House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pcrc.


Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

12:45 p.m.


Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that the time went by really fast. I did not think it would be my turn to rise so soon, but I am pleased to do so.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑294. I already spoke in April about Bill C‑244, which has the same objectives. If anyone wants to read the speech I gave in April, they can safely apply my comments mutatis mutandis to Bill C‑294 because they still hold true. Perhaps that is what people refer to as recycling and it is completely in line with the bill before us today.

Bill C‑294 seeks to combat planned obsolescence, but what is planned obsolescence?

I want to remind members that the term “planned obsolescence” was coined by American businessman Bernard London in 1932 in an essay entitled “Ending the depression through planned obsolescence”.

At that time, we were in the midst of the Great Depression following the roaring twenties. Mr. London complained in his writings that, because of the crisis, consumers had taken to using products until they were no longer useful, until they were completely worn out. London said this was hurting the economy. As a result, companies began to create strategies to replace items as quickly and as often as possible in order to boost sales. This has led to a form of disposable culture: manufacture, buy and throw away. It has had a very significant impact on the environment.

The main pillars of planned obsolescence are as follows. First, goods are designed to be less durable. We see this happening more and more these days. For example, my washing machine is older than I am and I will do everything I can to avoid having to replace it, which is what my washing machine repairman suggested to me, because they do not make machines like mine anymore. The last time I tried to fix it, it cost me $5 because it is a simple part, but modern machines are so complicated and fragile that they break after five years.

Second, fashion is another pillar of planned obsolescence. People are urged to buy something new even if the version they already own is still perfectly good.

Third, an item can be designed so it is impossible to repair, forcing us to buy a new one. That is what Bill C‑244 addresses. I am very pleased that it passed at second reading because it allows people to circumvent digital locks in order to repair goods that otherwise could not be repaired because of a technological barrier.

Today, we are looking at the possibility of preventing new functionalities from being embedded in a device and rendering it obsolete more quickly. The bill before us today would amend the Copyright Act. In general, the Copyright Act seeks to make it possible for creators to earn a living from their art and to protect their works from being copied or used in a manner that they would not permit. That is a good thing. However, the problem is that it also applies to digital works. A digital work is protected by a digital lock that the Copyright Act has prohibited users from circumventing since 2012.

The work cannot be altered without the consent of the copyright owner. That is a good thing, generally, but it does have a negative impact. For instance, some companies have decided to invoke the Copyright Act to prevent people who own devices running on the company's software from downloading new apps that would require access to the operating system in order to function. The legislation already includes an exception to address this aspect and, since the bill before us contains only two clauses, I would like to go through the bill and explain a little more about the legal process that applies here, since we do not often take the time to do so in the House.

Under the former section of the Copyright Act, circumventing a technological protection measure was prohibited. Circumventing a digital lock is therefore prohibited. The legislation included an exception to indicate that it does not apply to the owner of the program, who has the right to circumvent the lock if it is for the sole purpose of obtaining information in order to make that program interoperable with another computer program.

For example, the person who creates software to run a device has the right to break the lock on another piece of software to ensure that their software works if they want to use someone else's product on their device.

The lack of a broader exclusion in the law means that the owner of a product that has computer software becomes somewhat of a prisoner of the original software owner, who grants himself or herself exclusivity over any new software or applications that might be installed.

Take cellphones, for example. As we know, there are plenty of apps available to download that make our phone much more interesting. Technically, this could be covered by the Copyright Act. Apple could say that they do not want a software creator to break the lock on the Apple phone to ensure their application is compatible. Obviously, this is unattractive to Apple because it would make its phones virtually useless and uncompetitive on the market. Apple therefore does not invoke the Copyright Act, but the fact remains that it could.

The amendment in the bill would add to the existing interoperability exception in the Copyright Act by saying that it:

does not apply to a person who...manufactures a product and circumvents a technological protection measure that protects a computer program embedded in another product for the sole purpose of allowing the person to make the computer program, or a device in which it is embedded, interoperable with [it]

This means that external individuals who create programs have the right to break locks on devices they want to connect to to make sure they are interoperable.

