On the same point, saying “miscarriage of justice” every paragraph or so doesn't mean you're relevant to the topic, relevant to the clause and relevant to the legislation. Mr. Kurek is obviously filibustering, and if he's going to do it, he could at least pretend to be on topic, which he's not doing.
As a new member to the committee, I wouldn't presume to filibuster here without any knowledge, any review of witnesses or any review of transcripts. Mr. Kurek is just saying words that happen to include perhaps topics of the subject here, but he should be speaking to the point, which is clause 2, which is on subsection 679(7) of the Criminal Code, and I'd love to hear Mr. Kurek talk about subsection 679(7) of the Criminal Code and how it relates to this bill. If he wants to filibuster, he can filibuster it that way. Otherwise, the chair has the authority—because Mr. Kurek is abusing this matter of relevancy—to move on on the speaking list.