This bill was last introduced in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2021.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal
In committee (Senate), as of June 29, 2021
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(h) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(i) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(j) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(k) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act.
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Ottawa—Vanier Ontario
Liberal
Mona Fortier LiberalMinister of Middle Class Prosperity and Associate Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 10, I move, seconded by the Minister of Canadian Heritage:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.
The hon. House leader of the official opposition.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, here we are again to talk about the infamous Bill C‑10. We know that this bill has a direct impact on freedom of speech.
We were surprised to see that the bill originally contained a fundamental provision, clause 4.1, which clearly defined the terms of freedom of speech and clearly indicated that this bill would not affect those working on social media when it came time to produce and post music or cultural activities.
Unfortunately, the government withdrew that amendment. Members will recall that the second opposition party asked for that clause to be reinstated three times. When we proposed that amendment, the government and the second opposition party opposed it.
How can the government introduce a bill that does not protect freedom of expression as it should, particularly since that protection used to be set out in the bill in black and white?
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Laurier—Sainte-Marie Québec
Liberal
Steven Guilbeault LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. I would like to remind him of certain facts.
First, several members of his political party asked us to go even further with Bill C‑10. We heard the same thing from an impressive number of stakeholders from across Canada, who told us that now that a company like YouTube has become the biggest distributor of music in Canada, it has to be included in Bill C‑10. We did that.
The Department of Justice's highly independent and competent officials testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. They carried out an analysis that demonstrated there are no issues with freedom of expression and Bill C‑10. In the bill, there are elements that provide for freedom of expression, freedom of creation and freedom of the press. My colleague opposite is also very aware of that.
Furthermore, the CRTC is not above Canadian law. The CRTC must also comply with Canada's many laws, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Madam Speaker, time allocation is rarely acceptable. The Bloc Québécois defends the interests of Quebeckers. We have been saying so since we first got here, and we have never deviated from that guiding principle.
Bill C‑10 has unanimous support in Quebec. Quebeckers agree. Quebec's artistic and cultural community, the very essence of our own identity, is waiting. It has supported the bill for a long time now. The Bloc Québécois will support this time allocation motion to make web giants pay their fair share to our creators, who have often been taken advantage of by these giants.
I would like to ask the minister a very simple question: Do you think waiting is costly for our Quebec creators?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I would like to remind the hon. member to address his remarks to the Chair, not directly to the minister.
The hon. minister.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, through you, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the aisle for his question and for his party's support for Bill C‑10.
He is quite right. This bill has the unanimous support of the Quebec National Assembly and the vast majority of artists. In fact, several thousand artists and organizations representing hundreds of thousands of artists in Quebec, of course, but also across the country, signed a petition in support of Bill C‑10.
My colleague is right about the wait. Every month that goes by deprives artists of $70 million. Some say that even if Bill C‑10 were to pass, it would not come into force immediately. I agree, but every month that the implementation of Bill C‑10 is delayed means $70 million less for our artists and arts organizations.
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Madam Speaker, I am rather shocked to see just how poorly the Liberals have managed this file. Based on the Yale report, we all agree that the web giants need to be included in the ecosystem. There is no issue there. That is not what is being debated.
The Liberal government imposed a gag order on a committee. That has happened just three times in 150 years. The gag order was for five hours, not even 10. They managed to impose it, which is very rare, but it was not enough. They still managed to drop the ball when they extended the proceedings to pass certain amendments, which were ultimately rejected by a ruling of the Speaker of the House.
Today, the Liberals moved a supermotion. Our issue is not with the substance of this bill, which is to protect culture and artists.
How are the Liberals incapable of passing a bill like this, even after imposing a gag order in committee? It is unbelievable.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, what I find shocking and what the artistic community cannot understand is that the NDP refuses to support Bill C‑10 and that it has sided with the Conservative Party.
I do not think anyone is surprised to see the Conservative Party do this, but I must admit that it is a surprise and a major disappointment to see the NDP follow suit.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Madam Speaker, the bill has been flawed from the beginning, and we have worked pretty hard at committee to try to fix it with over 120 amendments. The discussion around freedom of expression and whether the small online undertakings are responsible for the content that is uploaded comes down to a question of what is already in the Broadcasting Act. The act, which is from 1991, says, “This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings.”
