Hon. Gwen Boniface: Honourable senators, I rise today to honour the life and service of OPP Constable Greg Pierzchala. Greg was killed in the line of duty on December 27 when he responded to a call to assist a vehicle in a ditch near Hagersville in southwestern Ontario. He was 28 years old.

Greg was new to policing and had a full life and career ahead of him. He had previously served in the Canadian Forces and was a Special Constable at Queen’s Park in Toronto. Sadly, he had just learned that he passed his probationary period on the day of the shooting.

Greg grew up in Barrie, Ontario, and was an accomplished student and multi-sport athlete who is remembered for his grit and team spirit. He was also a lover of art. By all accounts, he was an inspiring, determined and compassionate man who always looked for the good in people.

Constable Pierzchala wanted to be a police officer since he was 5 years old and said he had finally found his dream job. He is described by his colleagues as a quiet leader with a strong character who quickly earned the respect of his peers.

On that fateful day, Greg answered a call — amongst many that snowy day — for a stranded vehicle in the ditch. He was shot shortly after his arrival. Despite valiant efforts of first responders and medical personnel, he did not survive.

Constable Pierzchala is the fifth officer killed in Canada since September — a disturbing rise that has rattled the law enforcement community. In early January, a joint statement was released by four of Canada’s police associations, “calling for action to address what they see as a growing wave of violence aimed at police officers and their communities.”

Constable Greg Pierzchala’s colleagues, community and family have been devastated by this senseless act of violence.

For those involved in that call, their lives are forever marked by Greg’s death: the dispatcher who sent him to the call; the first officers on the scene; the paramedics; his shift mates; his coach officer, who spent the last year teaching him how to keep himself safe; and his recruits class, who will always see a hole in their graduation picture.

Most importantly, I ask you to join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family: his parents, Janina and Jan; and his siblings, Chris, Michal and Justyna.

Honourable senators, it is my fervent wish that this will be the last time I have to stand before you to remember an officer killed in the line of duty.

Rest in peace, Constable Pierzchala. Thank you.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I’m pleased to present Chapter 71 of “Telling Our Story.”

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are well known for their friendly and warm hospitality. We are always willing to share the stories and songs that continue to tell of our wonderful part of the world. We equally will share our hearths, homes and a bite to eat with anyone who drops by for a visit.

In days gone by, the only heating source in many Newfoundland homes was the old wood stove located in the kitchen. For many Newfoundlanders, the kitchen became the centre of the home. It was the place where good times were had and treasured memories were created. From these gatherings, a special tradition, fittingly called “the kitchen party,” was created. The kitchen party has grown in immense popularity with people throughout the years, whether one is homegrown or a come from away.

Everyone is always welcome to join in, because in Newfoundland you will not find any strangers — only friends you haven’t yet met. An elderly fisherman from my hometown once said, “If you haven’t experienced a Newfoundland kitchen party, you really haven’t lived a full life.” I would have to agree with him, because there is nothing quite like it.

Most kitchen parties are not planned. People drop by for a visit and maybe a fresh feed of cod tongues with scruncheons, along with a slice of homemade bread, and there’s always a variety of beverages to help wash it all down. A few musicians are always close by, especially one or two with an accordion; and before you realize what is happening, people are singing, dancing and telling stories and the kitchen party is well under way. This is a unique part of our Irish-Newfoundland heritage.

There are very few rules, and no one is looking at the clock. The only requirement is that if you can’t stand the heat in the kitchen, go out in the backyard and cool off for a little while, or go to the fridge where you are bound to find a cool bottle of some remedy to help cure whatever ails you. Guests are always encouraged to share their talents as well. That’s when things can get very interesting.

In 2017, while returning from a golf trip to Florida, Newfoundlanders Sean Sullivan and Sheldon Thornhill, along with a few buddies, had some time to spare while waiting for their delayed flight at Toronto’s international airport. Sheldon decided to take out his accordion and started playing a song, and Sean quickly joined in with his guitar. Within a short time, the crowd around them kept getting larger and all hands were joining in what quickly became a Newfoundland kitchen party, albeit without the cod tongues and the wood stove. The video went viral, and the story was carried on all our national news networks with extensive coverage on social media. I encourage all of you to search for “Newfoundland kitchen party in Toronto airport” on YouTube — and please do so quickly before Bill C-11 passes because the crowd at the CRTC may not consider it Canadian content.

