Hon. Rebecca Patterson: Minister, I would like to ask you a question about the Pay Equity Act. We know that employers have until September 3, 2024, to publish their pay equity plans under this act. This means that about 4,600 employers have less than a year now to actually put these plans in place.

In her first annual report released last August, the Pay Equity Commissioner noticed that requests from employers seeking more guidance have been steadily increasing throughout the year.

Given the commissioner’s comments, are you confident that employers have sufficient time to develop comprehensive pay equity plans, especially given the pandemic-related interruptions since the act came into effect and given that decent work requires decent pay?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we were all shocked and saddened to learn of the tragedy in Laval, Quebec, which left two children dead and a number of others injured.

Our thoughts are with their families, as we express our condolences for those lost, and our hopes for a full recovery by the injured.

Honourable senators, please join me in rising for a minute of silence in memory of those children who did not survive this tragic incident.

(Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.)

Hon. David M. Wells: Minister O’Regan, welcome back to the Senate.

My question to you is related to your responsibilities as Minister of Labour and minister responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is about the energy transition. It is in two parts.

One is the just transition that we hear so much about. To be clear, the just transition — the front part of that is the phasing out of the oil and gas industry, which we’ve heard from your government. Can you tell us how that phasing out of the oil and gas industry is “just” for the Newfoundland and Labrador workers on all our offshore rigs and for all our onshore suppliers, who have gone through education to learn about their craft and get well paid and keep that money in their families and keep our communities alive and, in fact, fill the coffers of our province? That is the first part.

The second part relates to a comment from your cabinet colleague Associate Minister of Finance Randy Boissonnault, who said the cost of this will be $100 billion to $125 billion a year up until at least 2050.

Given that Canada has — that contributes to 1.5 —

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond: Welcome to the Senate, minister. My question is about a subject that you’ve already addressed, anti-scab legislation. I gather that the consultations are over. You said in October that they would end in December.

I have a specific question. You will undoubtedly look to the experience of Quebec and British Columbia. Are you planning to prohibit the use of both replacement workers working at the company and third-party subcontractors? In certain disputes, instead of hiring scabs, the employer has subcontracted the work to external companies.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: To my knowledge, since this crisis began, the Copyright Act has not been enforced in relation to articles that are shared because, yes, links are often shared. I don’t think the Copyright Act is the appropriate mechanism to protect journalism. I know this mechanism is used in France. We’ve been much more inspired by the Australian model, which has been successful in mitigating the crisis to some extent. We noticed that in Australia —

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I just have a quick comment, really, in response to some of your comments. Of course, we’ll discuss this endlessly at committee.

Speaking with local newspapers in my area, I heard that one of the things that troubles them is that while government, on the one hand, has agreed to pay them money, therefore compromising independence, they have also stopped 100% of their advertising in these local papers, which was a genuine and arm’s-length source of income. So if they wanted to support these news operations in small communities, they do have a mechanism.

Senator Simons: I would be delighted to take a question. We’ll pop like jack-in-the-boxes.

Senator C. Deacon: I wonder if you have thought at all about how new online platforms like The Logic, BetaKit or investigative journalism platforms that deliver podcasts, like Canadaland — how those sorts of models fit into the world that Bill C-18 imagines, because they seem to be fighting their own fight in a dramatically different media landscape. I just wonder if you have contemplated that. Thank you.

Senator Bovey: Thank you, Senator Cotter. I’ll be very brief.

In your speech, when you were going over the bill itself, you talked about the fact that there would be provisions for reconsiderations, reviews and appeals. Were those the right words, and are those in the cases of people being denied the benefit?

Senator Cotter: I have just pulled out the language here. The relevant provisions under section 11(1) read, “(h) respecting reviews or reconsiderations of decisions made under this Act;” and “(i) respecting appeals;”

So there’s an expectation that a model of reconsideration will be put in place and also an arrangement for an appeal process.

Senator Klyne: I have trust in the minister as well but, again, I have to hearken back to 2022, when the Saskatchewan government clawed back payments from people with disabilities. I think we’ll see a repeat of that unless we have some type of formal agreement before we go forward with this. I don’t want to stall it, I don’t want to see it slowed down, but we need some assurance to make sure that this goes to where it’s intended. I do want to see that happen. If there is anything I can say or do, please call on me.

