Originally Posted by
Stuart Brammall
Perhaps I will be the only one to voice this opinion here, but it is my opinion that this "limitation of rights" section makes perfect sense, and should be left alone. This view has to do in principle with what I regard a right to be-- specifically something which is inalienable to the possessor.
Do Canadians have the right to be heard in parliament? No they do not. Are they sometimes? Absolutely. Do you have the right to live in a house? No you do not-- And yet everyone does.
To say that CFC members have a right to be heard is to imply, as I quipped on chesstalk, that they can show up at a governor's house at three or four in the morning, wearing no clothing and still have the right to be heard.
The idea that something must be a right for it to accessible or attainable is simply preposterous.
All a member need do to be heard is speak reasonably of relevant issues.
The purpose of the section as it stands is to give us the freedom and authority to ignore those who are unreasonable. It is in no way offensive to anyone who thinks it over. I will be voting against this amendment.