Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Do we have agreement on a bell? One hour? The vote will take place at 4:34. Call in the senators.

(1630)

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Plett negatived on the following division:

Senator Housakos: If the chamber indulges me.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 172, dated December 13, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the 2 Billion Trees program.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Your amendment is set out in two parts. I want to begin with the second part. You want to get rid of the clause that says that original French-language shows have to be part of what platforms and broadcasters promote. You want to delete that part of the legislation. I imagine that means that you think original French-language shows aren’t important enough to be entitled to some protection. As you know, and you explained it in your presentation, French is still a minority language in Canada and in North America, even though it is the majority language in Quebec.

Generally, when I see you trying to weaken the scope of discoverability — a concept that still needs to be defined — I come back to the comparison that you always make between the private sector and the public sector, as though culture were just another commodity. I absolutely agree with you that private companies can do all sorts of extraordinary things in product development based on what consumers are looking for. However, for very obvious reasons, culture has never been perceived as a commodity to others. That’s why governments have taken it upon themselves to ensure a certain common good.

Are you dropping original French-language shows because they don’t interest you? Do your really believe that culture is just another commodity?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Gagné, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Dawson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bovey, for the third reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended.

Hon. Patricia Bovey (The Hon. the Acting Speaker): Are there questions?

Senator Housakos, you have four minutes left, and we have several questions. We will monitor the time.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): We have had some discussions amongst leadership. The issue that Senator McPhedran wants to speak about, I believe, is fairly time-sensitive. In light of that, we — in our Conservative caucus — would be prepared to give leave, on the condition that this is the last item on the Order Paper and that the Senate adjourn when Senator McPhedran is finished speaking.

Senator Housakos: Thank you for making my point, Senator Dasko. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, does make rulings when it comes to these issues.

First of all, as we know, the bill says clearly, and the CRTC chair recognized that language in the bill. He also recognized that bill gives him the authority to demand outcomes, to force these platforms to arrive at a certain outcome. As I pointed out in my speech, we saw a number of attempts by officials and by the CRTC to explain to the committee how you could create a certain outcome without algorithmic manipulation. There is only one way to drive outcome. If the outcome by the CRTC, for example, is a list of criteria they expect the platforms to prioritize, other than algorithm manipulation, what is it exactly that the platforms will be able to do to achieve CRTC expectations vis-à-vis the outcomes? Maybe you have an answer.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator, are you asking for five more minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is required, senator. Senator Plett?

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Senator Housakos, will you take a question from me, sir? Your speech helped me to understand what your concern is. I have had doubts about it myself. But I think that you really clarified it in my mind.

On the one hand, I think that you are seeing the algorithms as being as innocent as the driven snow and a government body appointed by an elected government as being the devil incarnate. I have a slightly different view of algorithms. We have heard about enormous hate, misogyny and anti-Semitism that has been promoted and received a high degree of attention through these algorithms. Controversy drives algorithms.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 186, dated December 13, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the Canadian Human Trafficking Hotline.

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. 80, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

[English]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 162, dated May 5, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) tabled the reply to Question No. 173, dated December 13, 2022, appearing on the Order Paper and Notice Paper in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett, regarding the 24 Sussex site.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, first, I want to thank the committee for the dozens of hours that they put into this bill, and for the care and attention that they gave to the many witnesses. I attended some — but nowhere near all — of the committee meetings during both the witness phase and the clause-by-clause phase.

I was pleased that the committee made some quite consequential amendments. As a result, I support the bill being sent back to the House of Commons. I think it reflects well upon our obligation for sober second thought.

Now, having followed the committee, received briefings and listened to the excellent speeches in this chamber thus far — and there are more to come — I want to put on the record some of my thoughts and concerns.

First, I was struck by the testimony of Peter Menzies — he is an eminent journalist, a media executive and a former vice-chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC — on the intentions of the bill. I agree, based on the briefings, with what he thought was the intention of the bill. He said:

. . . this is what the ministers were saying right from the beginning. The intent was to make sure the system gets money from web giants.

If that’s the problem, my suggestion is to just address that problem. There is no need to get into user-generated content and all these other areas, and start dealing with small businesses, advancing businesses or people taking advantage of the beauty and wonder of the internet and finding success. There’s no need to shut that down.

If it’s the traditional funds that you are after and the big web giants, just focus on that.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear!

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.