Senator Cotter: I’m desperate not to run out of those five minutes. Senator Black in our Agriculture Committee often puts up his hands to get us to stop, and I was hoping that wouldn’t happen here.

The positive feature of this is that those agreements need to be negotiated and made public. It was a requirement in the bill; it was an amendment. You and I will be able to have a look at those agreements and see whether they are rich enough and strong enough to achieve the goals that you and I are looking for here. It will occur after the bill is passed, but it probably has to be in that fashion. I don’t think we have too many other options, but at least we get a good look to see whether the expectations and the commitments of the minister — and to the extent that I’m making any kind of a commitment, my commitment to you and people with disabilities — will be honoured. We can verify or unverify. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Seidman, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Audette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

Hon. Amina Gerba: According to data published by Statistics Canada in January 2023, two years after earning a bachelor’s degree, the employment income was lower among racialized graduates than non-racialized graduates.

For example, among women, West Asian graduates earned 16% less and Arab graduates earned 15% less than non-racialized women. Among men, Black, Southeast Asian, Filipino, Chinese and Korean graduates had the lowest employment incomes, earning from 11% to 13% less than their non-racialized counterparts.

Minister, what is the government doing to ensure more inclusion and fairness in the processes for recruiting racialized graduates in our country?

[English]

Hon. Seamus O’Regan, P.C., M.P., Minister of Labour: Senator, with all due apology, I wish my French was advanced enough on this subject that I could offer an answer in the language in which you have asked me.

Let me just say that in answering this question, I will get back to you with particulars on exactly what we are doing. I do not think there is any argument about where we want to be. I do not think that we have any argument about the goal. But I would like to get you a more detailed answer on precisely how we plan to get there, aside obviously from employment equity and other reports and legislation that we are working on.

I will get back to you on that.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise at second reading of Bill C-18, the online news bill. This bill is important to me personally because I spent many years in the world of journalism.

For starters, the crisis is real. Over the past 14 years, 469 newspapers and news organizations in Canada have closed up shop. The majority of the surviving media organizations have been through cuts that have eviscerated newsrooms. Bill C-18 is clearly not a solution in search of a problem. We really do have a big problem, and the government is right to tackle it.

There are many reasons for this crisis, but nearly all of them have to do with the internet revolution. Over the past 25 years, traditional media, which used to have a monopoly on broadcasting information, lost their exclusivity to multiple competitors: online ads, foreign media, government sites, streaming platforms, countless specialized sources for things like weather forecasts, sports scores and financial news, audio and video-sharing platforms, news and opinion blogs and, lastly, social media platforms, which pounded the last nail into the coffin.

Today, traditional media organizations are facing a profound crisis that affects both their profitability, now that advertisers have left, and the value they add, since so much content is available elsewhere.

Some say that the media has not been able to adapt and is simply a victim of technological change, similar to how the typewriter disappeared when computers became ubiquitous. Others add that the traditional media outlets are the victims of their own inertia and arrogance, and that they deserve their fate.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but there is some truth to that. Many didn’t see the threat coming, and for a long time, they believed that the competition from online media and social networks, sometimes called the “barbarian invasion,” had no value and would not interest anyone. Accustomed to the comfort of their monopoly, some media outlets looked down on new platforms, different models and alternative paths, and were unwilling to take a hard look at themselves, rethink their offerings and adapt.

However, that is not the whole story. Many Canadian media organizations, big and small, young and old, have been trying out innovative approaches for 20 years. In Quebec in particular, the media landscape changed dramatically with the emergence of not-for-profit agencies or cooperatives, as in the case of Les Coops de l’information. La Presse has gone exclusively digital, and the hybrid subscriber model is working for Le Devoir. Experts such as Sue Gardner and Jean-Hugues Roy have noted that a lot of experiments are under way, and even though there are no conclusive results yet, this could be the key to the solution.

However, we mustn’t confuse traditional media with journalism. We can criticize our media and also have legitimate concerns about the future of journalism. While some organizations have lost their aura and their influence, the importance of journalism has remained intact and is as big as ever.