Agricultural machinery is one example that I talked about during my last speech on Bill C‑244. Take John Deere tractors, for example. The days of tractors like my dad's old 1958 Farmall are long gone. My dad still enjoys puttering around with it to plant a dozen rows of corn behind the house. Today's tractors are much more powerful and are equipped with GPS.

The lack of an exception in the Copyright Act prevents companies from doing things like creating software that could be added to the tractor's computer to help with spreading different kinds of fertilizer. That is impossible because John Deere holds the intellectual property rights to everything on the tractor.

That means external suppliers cannot add anything to improve the device, nor can external software be added that might, say, extend the useful life of the things we own.

Let us be clear, the bill does not seek to abolish software designers' copyright. That is being maintained. It does not allow it to be copied, either. It does not facilitate unfair competition from predatory competitors. It just ensures that we can maximize the lifespan of products we already own by adding external components.

Two bills on this topic are being studied in the House. Bill C‑244 addresses the issue of repair. Today, we hope to address the issue of interoperability through Bill C‑294.

Quebec is addressing the sustainably aspect, which is another pillar of programmed obsolescence, through legislation that would assign a sustainability score to objects. Bills C‑294 and C‑244 would ensure that people could not invoke federal copyright legislation to get around Quebec's measure. That is a good thing. Now we just have to work on planned obsolescence in fashion. We hope this will be a pillar that will allow us to have an impact on social awareness. I do not think we are at the point of legislating fashion in the House, but there is still a bit of work to do.

I hope that all these other bills will be an incentive to finalize, in good conscience, our work to counter programmed obsolescence.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

12:55 p.m.


Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I had the benefit of hearing the speech by the member for Saint-Jean. She was very good at detailing the division of the bill, the importance of the bill and how we could move forward on a number of issues related to copyright.

It is really key to reinforce the fact that this is not about trying to circumvent a process to protect copyright. Bill C-294 would deal with interoperability and other issues, similar to the right to repair work I have been doing, where the digital age has created competition issues, ingenuity issues and practical applications that have become very difficult, not only for farmers, which are of particular interest to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands who put forth this worthy legislation, but also others in different fields.

In the past, when it came to a number of different innovations, there was the ability to alter work among platform differentials and to be innovative on products and services in our economy. That has allowed a lot of people, whether it be in repair shops, their own home environment or smaller businesses and companies, to thrive, build on innovation, build competition and do so in a way that is very responsible and important, especially when it comes to rural and remote areas where there is often not even the chance to get certain things repaired.

In a digital age where we have programs and services that are very much affected by updates and the management of data, there can be gatekeepers and those in strategic positions who try to make things redundant, expose things to weaknesses or go to a source point of development or renewal, which really should not be taking place in a free-market economy that is now dependent on the digital age. That is why the computer program software issue is of particular interest to me. I want to touch a little on the right to repair issues so people get a better understanding of that. This is part of the bill in some respects, but it also goes to a deeper level. I will get to that later.

The right to repair work I have been doing over the last decade involves Canadians being, quite frankly, treated the same as those in many other jurisdictions across the world, where people are allowed to fix their vehicles and vehicles used for emergency services and other types of goods and delivery to get proper updates. What people may not be aware of, or maybe they are, is that sometimes garages or repair facilities are restricted in fixing vehicles because they could not get a simple flash update or a downloaded program. What we pushed for and got is the CASIS agreement, which is a voluntary agreement to allow the fixing of vehicles.

Nobody is asking for anything for free, so this is just a process where the aftermarket can purchase training, data or equipment to repair vehicles, often at times when even the dealers or the OEMs' officially designated repair facilities were not able to do so because of sheer volume. This put vehicles on the road that were damaged, not in proper working condition or were substandard to what they could be. Unfortunately, that has consequences in terms of traffic accidents and emissions, and it is a competition issue as people are forced out of business, not from lack of ability, skill set or investment, but basically from not being able to download a program.