In the meantime, Sean Sullivan has turned the success of the Toronto airport video into a top-quality tourism product called “Sullivan’s Songhouse,” located in the town of Calvert on the Southern Shore. You can easily find out all about the song house on the internet as well, and I extend an invitation today for you to pay a visit and participate in your own old-fashioned kitchen party. To avoid any disappointment, though, I would advise you to book early — it’s a busy place.

While we in Newfoundland and Labrador continue to look to the future, we never forget our past, and, while life brings many challenges, coming together at a Newfoundland kitchen party, surrounded by music and friends, will turn any grey, foggy day into a ray of sunshine and a wonderful and treasured memory.

Thank you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of January 31, 2023, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order, or usual practice, until end of the day on June 23, 2023, any joint committee be authorized to hold hybrid meetings, with the provisions of the order of February 10, 2022, concerning such meetings, having effect; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of Motion No. 79, consideration of Motion No. 78, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[Translation]

Hon. Denise Batters: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Bill.

After 31 years, it is undoubtedly time to update the Broadcasting Act. Media and technology in Canada have changed significantly throughout that time. But the Trudeau government’s Bill C-11 doesn’t really modernize the Broadcasting Act; it just takes an already outdated framework and transposes it onto the modern digital world where it doesn’t fit. Of course, the Trudeau government has used this opportunity to meddle in the free and democratic flow of information to Canadians online — an opportunity this government could simply never pass up.

In the last parliament, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-10: a bill seen to give the CRTC the power to regulate free expression of content on the internet. That bill died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister called his unnecessary election in 2021.

But a near carbon copy of it was resurrected as Bill C-11 in this Parliament. I had participated in one of the Senate Transport and Communications Committee marathon three-hour clause‑by-clause meetings on this bill, and witnessed first-hand what a disaster this bill is.

The government claims that Bill C-11 will not regulate everyday use of social media, including amateur content, implying that it will not apply to individual creators. However, the government has inserted clause 4.2(2) of the bill, which allows the CRTC to make regulations regarding any program that “generates revenues” — which effectively can include those individual Canadian YouTube and TikTok creators.

At the same time, delegating the government’s regulation-making authority to the CRTC allows the Trudeau government to once again dodge accountability for its actions and decisions. If controversy arises from any of the “independent” CRTC’s regulations, the government will claim distance. Conveniently, the CRTC itself is not known for its transparency. It shares this trait with the Trudeau government.

One witness, Monica Auer, the Executive Director of the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, described the CRTC this way at the Senate committee’s pre-study on Bill C-11:

In terms of accountability and transparency, the problem with the CRTC right now is that it is not making its decisions public. Every year, it’s publishing dozens of decisions that you can’t see because there’s no hyperlink and they don’t publish. When we say that the CRTC is transparent, it is simply not. It is holding public hearings without witnesses. . . . when you talk about the transfer of ownership of half of B.C.’s radio stations through an administrative decision and no public hearing, I think I would challenge the notion that the CRTC is (a) transparent, (b) open and (c) accountable. It is not.

If the government wants to regulate Canadian user content on the internet, it should admit to this. Canadians deserve to know what the aim is here, and the government should be held accountable for that policy decision. Hiding behind vaguely worded legislation that delegates decision making to a supposedly “independent” board that holds closed-door meetings and only answers back to the minister is not transparent or accountable.

When Bill C-11 reached the Senate last June, its sponsor, Senator Dawson, didn’t even speak to it for three months. When he finally did speak, he used up all of his 45 minutes of speaking time and, therefore, other senators had minimal chance to ask him questions.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate didn’t even give a speech on the bill at second reading, again denying senators the opportunity to ask the government questions on this legislation.

All this together has to make us stop and wonder, honourable senators: Why is this Trudeau government so deathly afraid of scrutiny?

Ultimately, Bill C-11 is the Trudeau government’s method of achieving indirectly what it does not have the political will to do directly. Currently, diverse Canadian content producers are finding major success online, effectively promoting themselves directly to a global audience without gatekeepers or intermediaries.

With Bill C-11, the Trudeau government seeks to insert itself into the middle of that process and impose regulations. It’s like that old political joke: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

The government’s Canadian content regulations will have a devastating effect on the very Canadian users the government professes to be seeking to promote. There is a concern that if Canadian content is promoted to Canadian audiences, it will be considered an unfair advantage to Canadian content producers and that platforms like YouTube, for example, will then limit the international exposure of those Canadian accounts out of a desire for fairness to other users.