Whether reports address the need to expose lies, scandals, corruption or cronyism, the essential character of journalism is no less great today than it was 25 years ago. In any free society, journalism is a public good that needs to be protected and supported. As the Washington Post‘s slogan goes, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”

That being said, investigative work or analysis has the same public value regardless of whether it is done by CBC/Radio-Canada or by a new online journalism platform and whether it is broadcast on the radio, on television, on Twitter or on Facebook.

What is important to Canadian society is that organizations, no matter which ones, have the resources to deliver quality journalism and that the content reaches the public. In other words, Canada needs a robust and diverse news ecosystem that fulfills its role as the watchdog of democracy.

With Bill C-18, the government is proposing a response to the financial difficulties facing journalism in Canada. The government’s proposed solution is quite simple and is directly inspired by the Australian model. Given that the media have lost their advertising revenue to major platforms such as Facebook and Google, these companies should pay the media to publish their content. It is a pragmatic solution. Rich companies will support companies that have become poor.

[English]

For some, Bill C-18 is nonetheless on the wrong track because it is based on a fiction, namely, that Google and Facebook “hurt” the media by making their content available. Media expert Sue Gardner sums up this criticism well:

. . . that premise makes no sense. We know that because news publishers have always been able to opt out of appearing in Google search results, and they don’t. In fact they do the opposite: they vigorously compete to maximize their presences on Google and on Facebook. News publishers want to appear on those platforms, because that’s where people are finding news.

For these critics, the reality is that Google and Facebook offer their users a huge variety of content — of which the media is only a small portion — and the media profit more from the platforms’ referencing than the latter profits from news content. It is possible, but nobody knows. The figures are not public.

The solution for some media experts would be to tax Google and Facebook and set up an independent fund to support journalism.

In an ideal world, setting up a fund would be an easier option, but in reality this is not the avenue the government has chosen for reasons that have to do, apparently, with our trade agreements. As senators, we are called upon to vote on the bill before us. It is possible to improve it, but impossible to rewrite it in such a fundamental way.

I see a number of issues to be addressed in our review of Bill C-18.

First, there is a fundamental question of the expectations of the parties. For large digital platforms, negotiations should focus on the commercial value of the content and services exchanged. In other words, what is the value of news content for Google and Facebook, and how much revenue do those platforms generate for news organizations? For the media, on the other hand, the logic seems different. Some consider that the major platforms should finance up to 30% of their operating costs. This approach is more likely a subsidy than a commercial deal.

To align the expectations of the parties in future negotiations, it would be useful to clarify the objectives of the bill.

Then there is the issue of eligible media. Amendments in the House of Commons have already broadened the admissibility criteria to include small, non-profit community and Indigenous outlets, including those owned by journalists. These broadened criteria mean that we went from about 200 to more than 650 organizations potentially admissible under Bill C-18. This is a welcome expansion because the important thing is to support journalism no matter where it is practised, and not to support only mainstream media. On the other hand, we must ensure that by broadening the scope, we do not open the door to people who do not practise real journalism, but who focus instead on lobbying, fictional or intimate narratives, personal growth or entertainment.

Questions also arise regarding the platforms targeted by Bill C-18. Even though the definition of “digital news intermediary” in the law is very broad, we know that it only covers Facebook and Google at the moment. But we also have to think about the future. Already, Facebook is threatening to block the sharing of Canadian news on its platform if Bill C-18 is adopted. If Facebook carries out the threat, will the bill only target Google? In that case, will this new financing mechanism for Canadian media depend on only one foreign platform? This would be a peculiar situation.

It will also be important to consider the use of funds received by the media. This is a very delicate question, because the government does not want to interfere too much in what it presents as private negotiations. This is a consequence of the approach adopted. That said, the bill won’t be of great assistance to journalism as a public good if the amounts received from Google and Facebook are directed to shareholders or interest payments rather than to hiring journalists, upgrading platforms and to conduct investigations. Much more transparency is needed in this bill.

Questions also arise about the long-term viability of an approach that makes Canadian media partially dependent on foreign private companies that can change or disappear at any time.

[Translation]

In conclusion, Bill C-18 addresses an issue that has a real impact on the democratic health of our country.

Today, even innovative new platforms can’t be profitable without public support, with some exceptions. Excluding CBC/Radio-Canada, many newsrooms are hanging on by a thread.