A vehicle that needed a simple software update after being physically repaired might have to be towed sometimes hundreds of kilometres to another place to get the update, which could been on one's computer or personal phone. Different types of data could go through these things, so it is unfortunate because that creates a drag on the economy. This bill would prevent customers from being locked out where there should not be that type of behaviour.

The amendment to the act would allow for greater competition. It would stop the denial of access to technology. There would be some responsible rules related to sharing that information.

Interoperability issues are another part of this bill that is a little different. It would allow for someone to use one version with another. I think we have all had those frustrations in the past. A simple analogy would be sharing a song from an artist that one legally purchased, yet not being able to use it on different platforms. That used to be the case several years ago, really in a toxic type of way. Now it is better, but there are still some issues. That is a good example that, if one pays for something once, one should be able to use it with several different types of platforms, provided it is being done responsibly and is part of the agreement.

Agricultural equipment is particularly vulnerable to this. We should also recognize that it is a changing environment. The agricultural equipment we are talking about represents millions of dollars in investment for small business operators and people with family farms, so we are talking about investments that go for generations. This is not just about the big ones and the ones in the after market.

This is unfortunate because it also affects our food safety and our food supply, so it is a serious issue. That is why I congratulate the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for this legislation. It tackles a particular problem in the venue it is related to, but the issue is not a mere inconvenience. It is actually a significant economic hindrance as well as a food safety issue, in particular when looking at some of our western producers. That is one of the reasons New Democrats really support this bill. We also want to make sure that it is also part of a repertoire of legislation that is more enforceable.

I will return to the work that I did with the issue of a right to repair, and we ended up getting voluntary agreements. My legislation actually passed in the chamber. It went to the committee and then the OEMs decided that they could live with the aftermarket with voluntary agreements.

Unfortunately, what we have seen now though, is companies, such as Tesla, opting out of and not even participating in the voluntary agreements. I have called for repercussions on Tesla because there are different vehicles now on the road that are participating in this voluntary agreement to certain degrees. This bill would not have that critical flaw.

We knew of the flaw at the time. We accepted it, so it was kind of like we got a field goal instead of a touchdown in passing the legislation, getting it through the chamber and getting a voluntary agreement, but now we are left with the consequences 10 years later. We have to actually re-table legislation, which I have done. There is a movement on the Hill for this bill, my bill and another one that talks about access to information and data, which is really important because it is affecting our competition.

I really think that this bill can go to the next stage. It is one that we would like to see as a part of the discussion and repertoire of changes taking place. It is critical to understand that there is also a social justice component to this. Some of the OEMs and some of the ways in which we have been treated as a country could be seen as us being more like a colony. I can say that quite clearly with regard to consumer protection. There have been a number of examples where we have not been treated the same as other nations. This bill will also bring us in line with some international responses.

Just because we have a small population compared to other places, I do not think we should be taking ourselves to a point where we accept these types of conditions. Our purchasing power is significant. Our economic power is significant and our contribution to the world is significant. All we are asking for, and what this bill is asking for, is proper treatment in that context.

I will conclude by again thanking the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for this legislation, which that continues a necessary debate to modernize our policies. Hopefully, we will see better digital rights for all Canadians. As New Democrats, we believe that our digital rights include elements like this, and they should be protected.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

1:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba


Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time the House is dealing with measures in right to repair legislation and modifications to the Copyright Act. In fact, Bill C-244 was here a bit earlier in the year. It was introduced by the member for Richmond Centre, and we had a fairly healthy debate on that issue. As alluded to earlier, some members had the opportunity to put some comments on the record with respect to that legislation. Many of the things that were said during that debate could also be said for this particular debate. Today, Bill C-244 is still at the committee stage, and I suspect there is going to be a great deal of seriousness in looking at the ways we can improve upon it.

With respect to the member's bill, Bill C-294, the government will be supporting the legislation. More importantly, I think there is a great deal of sympathy from all members on all sides of the House in recognizing the importance of the principles the member is trying to achieve through passing Bill C-294.