Similarly, other countries may implement similar content restrictions on their own domestic users in retaliation, thereby lowering potential Canadian audiences.

Another problem is for niche content producers. While the potential audience for a creator may be only a few thousand within Canada, there may be a much larger audience of potentially millions in the U.S. or worldwide. The provisions of Bill C-11 could impede niche content creators from accessing that larger global market.

For Canadian content producers that rely on foreign audiences — those offering tourism content, for example — Bill C-11 may direct content at the wrong target audience. This creates one of the biggest problems with Bill C-11: By pushing Canadian content on Canadian users rather than allowing for organic choice, a mismatch may be created for a social media user, making it more likely that they will ignore, navigate away from or downvote the content. Doing so will negatively affect the algorithm, and that Canadian creator’s video will therefore be less likely to be shown again. In this respect, creating these restrictions around Canadian content to promote Canadian work may end up having the exact opposite effect.

Why is the Trudeau government insisting on limiting Canada’s creators in this way, honourable senators? Canadian content producers have actually been quite successful online. It’s like this government is trying to find answers in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.

Even for Canadian creators with well-established careers, social media platforms offer Canadian artists additional opportunities to market their works long after their initial popularity. For example, platforms like TikTok have created the opportunity for a second comeback for songs by Canadian artists that first topped the charts years ago. The Weeknd’s hit “Die For You” first became a hit in 2016 but has re-emerged in the top 10 currently, thanks to exposure on TikTok. Vancouver rock band Mother Mother found similar success in 2020 with their 2008 hit song “Hayloft” because of the app. Such opportunities can help to sustain Canadian artists in a saturated and competitive market. Most importantly, this success hasn’t come as the result of algorithmic manipulation but, rather, organically.

New and diverse Canadian entertainers and content providers are already finding great success in the democratization of the current online space. The only price of admission is access to an internet connection and an expansive imagination.

Some of the top YouTubers in Canada include such creators as Evan Fong of Toronto, of Asian descent; his channel has more than 25.8 million viewers. Lilly Singh of Punjabi descent from Scarborough was ranked third in the Forbes’ list of the world’s highest-paid YouTubers; she currently has 14.6 million viewers. Lauren Riihimaki of LaurDIY is of Finnish, Ukrainian and Japanese descent; she has over 8.42 million viewers on her channel. Shina Novalinga, a young throat singer from Nunavik living in Montreal, has more than 4.1 million followers on TikTok. Stef Sanjati — who is trans, has Waardenberg syndrome and is partially deaf — is of Croatian and French background. She has more than half a million subscribers on YouTube.

I could go on and on. Many of Canada’s most successful online creators come from diverse communities and export their unique content around the globe without any assistance or interference from the government. What Canadian creators need, in fact, is for the government to get out of their way.

In my own hometown of Regina, we have the perfect example of a flourishing Canadian success story that might never have happened if these provisions in Bill C-11 were in place. Our own TikTok celebrity, JUNO-nominated musician and creator Hitesh Sharma, better known as Tesher, built his music career online, first as a kid from his parents’ home in Regina. He’s now an international star with his songs viewed hundreds of millions of times on TikTok. Last fall, he wrote a column about how Bill C-11 would have affected the path of his career, and I wanted to read it to you today.

Tesher wrote:

TikTok gave my music a global audience; Bill C-11 threatens that path.

There is a moment during the Junos this year that will stick with me forever.

I was performing Jalebi Baby with Simu Liu, and the crowd was singing along. About a minute into the performance, we exchanged a look, turned to the crowd, and broke into Bhangra dance. The smile on my face said it all: Pure joy.

That joy was tempered when I learned about Bill C-11, which will soon be voted on in the Senate. If passed as is, it could prevent digital-first Canadian artists from achieving that same success — and joy — I felt.

My musical journey started in my hometown of Regina circa 2008, a kid messing around on a computer mixing Bollywood songs with hip-hop tracks. I learned the music industry through trial and error because I didn’t have the money or connections that open doors. What I did have was determination and an Internet connection.

Eventually, I found TikTok. I loved the platform immediately and loved seeing people all over the world sharing, remixing and mashing up content. There are no gatekeepers on TikTok. If your content is good and engaging, it finds an audience.

