Slashdot Mirror
CDN Supreme Court Upholds 'Net Free Speech
Gryphon writes: "The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a citizen has the right to express dissatifaction with the products or services of a company; in this case, an insurance company. This raises some interesting questions: does this extend to posting benchmarks of computer applications? Dissatisfaction with application security holes? Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"
who else is getting formkey errors around here?
If you like cold weather
does this apply to www.companynamesucks.com? Will they start allowing these again? It's just an online opinion isn't it? To bad I can't locate the older /. article on this...
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
wanting to expresss dissatisfaction. man. glad i live in the good ole' u. s. of a., where i dont have a thing to complain of.
Of course, i dont read the paper much, so ymmv.
It's called the "First Amendment."
First frazzle post.
meh.
But... its Canada. The American legal system won't have a clue what you are talking aboot.
Nowadays, everyone is trying to sue Microsoft in order to get a few pennies. Now, any consumer can play, saying that Windows crashes and doesn't give him satifsaction. What a progress.
{{.sig}}
Perhaps you could explain to us again what this article is all..... ABOUT?
Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
parce que les etats-unis suckent!!!!
Would slashdot have us believe that this is not the case in the USA? I think its pretty clear that many people are expressing dissatisfaction with products and actually getting away with it. Check epinions as an example.
Nope, this was an Canadian court. Didn't you know that the good ol' U.S.A. makes the laws of the internet.
That isn't even a complete sentence! Couldn't this guy at least have linked to an article so we know what he's going on about?
[o]_O
This is already protected in the US. Good to see others following suit.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
And this has to do with Alan Thicke how?
Well I am outraged and I won't stop donating to the Republican Party til this heinous and egregious attack of free trade is made a felony in the United States punishable by death!
ROTFLMAO
I'd just like to say that slashdot sucks major donkey duck. I'm a Canadian, so if you mod me down then I'll have to sue you fools. I'm just expressing dissatisfaction with this POS web site that looks like it was designed by a minimum wage Taco Bell cashier. Free speech eh??
The bylaw in question was a restriction on billboard advertising, incidentally. This case doesn't have terribly much to do with online freedom of criticism, which has usually been a matter of copyright or libel law -- not municipal "visual pollution" regulations.
The DMCA goes about preventing piracy in a very intrusive way, and I donate frequently to the Free Software Foundation, but it has no provisions that I know of preventing criticism of a product or service.
...or at least the equivalent of it. See the copyright reform process at Heretige Canada website for more details, although the deadline for comments has already expired. (700 were posted!)
it's a bit different when expressing your opinions about /.
No security through obscurity: my password is goatse. Stop me before I troll again.
The court said that consumers not only have a right to express their dissatisfaction with products or services -- including on Internet sites -- but also to read what others have to say.
They're letting those Canadian people write and read now? What is the world coming to?-)
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
The guy put up a sign on his property. The legal dispute was regarding a municipal signage bylaw. Though there are implications that spill onto the net, this seems to be an entirely meatspace event. Perhaps the poster merely wanted to highlight that in the USA the decision would have went the other way? I'm confused... If somoene from Quebec who knows more about this can explain how this is a "news for nerds" story, and not a story consumerdot.org story?
Perhaps only a geek would post a sign on his property when he was mad at a company??? Ok, this is definately "news for nerds"...
BORK?
Hopefully they will someday realize that individuals have as many free speech rights as corporations and they will stop giving the corporations more equal rights than individuals.
"Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"
Interesting... maybe Bnetd should host their site and project on Canadian servers. Would that exclude them from the DMCA perhaps? It sure would make Blizzard work harder to get them shutdown =)
Recently large numbers of sterile American males have been released in Canada in hopes of decimating the Canadian population thus opening up endless stretches of moose pasture to American colonization.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
that was funny in a drole kinda way, with a dry sense of humor, ya know, nice one gnu boy
I expressed my displeasure with Bellsouth on a message board (from home) that they were selling email addresses (first day I had like 4 or 5 spam messags on an almost-random username) and since I worked for them, they fired me. No trade-secrets or anything given away. I just explained my situation, and bam.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)
I know this was meant as humor, but I feel obligated to point out that all members of the WTO will be held under the DMCA, since signing countries agree to up hold the laws of other countries.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This supreme court ruling was (as far as I can see) a resolution of a conflict between a municipal bylaw and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Not much of a contest, if you ask me...)
Since on-line postings probably don't fall under municipal law (anybody know for sure?), I rather doubt this would apply in those cases.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
The health system is bankrupt and besides.....I don't think I could drink milk from a bag....
its just...I dunno....weird
(this was not a flame or a troll, only a bit of light fun)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
What the hell does this have to do with "'Net Free Speech"?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The DCMA does not directly prevent criticism, but it makes the shrink-wrapped licenses that gag you enforceable. So it's a difference of no significance.
As for your First Amendment argument - your Constitutional protections apply <b>only</b> when dealing with the government. Pre-civil war, only when dealing with the Federal government, although it's now interpreted as applying to state and local governments and even organizations that either operate as a government (e.g., your HOA) or a business acting on behalf of a government (e.g., a private jail holding state prisonsers).
It's completely legal for a company to require you to submit anything that refers to their product's functionality prior to publication. It even has a legitimate purpose - to make sure you don't slam the product because of an easily fixed misconfiguration, etc., - although most of us still hate these clauses because of the potential for abuse.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
City Of Ladue et al. v. Gilleo
But I doubt it'll help with the DMCASig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The point here isn't whether you have the right to criticize something, but how that right trumps the government's rights to censor it - even if they use "neutral" means.
In this case the government was trying to keep drivers safe (or property values up...) by forbidding signs. But the Canadian courts said the guy's right to criticize, and the right of others to have access to it, trumped those laws. This might not extend too much into computer issues, but for a lot of folks out there who don't get all their news on-line it makes a big difference.
In the US, political speech is the most protected kind of speech (obscenity/porn being least protected). BUTT, there are still many places that forbid you from posting flyers up on telephone poles, postering, etc.
Those laws make it hard for shallow-pocketed grassroots groups to get the word out. If the only legal way to put out your perspective is on a billboard, how many perspectives will we get?
We can make fun of Canada all we want, and I'll be the first to, but this ruling, in its own little way, is a victory for the little guy.
Teaching, coding, coffee, revolution.
"Why would I want to leave America to go to America Jr?"
--Homer Simpson
Apologies to all the canadians that will undoubtly find this offensive.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I would agree that he is a karma whore if his post was anywhere near intelligble.
if their country is so cool, wouldn't they really want to keep it a secret so lots of lame people don't come and spoil their country? right now, i'm thinking it'd be the perfect place for W. and his father. maybe Mr. Hatch from Utah as well.
What's even more amazing is that his history of posts is fairly intelligent. Maybe somebody hacked his userid.
I hope america has freedom of speech like this one day!
In the month of March and April, there are going to be public forums held in some Canadian cities, to discuss the papers submitted to the copyright board on this topic.
To quote the email I received:
As I'm a good 20 hour drive from the closest of these, I probably won't be able to attend - but I urge any
In the US, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech but most jurisdictions have restrictions based on "time, manner and place" without conflict. As long as meaningful speech is still permitted, these restrictions are usually upheld.
Two examples: Boulder, Colorado bans large outdoor billboards. (It also bans new construction taller than a "mature cottonwood tree" - 55 ft - and has other non-speech related restrictions.) The purpose is to protect the mountain view. It's been challenged, e.g., by the "National Debt Clock," but since smaller signs are still legal and legible at normal city highway speeds, the ban was upheld.
