, it seems that Conservative Party members are talking about the problem. We have a good understanding of the problem. That is why we have Bill C-34. It is there to protect the interests of children in Canada. Does the member support the principle of having the legislation go to committee?
“I want to know if the member supports having a commission that can fine internet companies and hold them accountable to protect Canadian children.”
“Madam Speaker, does the member, in principle, support the need to have a commission that would be able to ensure there are fines and that there is a higher sense of accountability on the Internet to protect the children of Canada?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, does the member, in principle, support the need to have a commission that would be able to ensure there are fines and that there is a higher sense of accountability on the Internet to protect the children of Canada?
“We all agree we need to act on online safety. Today we are voting on the main idea of this bill, not every detail. A committee can work out the details later. I want to know if the member supports the idea of having a commission.”
“Madam Speaker, I understand the member believes that her private member’s bill is perfect legislation, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and that it should have received royal assent by now. Having said that, I think it is a universally held belief among all members of Parliament of all political stripes that there is a need to take some action. Yes, the bill does not provide all the details the member talked about in her comments, but today we are dealing with the principle of the legislation. Many of the questions she has posed will be answered once the bill gets to the committee stage. We are not going to incorporate all the things the member has put on the record in a piece of legislation and then present it. It would be a 1,500-page bill if we listened to the member’s comments. Does the member support the principle of having a commission?”
This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “I understand the member believes that her private member's bill is perfect legislation, that there is absolutely…”.
Madam Speaker, I understand the member believes that her private member’s bill is perfect legislation, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it and that it should have received royal assent by now. Having said that, I think it is a universally held belief among all members of Parliament of all political stripes that there is a need to take some action. Yes, the bill does not provide all the details the member talked about in her comments, but today we are dealing with the principle of the legislation. Many of the questions she has posed will be answered once the bill gets to the committee stage. We are not going to incorporate all the things the member has put on the record in a piece of legislation and then present it. It would be a 1,500-page bill if we listened to the member’s comments. Does the member support the principle of having a commission?