Modernizing the Copyright Act is of critical importance. There are certain things one has to take into consideration. Whenever we think of copyright, we like to think it is pretty simple and straightforward. We should be able to do this and that to different products, and there are things in place related to international trade. We can talk about, for example, the trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States. We can talk about international agreements. Copyright does play a very important role in society, and we can look at it from both an economic and a cultural perspective. That is why it is absolutely essential that we have copyright legislation.

The member made reference to modernization, and I think that is, in essence, what we should be looking at, whether it is with Bill C-244 or Bill C-294, the bill we are debating today. They demonstrate that it does not matter what side of the House we are on; there is very much a keen interest in the copyright legislation we have in Canada today. This speaks to the need for us to look at ways to maybe further study the Copyright Act.

The nice thing about Bill C-294, and why we will be supporting it, is that ultimately, by going to committee and listening to the different stakeholders, we can make some changes and, at the same time, still abide by those important agreements that allow for our economy and cultural sector to continue to grow and prosper. It is so very important.

I have indicated that things tend to get a bit more complicated and a bit more expensive, and I recall the days when I could buy a car, pop the hood and do all sorts of wonderful things to it. Believe it or not, I even did a motor transplant of sorts back in the late seventies on a 1976 Mustang. Today, if I pop the hood on a 2022 Mustang, I am not going to touch it. I suspect that if we were to investigate it, we would find TPMs on all forms of things that are locked. Some of that no doubt is justifiable, but other aspects, I would suggest, are not. I like simplicity and to think I own something.

This year we are focused a great deal on agriculture. I remember, from many years ago, the farms out in Saskatchewan. It was truly amazing to see the farmers' abilities to fix equipment.

We see a lot of equipment on a farm, from tractors and combines to cultivators. The ingenuity and expertise there is such that farmers can add something to a piece of machinery that would even make it work better. If something breaks down, they do not have the opportunity to call John Deere or whomever else to get them to come out to the field and fix the machinery. There are issues, and we are talking about hundreds of thousands if not going into the millions of dollars' worth of machinery.

There is a great deal of understanding and sympathy that there are certain aspects where we do need to come down a little harder in recognizing that consumer rights are very important. Consumer rights and competition in society is of the utmost importance, which is why I think that, as legislators, we need to be diligent in terms of what comes before us, with the idea of recognizing that we have a responsibility to look at ways in which we can protect consumer rights and encourage, wherever we can, competition. Through that competition, we are able to ensure that there are better price points and better quality products.

Someone earlier made reference to the fact that when we purchase something we like to think that it is ours. Unfortunately, because of things such as the TPMs that are put in place, a lot of things ultimately go in the garbage a little sooner than they should have. Often it is more practical or less expensive to throw something into the garbage and buy something new in some situations. In other situations, if we had the simple solution of having a third party, or better yet a third party part as opposed to having to purchase a manufacturer's part, it could save us a great deal of money. It could also make it that much more accessible in terms of availability when we actually need to use that part.

When we think of it from that perspective and factor in the issue of competition, at end of the day, there is more that we can look at, which is why I am pleased that not only do we have one but now two pieces of legislation. One is from the Conservatives and one is from my colleague and friend from Richmond Centre in the form of Bill C-244 on the right to repair.

When I spoke on the right to repair, one of the examples I used when debating Bill C-244 was something as simple as a washer and dryer. It is amazing what we see when we go to landfill sites now. We can compare to average usage to the ability to repair. These are the types of discussions that I would like to see at committee, with the idea that we keep an open mind and look at ways in which we can make some modifications to the Copyright Act.

However, we do have to take into consideration how important the Copyright Act is. As I said, it does foster creativity and innovation, which is why we have it. There are also obligations through international agreements. After all, Canada is a trading nation, but we are also a nation that cares deeply about consumer rights, which is the primary reason I think it is important that the bill before us be passed.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

November 25th, 2022 / 1:15 p.m.


Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-294, the unlocking innovation act. I was delighted to hear from the member for Winnipeg North just a few moments ago that the Liberal members will be supporting this very important piece of legislation introduced by my Conservative colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands. I want to thank that colleague for all the hard work he has done to bring this important piece of legislation before the House.