Not only could I share my music with the world, but I could build a community that could engage with me and with my music. For a self-taught Indian kid from Saskatchewan, with no industry connections, TikTok was a game-changer.

While I’m Canadian, my music first got noticed outside of Canada. My first global hit Jalebi Baby includes the Indian influences of my childhood, but also hints of reggaeton, salsa, Middle Eastern drums and Eastern European synths.

I sing in Hindi, Punjabi and English. My music draws on global influences and musical traditions, so it benefited from being discovered globally.

My journey is less traditional than the typical path into the music industry, and there may have been no path for me at all without the access and freedom that come from being a digital-first creator. Those two things, access and freedom, simply weren’t available to artists like me — who don’t fit a certain mould.

And I’m far from alone. Some of the most exciting voices I’ve discovered in the last couple years, Canadian artists like Jessia and Johnny Orlando, have gained global followings and signed record deals, fuelled by their ability to reach a massive audience through TikTok.

Bill C-11 threatens that low-barrier path — one based on talent and audience preference, rather than government-established quotas — by subjecting platforms like TikTok and the creators using it to outdated broadcasting and Canadian content rules.

I’m building a career and exporting Canadian content globally despite those rules, not because of them. This path is what we should all want for Canadian artists. We want them to have the freedom to showcase globally our diverse, authentic, Canadian culture.

Bill C-11 would limit that reach by requiring creators to prioritize government criteria for domestic distribution over making content optimized for global audiences.

Within a year of being produced, Jalebi Baby was streaming on multiple platforms, including Canadian radio. I collaborated with megastar Jason Derulo on the video, was nominated for breakthrough artist of the year at the Junos and then, there I was, performing live.

The nomination was a huge honour, but to hit a Bhangra dance routine on national TV during Canada’s biggest music night was unforgettable. I could never have imagined seeing someone who looked and sounded like me on stage when I was a kid.

That’s why I’m eager to protect opportunities and offer inspiration to the next generation of Canadians making music or art tutorials or comedy sketches. Aspiring creators should have the same chance I did to live their dream.

This should be what it’s all about, honourable senators — giving Canadian artists and musicians and entertainers and journalists the opportunity to share their gifts with the world. We all want that. The world needs more Canada, but we don’t achieve that by helicopter parenting Canadian talent. We don’t give Canadian content producers the opportunity to thrive by choking them with regulations. Bill C-11 not only puts our Canadian digital content producers at a distinct disadvantage, but it may put a spike through many of their careers. It may prevent young kids like Hitesh Sharma — or Tesher — from messing around with music on their computers in their homes in places like Regina across this country from ever reaching their dreams.

That is why I will be voting against Bill C-11, and I encourage you to vote against it, too. Let’s give our Canadian content producers the freedom to compete, the freedom to achieve and the freedom to excel. Let’s give the world more Canada while also giving Canadians more freedom.

Thank you.

Hon. Percy E. Downe: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-11, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended

(a) in clause 28,

(i) on page 32, by adding the following after line 1:

(ii) on page 37,

(A) by replacing line 8 with the following:

(B) by adding the following after line 10:

(b) on page 41, by adding the following after line 22:

Senator Downe: Yes.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: First, as I’m sure most of you know, I was a Radio-Canada journalist for 25 years. I have to say that for transparency’s sake.

Now, here’s my question. You said that Prince Edward Island did not have access to regional television during the crisis, and that’s obviously unacceptable and shouldn’t be tolerated. However, one thing you forgot to mention is that there was still local radio, so people could still get the news on CBC radio during the crisis. That being the case, don’t you think the $2 million fine you’re calling for as a response to this incident is a bit high, considering that Radio-Canada is independent and that CBC/Radio-Canada radio was still on the air?

[English]

Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Downe. If you would take another question, I’d be grateful.

A penalty of $2 million a day from what is essentially a taxpayer-owned institution — is that really much of a penalty? To me, it’s the same pair of pants, just a different pocket. Could you comment on that and what kind of penalty that is when the taxpayers are the ultimate bearers of this burden?

Hon. Dennis Dawson: Thank you, Your Honour.

First of all, I’ve known Senator Downe for many years in his previous life, so his defence of P.E.I. and P.E.I.’s interests is renowned. I knew him when he was chief of staff for the premier of P.E.I. I’ve known him when he arrived in Ottawa and as a senator for 18 years. That being said, I understand that all politics are local, even for senators.