Does that include the content that is uploaded by users of social media platforms? Has the minister looked into this to see that the constitutionality of the bill would stand up, or are we going to see challenges to the bill under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for freedom of expression?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I have had numerous exchanges about Bill C-10, and I know he is very passionate about this. Again, I would remind the hon. member that the very credible, very competent and very independent civil servants of the Ministry of Justice have looked into this issue and provided analysis and testimonies to accompany them to the heritage committee, and that confirmed that there is no issue regarding Bill C-10 and freedom of expression or freedom of creation.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Toronto—Danforth Ontario
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, I think of some of the stuff we have heard, particularly from the Conservative opposition. I believe it was the member for Lethbridge who stated that the modernization of the Broadcasting Act was about supporting a niche lobby group and supporting artists or creators who cannot sell. I think the quote was about creating things that Canadians did not want to watch.
Perhaps it might be helpful if you would explain for us why are we doing this? Who is this supporting, and are they not the kinds of creations that Canadians do in fact want to watch and enjoy, and that create jobs right across our country?
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that she is to address all questions and comments through the Chair.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her advocacy for artists and cultural organizations across the country.
It is important to remember that as more and more people transit from watching or listening to their music in more traditional ways to online streaming platforms, the revenues of Canadian traditional broadcasters are going down. As a society, we count on these revenues to fund our artists and our cultural sector for productions like Kim's Convenience, which has been a worldwide hit. In fact, it was one of the most-watched shows for a while in South Korea. We could be talking about Schitt's Creek, or Corner Gas or District 31. All these productions have received government support through the Broadcasting Act.
What we are doing right now is ensuring our legislation and regulations are adapted to the realities of the 21st century, and ensuring web giants pay their fair share. Why the Conservatives, and it seems sometimes the NDP, would be opposed to that is a bit beyond me.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Madam Speaker, ever since the minister introduced Bill C-10 in November, everyone has been trying to improve it, despite its flaws. It did not address copyrights or CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, and it was missing a lot of things to protect Canadian businesses and domestic French-language and Canadian productions.
Everyone tried to compromise to find a solution and improve the bill up until one Friday afternoon when the minister withdrew clause 4.1, which was supposed to be added to the Broadcasting Act, going after the content of social media users.
My question for the minister and the Liberals is quite simple. Despite the gag order that the government imposed on us in committee and the fact that the Chair called the government to order by ruling many amendments out of order at committee stage—amendments that we will be voting on this evening—will the government agree to vote in favour of reinserting clause 4.1 into the legislation to protect the content of social media users, whatever it might be?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Madam Speaker, for starters, I have to refute the premise of my hon. colleague's question.
He says that everyone worked in good faith, but I just want to remind him that, well before Bill C‑10 was even introduced, the former leader of the official opposition told the House that, had it been up to him, he would have tossed the Yale report, which had just been tabled, right in the trash. Furthermore, as soon as Bill C‑10 was introduced, the Conservative Party objected to it, said the bill was bad and should be scrapped, and told us to start over.
In my opinion, there is no truth to the claim that everyone worked in good faith to move Bill C‑10 forward.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the minister may be quite confused. He keeps saying that he does not quite understand the NDP position in not voting with his government to push this through Parliament. The New Democrats have been clear. We are very supportive of getting help to our artists and we are supportive of Bill C-10. However, perhaps what the minister does not understand is the role Parliament plays in our parliamentary system, similar to the way the minister did not seem to really understand how broadcasting worked or, in fact, how his own bill worked before he tabled it.
We can be supportive of legislation and also find it very problematic to watch the way the minister has managed this file and is now trying to shove it through Parliament without giving parliamentarians time to get this bill right. I have offered time and again to work through the summer, to do whatever we need to do to get this bill through, and the minister just keeps asking why we will not support the Liberal time allocation. How is that respecting Parliament?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, there are two things I would like to answer for the hon. colleague. The first is that I was with the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP on Tout le monde en parle, during which all three of us committed to work together to ensure Bill C-10 would be adopted. Right after that, the NDP changed its mind, after committing in front of millions of Quebeckers and Canadians that the NDP would work with us to ensure that Bill C-10 would be adopted. Was that a lie to the Canadian public and to the viewers of this show, I do not know.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if the member actually accused the NDP of lying. We are not supposed to do in the House. I wonder if he wants to take that back.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I believe the minister questioned if something that was said could have been a lie. He did not specifically call anybody a liar. He was trying to understand. It seems to me as though he was trying to personally rationalize the situation.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
I thank hon. members for their interventions. I did not hear the minister's words in this case as I was taken aside for a moment on an administrative matter. For general purposes, references to lying is always a tricky area. Generally, if it is not applied to an individual member, group and so on, although it is not advisable, it is not an unparliamentary reference.