The bill would amend the Copyright Act to allow a person, in certain circumstances, to circumvent a technological protection measure to make a computer program interoperable with any device or component, or with a product they manufacture. It would allow the owner of a software-enabled device to bypass the lock in order to make it compatible with other applications, even if they are not developed by the original software developer. It would not allow anyone to break digital locks in order to copy or alter the work of an artist or a copyright holder without their consent. Authors have been protected by the act since 2012.

The bill would allow people to break digital locks solely so the program can be used with another platform. This is called interoperability, and it is a very good thing. The bill results from a loophole in the Copyright Act applying to computer programs, also known as software, which are increasingly found in any number of digitized products imaginable.

The bill would also harmonize our Copyright Act with American legislation, ensuring Canadian innovators and businesses remain competitive with small innovators, not just in the United States but in the European Union and Australia. The American regulation currently views that reverse engineering a computer program for a legitimate reason, such as achieving interoperability, falls under the general copyright exception of fair use.

This is what the bill seeks to extend to Canadian innovators. The bill is also complementary to Bill C-244, addressing the right to repair. Whereas the right to repair tends to focus more on the consumer’s needs, interoperability necessarily carries broad implications for how competitive markets can function. There can be an equal or greater impact on the marketplace than from the right to repair. Specifically, it determines if small innovators and entire areas of industry can exist, let alone succeed, as seen in the Nintendo v. King decision.

This case centred around the expansive use of technological protection measures. Increasingly, content creators and copyright owners have turned to technological protection measures to control how their works are accessed and used. Technological protection measures include technology that provides digital locks, preventing individuals from undertaking a variety of actions, such as printing, making alterations or controlling viewing. However, when a customer buys a product, they should be allowed to make alterations or repair the product themselves if they wish. After purchasing it, they are the owner of that hardware.

In the case of Nintendo v. King, Go Cyber Shopping had advertised and offered for sale devices, referred to in the judgment as “mod chips”, a type of computer chip. Go Cyber Shopping offered mod chip installation services as well, which means it had merely offered to sell and install computer chips, including ones a customer may have bought elsewhere. The Federal Court in Canada found these activities constituted a circumvention of technological protection measures and awarded Nintendo $11.7 million in statutory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

This is why a bill like Bill C-294 is so important. It would allow small businesses who want to assist customers who own a personal technology device to make upgrades, modifications or alterations, or to repair that device. These small businesses would be able to do so without running afoul of overly expansive copyright regulations.

The bill would not only help with consumer technology devices; it would also help many Canadian farmers. As Donna Boyd, president of the Agricultural Manufacturers of Canada, said:

In today’s digital environment, physical product design is increasingly reliant on software, networking and computerization, and farmers must continue to have the freedom of choice to select the equipment that is right for their operations. Canada’s framework for interoperability is outdated and reflective of an era prior to widespread technological advancement, and it is time for meaningful modernization.

By amending Canada’s copyright law, Bill C-294 seeks to provide a clear and limited exemption for consumers and future innovators to enjoy the benefits of interoperability.

A growing number of Canadians believe the Copyright Act is long overdue for an update. Those who deal with copyright and intellectual property, including industry associations, are actively calling for it. This is what Bill C-294 will accomplish, allowing industry to meet modern technological demands.

For the last 10 years, since 2012, Canada’s Copyright Act has enforced technological protection measures to help businesses and creators benefit from their own work, including software. Some companies use this to put digital locks in place, limiting which information their competitors or users can access within their products. Combined with a lack of clarity in copyright law, this can block users from having their machinery or devices interoperate with other equipment, as they were once able to do.

Along with consumers, manufacturers are left with both practical barriers and uncertainty under the current legal precedent if they want to sell their competitive products. This bill will provide a clear, limited exemption for consumers and innovators who simply wish to enable their devices or machinery to interoperate with other equipment, as they were always able to do before.