That being said, the pertinence of this amendment as it relates to Bill C-11 — I understand that even the president of my caucus agrees with him — is not obvious. That being said, I won’t get to debate on it.

The government understands the concerns underlying the proposal to ensure CBC/Radio-Canada offers programming and broadcasting services that all Canadians receive elsewhere in the country. I agree it should not have happened.

It is the government’s view that these issues are best addressed by the CRTC through its own proceedings rather than through legislation. More broadly, this bill does not make significant changes to Part III of the Broadcasting Act, which covers the mandate and operations of the CBC.

As confirmed by the department officials at committee, it falls to the CRTC to engage in matters where the corporation has not respected its licence. I would remind that under Bill C-11, the CRTC can levy administrative penalties against a corporation, just like the private sector.

I further remind senators that the government intends to address the modernization of the CBC in a more holistic manner, not in a piecemeal fashion. The modernization of the CBC remains a key mandate of Minister Rodriguez. Thank you, senator.

Obviously, as far as the salaries are concerned, you did not go through the person who was chairing the committee at that time, but Senator Plett and I remember that I was involved. You were polite not to mention my name. I obviously agree with the comments that I made. They were pertinent then, and they are pertinent today. But you were polite enough not to mention me.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I rise today with great sympathy for what Senator Downe is trying to accomplish. I began my functional career in journalism, working as an associate producer at CBC Radio in Edmonton. I well remember that it was a time when the CBC in Edmonton was under great economic stress.

Not long after I was hired, they brought all of us together in the large TV studio to make a major announcement. I was terrified. I figured last one in, first one out. The ink was not even dry on my contract. Instead, they gathered us in the room to announce that they were shutting down the TV service in Edmonton and that the CBC would serve Edmonton via Calgary.

Now, if you know anything about Edmonton and Calgary and the intense pride and rivalry, you can imagine the fury in Edmonton — where, I believe, at that time the CBC News was the number one supper-hour TV news show — when someone in Toronto announced that Edmonton, a city of a million people, could be served without a CBC TV station.

The experiment was a disaster. Ratings cratered, and the CBC eventually had to acknowledge that they had made a severe blunder — and that it was part of their mandate to serve the regions of Canada, and to give back a TV station to the capital of the province, which was a city of just under a million people back then. So the TV station returned, but they never again regained the trust of the audience or the share of the market.

I understand Senator Downe’s perspective. When you come from a place that is outside the centre of the country, it is intensely frustrating to have an official in Toronto or Montreal decide whether your region is deserving of the kind of attention the rest of Canada views as normative.

But we have to give some consideration to the extraordinary crisis that we faced three years ago. As Senator Downe said, it was a time when we did not know very much about COVID and how dangerous it was, and newsrooms all across the country, both print and broadcast, sent their reporters home and did their best to try to put together makeshift newscasts and makeshift newspapers with staff having as little face-to-face time as possible.

I also have sympathy for the people who made that decision in Prince Edward Island. They did not leave Prince Edward Island without local news, as Senator Miville-Dechêne has pointed out — the radio service was still there and active — nor did they leave the people of Prince Edward Island without access to CBC television, since there was coverage from other CBC stations and affiliates throughout Atlantic Canada.

I understand how bereft people must have felt and how betrayed they were, but I think we have to remember that this did not happen on a whim, as Senator Downe put it. This was an emergency response to an emergent crisis.

That said, it’s also very important to note that Bill C-11 is mindful of the fact that the CBC must be kept to the terms of its licence and to its regional mandate.

When we discussed the first part of this amendment in our committee, we were lucky to have Thomas Owen Ripley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister at Canadian Heritage, speak to this issue:

The government would agree with Senator Downe’s point that right now the CRTC has very limited tools in the case of violation of a licence. At the end of the day, the primary tool is actually the revocation of the licence, which is, obviously, a big stick. That is why Bill C-11 puts in place an administrative monetary penalties regime, because it allows for a greater calibration of sanctions in the case of a violation where the corporation is actually able to assess what the violation is and what the appropriate sanction is to ensure compliance in that case.

The government had to consider whether CBC/Radio-Canada was going to be subject to that administrative monetary penalties regime. The government’s decision, at the end of the day, was to actually subject CBC/Radio-Canada to that regime. If you look at 34.99 of the bill, you will see that CBC/Radio-Canada can be subject to administrative monetary penalties just like the private sector.