Second example: after people picked an abortion doctor's home residence in unincorporated Littleton, Colorado (IIRC) for years, the county agreed to restrictions at the request of neighbors. Pickets are still permitted, but the total area of the signs must be modest (under 3 square feet?) and they must walk at least 100 years before turning around. This was challenged, but since picketing was still permitted and the restrictions served a legitimate need (the pickets had become traffic hazards by clustering with large signs) the restrictions were upheld.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
What about .CA? :)
If someone in canada registers www.slashdotsucks.ca that would be under Canadian law correct?
does this apply to www.companynamesucks.com? Will they start allowing these again?
Man... where has everyone been? "They" never stopped allowing [Insert Your Name Here]sucks.com. Let me say first, IANAL. That being said, there are two mechanisms preventing cybersquating -
1) ICANN's UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution policy), which virtually everyone agrees to when registering a domain name (depending on whether its a ccTLD or gTLD) and
2) the ACPA (Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act), which is a U.S. law.
I've done a little research on these mechanisms, and most of the Slashdot/Wired/ZDNet coverage has been hopelessly biased against corporations. And I'm saying this objectively.
The deal on these is that there are three general criteria that drive both:
1) the domain name of the site,
2) the content of the site, and
and 3) your conduct in registering the domain and dealing with whomever you're criticizing.
If you're domain name is sufficiently different (you can't criticize companyX at companyX.com), you site is actually anti-company X, rather than being some lame-ass porn portal, or worse, you don't use the domain at all, and you don't f*ck around with your WHOIS info - that is, you put in your real information, and don't pull any of the extortion act, chances are, no one is going to yank your domain.
The problem is that most of the guys losing their domain names are guys like Zuccarini (look him up, the FTC's been after him) are just hiding behind free speech arguments instead of actually owning up to the fact that trying to extort cash out of the corporate monoliths they attack. And in the meantime, they're screwing up the First Amendment law for the rest of us by goading Congress into legislation like the ACPA. For a fine example to us all, check out sucks500.com.
If you're down on the fact that cybergriping is getting squeezed out, mercenary cybersquatters are just as much to blame as "They" are.
Oh, and by the way, this case was about a zoning ordinance. Doesn't anyone read these things before they get posted? "...and the Mute, he played us a righteous dub..."
It may be cold, but at least it's clear.
Everybody knows that America is the only place where good things exist. How dare you insinuate to a proud wise and intelligent patriot like myself that Canada has good things too.
Obviously, you're aiding terrorism.
Two years ago, I would never have even imagined that businesses would be able to silence critics like they are today......remember the stories on television depicting the guy with the "lemon" car and the sign on it out in front of the dealership where he bought it? How about a good old fashoned picket line? And don't forget the ever popular "face-to-face" method of spreading complaints against a company! The way things are going now, Procter and Gamble will be able to read everyone's e-mail and sue those who disstribute the myth about the moon and stars in their logo.....Ford will be allowed to moderate/censor discussion groups online that discuss "weak points" in any Ford's design. Cisco will simply make routers that also scan for their name and destroy those packets. All in the protection of the glorious "Intellectual Property."
All businesses now seem to think that the DMCA, copyright and other "PRO-BUSINESS" laws give them the legal sanction to silence all dissent, squash any consumer that even uses the name "Ford" in their complaint. Are they implying that I may only use the word "Ford" in public, out loud, if I'm saying something positive about the company. Are they also implying that I would somehow be breaking copyright law by using the word "Ford" and attaching a complaint to the end of the sentence? I'm totally fed up with their "Intellectual Property" and the whatnot.....and it's only getting worse. I just read where Disney is back in Washington with their old buddy Sen. Hollings, moving forward on built-in copyright protection again. I'm absolutely discusted!
I will respect their "IP" when they respect mine! That means no trading of my "consumer profile" without my expressed written consent (click through agreements don't count!). That means NO SPAM OR TELEMARKETERS....and no trading of my telephone number (since that's a semi-encrypted means of identifying and potentially locating me). That also means no tracking my habits without clearly publishing that fact BEFORE installation of the offending program....Microsoft, are you listening? WMA tracking?....tell people FIRST! Get it?