If passed, Bill C-294 will better support Canadian innovators and consumers to maintain a competitive marketplace while upholding Canada’s copyright framework. I look forward to having the opportunity to vote to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I would like to again congratulate my colleague for bringing forward this important initiative for us to consider. I hope that, as parliamentarians, we can all work together to get this bill passed as soon as possible.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.


The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has the floor for his right of reply.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.


Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at the end of this debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-294. I would like to thank all of my colleagues who have expressed interest in speaking to this bill, in particular the members from all of the other parties of the House and the great ideas that they spoke about on this bill. I think of the planned obsolescence issue that the Bloc Québécois raised in both of their hours of debate. I definitely appreciate what they had to say about that issue.

At the start of our discussion, I provided the background for the issue of interoperability. I spoke about what it is and how it is important for the life of communities across Canada. It will allow them to survive and to keep on doing the good work that they have been doing for decades. That is what leads me to raise this issue and bring this bill forward.

While I focused on the familiar examples of farming equipment in rural areas, I will repeat that interoperability is something much larger than just a single sector. We are really talking about something that lays a foundation for stronger competition and innovation in the workplace.

It is not anything new. Before digital technology was a factor, there were always innovators creating new equipment or devices, which customers could freely use with the products from established brands. It happened in an open market where all of the players, as well as their customers, could benefit. One such example is a simple USB connection. That is one of the easiest ways to describe interoperability. One simply plugs it into one's computer and the brand does not matter; it will work. That is what copyright is supposed to encourage and protect.

All we need to do is to update and clarify the law to uphold this principle under changing circumstances. It should never be discouraged by a technicality found in the Copyright Act. Digital locks and TPMs have a legitimate function and the law will continue to enforce them as such, but the force of law should never be used by larger companies to discourage or shut down competitors and innovators. For this sole purpose, Bill C-294 would provide a clear, limited exemption to enable interoperability.

I would like to go back to what brought attention to this issue in Parliament. A short-line manufacturer from my riding provided witness testimony while the industry committee studied the CUSMA trade agreement. Considering our trade relationship, they said this:

It's a challenge for us to achieve the ability to continue to legally manufacture our product and sell it onto these platforms. The copyright act in the United States has provision for circumventing for the purpose of interoperation. The Canadian Copyright Act does not have this same term in the agreement.

They explained that they do not want to have an uneven footing with the U.S. if they are facing a barrier in Canada that does not exist south of the border. Even if a short-line manufacturer operates outside of a small town or rural Saskatchewan, they are still selling their equipment internationally, whether it goes to the States or down to Australia. Both of these countries, by the way, are moving in this direction with interoperability. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has studied the situation with agricultural machinery and recommended data standards to promote interoperability between brands of machinery.

Similarly, our own Competition Bureau has discussed barriers for interoperability and has signalled some support for updating the Copyright Act. The U.S. Copyright Office, with the Library of Congress, regularly reviews the application of TPMs and provides exemptions. Their ruling, in 2018, allowed for circumvention in different areas, which included agricultural equipment, vehicles and phones, to name a few. This worked well enough for them to renew the exemptions in 2021 for another three-year term.

While the process might work differently in their system, Bill C-294 is seeking to provide an equivalent exemption here in Canada, as requested by our own industry. We have industry associations, manufacturers and dealers from many provinces, including Ontario, who see the growing need for us to do this so that they can stay in business and remain competitive.

As I said earlier, the process that led to this bill began with studying CUSMA. Our international agreements are an important factor for our policy decisions. Canada has made certain commitments with respect to intellectual property and what our own copyright laws will look like. I want to reassure my colleagues that I have kept this in mind while researching and discussing the issue with policy analysts from the Library of Parliament. It has shaped the drafting of this bill from early on.

With the support of my fellow members at this stage, I am hopeful that Bill C-294 will be studied at committee and we can continue to have a constructive discussion throughout the legislative process. As always, I am happy to talk with my colleagues further about this as we go forward.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.


The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.


Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

Copyright ActPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.


The Deputy Speaker Conservative Chris d'Entremont

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, June 23, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 30, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 1:29 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1:29 p.m.)