To be precise, if you look at proposed paragraph 34.5(1)(b) of the bill, which I have just done, you will see that the penalty for a first offence may not exceed $10 million. For subsequent offences, the maximum rises to $15 million. So that administrative monetary penalty, or AMP, regime is potentially more crippling than what Senator Downe is proposing. Nor does the money go to local libraries, which is a complicated way to set up and administer an AMP regime, from which libraries benefit; instead, the money goes back to the treasury, and then it can be used as appropriate.

I, therefore, suggest to you that to punish Prince Edward Island’s CBC station for a decision made in a moment of crisis in a time of emergency — to import a spanking for them into this new Broadcasting Act that we may not reopen for another 30 years — is a bit too moment-specific. I think the fact that proposed section 34.99 of the bill does impose a penalty regime on the CBC — and requires them to keep to the terms of their licence or, as I said, face penalties of up to $15 million — is a pretty substantive signal that the government is taking this seriously.

Now we have arrived at the issue of salaries. I have an amusing personal anecdote about this, too: When I first joined the CBC as an associate producer — associate producers were primarily young women in their twenties, and, for many of us, it was our first real, substantive job in journalism — we were not paid very much money; I believe my starting salary may have been $27,000 a year.

One day, all of us girls got together and compared how much we were making, and we realized that one was making more and one was making less. It wasn’t a very fair thing. So all four or five of us marched down to the station manager’s office, and said that we would like a regularization of our pay. The station manager was outraged. He said, “Young ladies, it is not ladylike behaviour to discuss your salaries.”

I mean, I’m old, but I’m not that old. This would have been in the late 1980s or early 1990s.

The idea that the CBC keeps its salaries opaque, and that, even if you belong to a union, you may not know what your colleagues are making are long-standing problems.

I have some sympathy for the efficacy of sunshine lists, because sunshine is a good disinfectant. However, I am mindful of what Senator Wallin said in debate when we discussed this issue at committee. Let it be said that when I left the CBC, I believe I was making the “princessly” salary of $47,000 a year. I was never going to be on the sunshine list; I was always deep in the dark. Senator Wallin had a different career at the CBC where she was like a famous star, whereas it was my job to get people coffee. She knows more about this than I do.

Here is what Senator Wallin told us in committee:

The total compensation packages inside the CBC — and I’m sure others will be able to substantiate this — are broken down. For on-air talent, you would have the union part of your job, for which there would be a fixed rate; you would have the contract part of your job; you would have talent fees; you would have expenses, which might include cars, TV, clothes, surgery, et cetera; and there are performance bonuses, which are not performance in the traditional sense that you might have in the work world — the real work world for dollars earned or contributions made; it’s performance in the more traditional sense.

So working out how much somebody gets paid at the CBC is very complicated. It is certainly much more complicated than it was down at my end of the pay scale.

Again, I appreciate Senator Downe’s concern for transparency, and for the concern that he voiced in our committee about gender equity, because there are long-standing problems in the CBC and, frankly, in the journalism world regarding what men and women are paid. When I became a columnist at the Edmonton Journal, I started my full-time columnist job after working part-time and after having been on maternity leave before that. One day, I came out of the ether, I went to my boss’s office and I said, “Look, I don’t know what any of the male columnists here are making, but I want you to look at their salaries and look at mine, and tell me if you think it’s fair.” The next thing I knew, my salary had effectively doubled. That’s how much less I was earning than the men, and if I had not asked about it, that’s how much less I would have continued earning.

I think there is a legitimate problem in Canadian media that women are traditionally paid less than men for doing the same job — and often for doing a more difficult job. But, as Senator Dawson said, I don’t think that this kind of initiative belongs within Bill C-11.

I would love to see more transparency in how the CBC reports its salaries. We pay those salaries, and we depend upon those journalists to give us the news. Keeping the CBC accountable is in the interests of the whole nation, but this amendment to Bill C-11, to put this in the Broadcasting Act — our late colleague Elaine McCoy used to say we are shooting at the wrong duck. In this case, I think it is shooting at the wrong duck.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Would Senator Downe take another question?

I will be quick. In paragraph (b) of your amendment, you propose to make public the salary of a certain number of people in comparison with the salary of a senator and not that of an MP. If you want the amendment to be accepted by the other place, perhaps you should include the salary of MPs as well.

My question is this. Does this not constitute a violation of privacy under the Privacy Act?

[English]