It seems like business has made a major assault in the last month too, I've just seen so many instances of the DMCA being used recently. For instance Nintendo yesterday, Microsoft with the X-box and Sony with the Aibo. Not a day goes by that somebody isn't getting sued by the entertainment industry, perhaps that's why the Supreme Court as expressed interest in the Sonny Bono copyright extension act.
I'm starting a 3 month entertainment "fast"....nothing but Slashdot, free TV and NPR......no purchases of music or movies or video games of any kind.....I encourage all readers to also boycott the entertainment industry as well, burn as much as you want, but don't by a single thing.....perhaps a 3 month dip in sales will get their attention.
Don't just stand there and take it....fight back!
Every damn Canadian I know says 'aboot.' You sure you're in Canada?
Perhaps you're thinking of the UCITA? I don't think the DMCA has anything to do with the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses.
If he can put up a billboard naming the name of the insurance company, I don't see why he can't put up a website w/ the url "commercegroupsucks.com"
can anyone tell me where canada is? i am a texan, i checked my world map and i could find all 50 states but no canada.
The problem with putting an embargo on Canada is that it would destroy your country. We hold lots of oil and electricity, all we'd have to do is pull a few switches and turn a few valves, and your country would be reduced to chaos.
Then he's obviously a pro-Microsoft shill.
</SARCASM>
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Hello, Mr. Fucktard Shitforbrains!
Once again it has come to my attention that your lame attempt at "widening" is an utter failure.
Do go fuck yourself with a telephone pole.
Thanks.
Oh,yeah. To avoid the DCMA I'm going to move to a country with rules like those about "Canadian Content," which govern what I can see and hear.
Never mind the fact that you have a whole province called Nova Scotia, populated almost entirely with the direct descendents of Scottish immigrants. ;-)
The DCMA does not directly prevent criticism, but it makes the shrink-wrapped licenses that gag you enforceable. So it's a difference of no significance.
I got mod points otherwise I wouldnt post Anonymously. But it's the UCITA that gives a shrink wrap license it's teeth. Not the DMCA.
Fatal0E
They have to make sure to provide a french translation of their dissatisfaction.
Does this extend to domain names? Is ihatemicrosoft.com now legal?
"Corrupting our youth one mind at a time"
In a few months or so, it'll be moved into their by-volume section..
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
To ban lawers and judges. All of them. When I see some of the laws in the books, and how lawers are 'interpreting' that law, I want to puke. Believe me, there is a big difference sometimes between how a law is written, and how it is interpreted by judges/lawers. Make everybody settle it with battlebots.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
I'm surprised, considering this took place in Quebec, that the article made no mention of his much more heinous crime of posting a sign in English.
--
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]
I knew I held on to my citizenship for a reason.
I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
Hmm...Yesterday there was two articles about the use of the DMCA by Nintendo and Blizzard, and now there are two articles in YRO that talk about how Canada is upholding citizen rights...Coincidence?
Didn't you know that the good ol' U.S.A. makes the laws of the internet
Sorry to dissapoint you......
www.companynamesucks.com can EASILY be changed to www.companynamesucks.ca.
And no, the US Government does NOT make the laws of the net.... they can only govern their own lands.
Was the sign in both English and French??
I think it's just you BioWare folk. When I see a troop of you congregating at the local Taco Time, and I'm trying to listen in (hopefully to catch some insider info on new games coming out!), I can't understand a damn thing you say! I can definately say it's easy to pick you guys out of a crowd. It might just be all the long-haired geekspeak, but I don't think so...
E
Old Strathcona... Canada's new Silicon Valley
I was in Canada at the time the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was (finally) passed. The Notwithstanding Clause was a terrible disappointment to every non-politician I knew.