The hon. minister can finish his response.
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of artists support Bill C-10 and want it to be adopted. In fact, thousands of artists have signed a petition in favour of the bill. What the NDP is telling them and the chamber is that the NDP knows best, that artists do not know or understand. We have chosen to listen to artists, not the other way around.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear what is going on with the New Democrats. They are lucky that the Bloc Québécois blinked first. That is the reality of the situation. They are trying to play both sides of this. They will not vote for the closure, but, of course, when we get to the vote on the bill itself, they will vote in favour of it because they know it would be political suicide to do otherwise. That is the reality of the situation.
We have now had this issue go before committee numerous times. It has been in the House. It has been in the public forum. Would the minister not agree that closure is necessary because of the antics put forward by the Conservative Party, in particular? Quite frankly, now is the time for members to put their stake in the sand and decide which side of the line they are on. Are they on the side of artists or on the side of big tech?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, frankly, I could not have said it better. Members stand with artists or with big tech, some of the largest and wealthiest companies on this planet. We have decided that we are on the side of artists. Clearly the Conservatives have decided they are on the side of big tech. As for the New Democrats, I do not know and I am not sure they know themselves.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am quite concerned about, and it is unprecedented, as we have never seen this before, is around the secret amendments at committee. The minister went on and on about how Conservatives spoke favourably about the bill when it was originally introduced and quoted us before the bill went to committee. However, amendments happened at committee. I saw on Twitter that Mr. Geist talked about secret amendments. This has been unprecedented.
Would the minister not agree with me that the bill has been fraught with issues from the get-go, particularly in committee, and the secret amendments that the Speaker had to rule on have been unprecedented in my time here and definitely not the epitome of being well managed?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, the Conservative Party's position was that the bill did not go far enough, that we needed to do more and include, according to some of the member's colleagues, companies like YouTube. Then it decided to move the needle and said that it was about freedom of speech. Then when the justice department said that there was no issue with freedom of speech, the Conservatives moved the needle again and said that it was about net neutrality. When it was explained what net neutrality was and the fact that Bill C-10 had nothing to do with net neutrality, they moved the dial again and said that it was these secret amendments.
Every time we have spoken about the bill, the Conservatives have been against it. They have clearly decided that they are siding with Google, Facebook and some of the wealthiest companies in the world. We have seen the contempt, which are not my words but the words of many artists, that the Conservative Party has shown to artists and our cultural sector.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Kerry Diotte Conservative Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that in the minister's reality, this is all about artists, but to the real world, the non-Liberal world perhaps, to everybody I talk to about Bill C-10, it is about censorship, it is about what people can post on the Internet. It is the fear of government interference. We have seen big tech already clamping down on free speech. People are terrified of what Bill C-10 will bring.
I was giving a talk to a grade six class, and those children are worried about it. It seems like the whole world knows that this is all about censorship, but the minister thinks it is all about artists. We love artists, but this has nothing really to do about artists. The fear is censorship.
What would the minister say to these grade six children who are worried about their free speech because of the bill?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member said, “we love artists”, which is interesting. When the Conservatives were in government, all they did was cut back on programs for artists, including, but not solely, the CBC. I would remind the member that the CBC is one of the largest broadcasters and supporters of artistic creation in the country.
However, every time we have brought forward proposals to help and support artists, the Conservatives have opposed it. I am having a really hard time reconciling the affirmation that they “love artists” with their actions. One could argue that actions actually speak louder than words.
Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I sit on the heritage committee, and for months I watched our Conservative colleagues side with these Internet giants and against our Canadian artists, many times bringing up that misleading narrative about censorship or concerns of free speech. Artists are fierce defenders of free speech.
Could the minister explain how modernizing the Broadcasting Act will help level the playing field for our Canadian artists and support them, while also ensuring that Canadians who use social media platforms are not subject to regulation?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy as a member of the heritage committee and also as an artist himself for many years.
The member is absolutely right. There is this idea that the only people concerned with free speech in the country are the Conservatives. Artists have for decades, if not centuries, defended freedom of speech. The idea that they would all of a sudden forget about this just because they are in favour of Bill C-10 makes absolutely no sense. There are a number of safeguards in Bill C-10, and we have heard from Department of Justice, as well as in the body of the laws and regulations we have in Canada. The CRTC is not above the law.