The Transport and Communications Committee, of which I am a member, will have its work cut out for it. We will have to come to grips with the implications and its limitations of the bill, and perhaps suggest improvements. As with Bill C-11, Bill C-18 is a legislative foray into the ever-changing world of the internet. In the medium term, it is difficult to assess the impact of the measures being put forward. There will inevitably be a process of trial and error, and adjustments will be necessary. However, in my opinion, this effort is certainly more commendable than inaction.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: First of all, Senator Housakos, journalists do have a choice of whether or not to post their articles online.

I know that you believe very strongly in the principle of individual choice. However, we are talking here about a complete paradigm shift. That means that if media outlets don’t allow their articles to be shared, then they lose a lot of readers. It’s a bit of a paradox because the survival of journalism depends in part on really solid content, the kind of journalism that is different from what circulates on social media.

We know that stand-alone, isolated media outlets will not be able to reach enough people. They are therefore obligated, in this new universe, to make their content available by agreeing to share it. The real problem is that we don’t know how much that journalistic content is worth to a platform like Google. Of course, Google won’t give us its figures. As a result, it is extremely difficult to implement a bill like this one, which seeks to put a value on journalistic content, because we have no idea how much that content is worth to the platforms or what it brings to individual media outlets.

We know they no longer get any advertising revenues because the entire advertising market has been picked up by the platforms, but we don’t know whether that could make a difference in terms of traffic. For example, people from the daily newspaper La Presse told me that they were bringing in decent advertising revenues. It wasn’t a windfall, but they had what they needed to survive. That’s why everyone wants to be on social media. Did you have another question?

[English]

Senator Housakos: And what about copyright protection?

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.

Senator Housakos: Thank you. I’ll try to cobble my three questions together as we have discussed them. The jury is still out for me on this particular bill. I appreciate the objective that the government has. I think we all understand how important free and democratic journalism is to our democracy.

My three questions are the following: First, what would you say to the critics who say journalists have a choice to post their products online and on the web or not to post them?

Second, we already have copyright laws in this country, of course, that protect content creators if somebody steals their material.

The third question is an analogy that Senator Harder didn’t like, but maybe I’ll get a better answer from you. I feel this bill is the equivalent of somebody jumping in an Uber, going to a particular restaurant for a meal, and then the restaurant saying, “I want a percentage of the fare of the Uber, as well, that brought you here, because if I wouldn’t be here, you wouldn’t be in business.”

Can I have your thoughts on all three of those perspectives, which, of course, are views from critics on the bill?

[Translation]

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

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Australia certainly isn’t a perfect model, but we noticed that journalists were hired there after the secret agreements that Google and Facebook unfortunately reached with media outlets. We also noticed that, according to some sources, larger media organizations have more money than small ones but that small community media organizations received some money.

As for the Uber that gets you to the restaurant, I tend to agree with Senator Harder because I’m not convinced that’s a good analogy for what’s really happening. There is an exchange, but we don’t really know if the value of journalism to these platforms is equal or unequal to the value journalists derive from being broadcast on these platforms.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Incomprehensible. Inconceivable. Heartbreaking. Horrifying. Yesterday, in Laval, a morning like any other turned into a nightmare.

A Laval city bus crashed into the Garderie éducative Ste-Rose, smashing through a room of preschool children.

Two children died and six others were injured.

Today, our hearts ache for the grieving community of Sainte-Rose in Laval and, in particular, for the relatives of the two victims. My thoughts are with the children, the families, the educators. All of Canada is mourning with you.

[English]

In the immediate aftermath of this incomprehensible catastrophe, we are left with more questions than answers. But today we send our thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims, even as we cannot pretend to imagine what they are going through. We send our positive energy, our best wishes to the injured children who remain in hospital and to their families. We think of the other children at the Garderie éducative Ste‑Rose, their caretakers and, of course, their parents, who will also require support so that they may move forward.

I would like to also express my gratitude to the first responders, to the health professionals and to the police for their work in managing the unthinkable. I want to also acknowledge the bravery of onlookers on the scene who are reported to have put their own welfare at risk to subdue the driver.

[Translation]

Tonight, at 6:30 p.m., a candlelight vigil will be held in the square in front of Sainte-Rose-de-Lima church for those who wish to pay their respects.

To the parents and families of the two lost angels, on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Senate, I offer my deepest condolences.