It was a compromise in the truest definition of the word. In other words, it compromised the rest of the document, rendering it mutable at the whim of any governmental body that wanted to pass a law that violated the provisions therein.
For those that don't know, the Canadian Federal Government, the Provincial, Territorial and the Municipal Governments can all make laws in contravention to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All they need to do is start the law with the wording, "Notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms..." and they can trample any provision within. The only requirement is that the law in question be reviewed and approved once every five years by the legislature that passed it.
Right after it was passed, the provision was used by the Quebec Provincial Government. I believe it was bill 106 that prohibited businesses in Quebec from using English on their signs on the outside of their buildings, or that faced outward such as a sign in the window.
That's right... Quebec outlawed one of the two official languages of Canada, notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, of course. And there wasn't a damned thing anyone could do in the judicial challenge and review process, because the Notwithstanding Clause was built right into the Charter itself and had constitutional authority.
I still have a hard time wrapping my head around that whole debacle, even years later.
"Like living in the armpit of Canada"
Sorry my friend, you are mistaken. Armpits are generally warm places... It can't be Edmonton.
Bork?
Sorry, that's what some of the neighbors wanted. Obviously I meant to write "yards."
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
....how my browser is broken. I'm guessing it has something to do with the length of the URL in this snippet from the HTML:
M ArticleHTMLTemplate/C,B/20020221/wscoc2102?hub=hom eBN&tf=tgam%252Frealtime%252Ffullstory.html&cf=tga m/realtime/config-neutral&vg=BigAdVariableGenerato r&slug=wscoc2102&date=20020221&archive=RTGAM&site= Front&ad_page_name=breakingnews"></A> with the products or services of a company; in this case, an insurance company. This raises some interesting questions: does this extend to posting benchmarks of computer applications? Dissatisfaction with application security holes? Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? ;)"</i>
<FONT SIZE="2"><B>from the complaints-department dept.</B></FONT><BR >Gryphon writes: <i>"The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a citizen <A HREF="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/RTGA
I'm using IE 6.blahblahblah.
You may now commence the heckling and finger wagging. And while you're at it, a link to a decent WinXP capable browser that can render this correctly would be darned decent of ya.
As a Canadian lawyer, I thought I would disabuse a few posters here who do not understand what this decision was about.
This was a decision in respect of the constitutionality of a bylaw under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - as such - it was wholly concerned with the attempt of a governmental entity (a muncipality) attempting to regulate non-commercial speech.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the right of a citizen to criticize a company, their software, or otherwise, vis-a-vis that citizen and the company.
This was NOT a dispute between the insurance company and the citizen. That is an important distinction.
To clarify - the Candian Charter applies only to the relationship of an individual with the state or its agencies. It has no application - ZERO - as between an individual and another individual. No exceptions. Nada.
The SCC has time and time again struck down legislation that has attempted to regulate private speech that is not otherwise criminal in nature (advocates hate, criminal libel)or commercial in purpose. It has done so enthusiastically in the past, for example, by preventing municipalities from passing bylaws (without any rational restraint) against the posting of handbills on public property.
It has done so in this case by holding that a billboard erected by a customer with an axe to grind is not an "advertisment". Advertisements, as commercial speech, are not entitled to the same degree of deference and protection under the Charter as "political" or socially motivated speech. There is a significant difference between the two under Canadian law.
End result: You can't pass an oppressive bylaw which restricts a citizen from engaging in socially useful speech with other ctizens.
That's it - that's all. To attempt to extract a comment made by the court with respect to the potential social utility of a complaint about a company is to elevate obiter dicta and turn it into a "ruling". That isn't what they said and to suggest otherwise is to wholly miconstrue the meaning and effect of the judgment.
All you can determine from the judgment is a reaffirmation that an individual's complaint about a company is not "commercial speech" within Canada, and its nature does not change whether it is posted on the Net, on a handbill or on a billboard.