Bill C-10 would not apply to individuals, and it says that very clearly in the bill right now.
Paul Manly Green Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot from the minister about protecting artists and ensuring they are taken care of when they are up against the big giants.
I put forward a couple of amendments, one that was debated and one that was not debated because of the time allocation. They called for the establishment of a framework for the contractual practices between independent producers who produce a lot of stuff for the broadcast industry and the online program undertakings of the big companies. This was identified in the Yale Report, that there is a huge power imbalance between these small contractors and producers and the big companies. They have a system like this in the U.K. and in France, and it works very well.
The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions has called for this as have the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada and the Canadian Media Producers Association. If the government is interested in defending independent producers and small production companies, how come it did not support my amendments?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind my hon. colleague that the organizations he mentioned, on top of the independent producers, have all come out in support of Bill C-10 and are all calling for its rapid adoption.
Bill C-10 will not solve everything. There are other issues we have to address when it comes to broadcasting and creation, and we will. However, Bill C-10 is a first step in that direction. It is not everything under the sun, but it is a first and very important step in the right direction.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to ask the minister a couple of very important questions. First, I would ask him to correct the record because it has been made very clear that not all artists support Bill C-10. In fact, I have heard from many, and I know that other colleagues have, including those who have reached out to the minister directly, that they do not support Bill C-10, so that is misleading and incorrect rhetoric that he is speaking to.
Further, I would suggest that the minister should be careful how he references things because we saw time and again how he might say one thing on Sunday afternoon television and then his office would have to clarify and correct the record the next day. He would say one thing in question period and another thing at committee. I am curious which minister is actually speaking to us today, because there seems to be a lot of confusion from his office or from himself regarding Bill C-10.
There is one question I would really like to get an answer to. He talked about the example of Kim's Convenience being an epitome for Canadian success, whereas a recent report suggested that anti-Asian stereotypes were perpetrated through the production and what was in part government funding of that sitcom on Canadian television.
Does the minister support that sort of stereotypes being a part of Canadian culture and in his approach to legislating culture in this country?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, many would recognize that our government has done more for inclusion and diversity than any other governments before us. I would be the first one to recognize that we have a long way to go and we have so much more to do, but at least we are doing it.
Motion That Debate Be Not Further AdjournedBroadcasting ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question again in the House on the topic of Bill C-10, unfortunately not dealing with the subject of Bill C-10, but dealing with the issue of ramming it through the House.
Recently, we saw the government guilty of trying to ram through a bunch of amendments, much to the surprise of many of us here who respect the process, respect committee work and yet again, we see the government time after time simply trying to sidestep the parliamentary process. We saw that example today again in the House, where the health officer who was supposed to produce documents as requested by the House still refused to do it, on the advice of the government.
With such an important bill as Bill C-10, why does the minister feel he needs to ram it through the House?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the committee has had months and months to study Bill C-10 and in fact, before the Conservative Party started filibustering the work of the committee, things were going pretty well, but at one point the Conservatives decided that they would prefer to side with Google and Facebook instead of supporting Canadian artists, and then it was impossible to move the bill along. We could have had six more months of committee work and we would not have been able to get through Bill C-10 at the committee.
As I reminded members earlier, every month that passes deprives our artists and cultural sector of $70 million that is kept in the pockets of some of the wealthiest and most powerful companies in the world.
Heather McPherson NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, we have legislation that was brought forward in November. We know the government chooses which legislation to bring onto the floor. That is well within its purview. There are now two days left until the House rises for the summer, potentially for this Parliament. Why are we voting on amendments that could have been dealt with much sooner and much more effectively if the government had brought the bill to the House sooner? The Liberals have been in power for six years. Why are we doing this with two days left, pushing it through, voting on amendments in the middle of the night?
Steven Guilbeault Liberal Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am baffled by the question from the member. She refuses to support us and help us move Bill C-10 along, but when we do, she says, oh my goodness, why are we waiting until the last minute? We have been trying for many, many weeks to move the bill along, and if the NDP had helped us, maybe we would not be in this situation to start with.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I request that it be adopted on division.
Some hon. members
We request a recorded division.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker Anthony Rota
Pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 10 before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
The Speaker Anthony Rota
I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