Regards,
.Robert
Strike one for the little guy in Canada -- and maybe move here if you want to avoid the DMCA? Obviously, baseball isn't a huge part of Canadian culture. Can you say "contraction?" [strikes are usually considered bad in the States. 3 strikes can put you in prison for life for shoplifting. or get you out.]
passetspike!
He recognizes that it is there, and he originally pointed out to me that it sounds like "aboat".
So that reinforces the "further east you go" thing.
Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?
So I have. Here, and Cheers from the Great White North.
Another Canadian Charter ruling, by the Ontario Superior Court Judge Fairgrieve [great name for a judge], in
Sandra Bell vs. City of Toronto, 1996 (O.J. No. 3146 DRS 96-18852) where it was ruled that "the purpose [of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms] is to ensure that society does not interfere with profoundly personal beliefs that govern one's perception of oneself, humankind, nature, and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being.". The expression in this case was a wild naturalised garden containing "weeds" that offended a neighbour (
If this other guy was expressing a profoundly personal belief that governed his perception of himself or humankind, he can say what he wants.
I can't read the full sentence either. Using Ad Subtract. Not a broken browser
This isn't exactly about Canada and the DMCA, but is slightly related, having to do with corporate repression and Canada. When exactly is the government of Québec going to sue most of Hollywood for making it illegal for them to play French movies (region 2) in Québec (region 1)? This has got to really piss off the Canadians who speak French; I know it would me (Hmm, it might still, I might take up French again and start buying DVD movies..)
If the WTO allows corporations to sue governements (I think I remember some reference to an environmental suit brought against the Mexican gov't), then shouldn't the reverse be true? (Of course, that's assuming the world is just and fair, which it most decidedly is not)
Come to think of it, could the EU (which is already investigating US media companies for price-fixing, anti-trust, and maybe other things), and the Australians (who seem to be concerned with DVD pricing and other things) AND Québec all band together to lauch a multinational assault on the media companies? (That would be fun to watch: real nation-states duking it out against corporate nation-states.)
So did this all come about after he got fined for not putting the French text of the sign higher than the English, complete with a bigger font?
(And while I'm intending this post as a joke, there really is a law up there stating that you have to do this)
"Aboot" is also heard in some parts of B.C. It probably descends from 18th century pronunciations which at the time were perfectly ordinary.
:)
Much as the stereotypical U.S. "Southern accent" is descended from Shakespearean English.
And I have Canadian friends (in the Toronto area) who say "Eh?" about every 3rd word, and taught me to preserve the lives of the baby U's which American English murders most dishonourably.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Am I the only one here who is disgusted by the fact that this made it to court in the first place? A person's right to protest is built into any democracy worthy of the name...the cop tasked with "rounding up the disturbance" should have left when he saw the scene.
It's great that this person is free to go, but the fact that he was charged in the first place.../me shakes my head and thanks my parents that I live in the Netherlands...
Eat shit and die, you piece of shit separatist frog bastard.
Hello....Mod parent up please!
Sorry, but the oppressive taxes and communist health care system don't really appeal to me that much.
This has NOTHING to do with the net. It has to do with putting up a physical sign, and whether a municipality (a city) can order you to take the sign down.
What this has to do with the net, or why it's on
The thing is, you'd never put an embargo on us because we supply you with such useful things as:
- Timber
- Grain
- Uranium
- Electricity (get your facts straight)
- Funny comedians
- oh yes, and a little thing called FRESH WATER
You really *do* need our natural resources, and for the record we have more oil here than in all of Texas. Its just that its in tar sands and really expensive to refine; but if we had no other choice, we could get along quite nicely.
I'd like to see you manage without water.
Most movies I've picked up in the last year or two has had French as a language option.
I've received my formal invitation; if you want to attend, you should register first.
Specifics (locations, times, registration info) is available at the following web site:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp00838e.html
On the plus side, looks like enough people from the praries complained, because they've posted a bulletin to the effect that there will be additional meetings in either Alberta, Sask., or Manitoba..