Senator Omidvar: Honourable senators, the Wagner Group is well known to all of you by reputation. It is a killing machine for hire made up of lawless mercenaries wreaking havoc in Syria, Libya, the Central African Republic, Mali and now in Ukraine — all to further, purportedly, the foreign policy objectives of President Putin.

If the government acts on this motion, the Wagner Group will not be allowed to enter Canada. Their assets will likely be frozen — they could be seized and repurposed to the victims, which could be justice of its own kind. But the first step in the process is to deem them a terrorist entity, and only the government can do that. Last night in the House of Commons, a unanimous motion with the same wording was adopted.

Let’s join our voices to theirs so that both houses of government can bring their collective voice and influence the government to do the right thing.

This group is a stain on civilization and a stain on our collective humanity. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, sometimes we all need to just “SNAP” out of it. In other words, we need to Stop Now And Plan, or SNAP.

SNAP is a proven, evidence-based, gender- and cultural-sensitive program that teaches children with behavioural problems, and their parents, how to make better choices “in the moment.” It’s an innovative program that equips and empowers youth with effective emotional regulation, self-control and problem-solving skills.

I am a strong advocate for this made-in-Canada success story, which has a major national footprint and global reach.

SNAP was developed by the Child Development Institute in 1985. For nearly 40 years, SNAP has helped thousands, thanks to its award-winning crime prevention program.

SNAP has expanded considerably in recent years and can now be found in over 200 sites across the country, more than 140 schools and over 30 youth justice centres. It has also introduced three apps designed for SNAP children, caregivers and graduates to enhance their SNAP skills.

After this successful initial expansion, SNAP is now aiming higher, bigger and further with its “2.0 version” as it hopes to reach even more kids who might be struggling. SNAP has the tools, experience and knowledge to help them get back on track and, hopefully, remain in school, stay out of trouble, avoid the criminal justice system and become better citizens.

Honourable senators, what makes SNAP so successful is its early detection, intervention and prevention approach. SNAP helps youth learn self-control, problem solving and emotional management. SNAP participants learn to calm down and reflect before reacting, and to seek out positive solutions to their problems related to anti-social and violent behaviours.

SNAP’s proven track record of success is impressive. According to recent data from Washington State, SNAP has one of the highest benefit-to-cost ratios in the “Children’s Mental Health — Disruptive Behaviour” category, with an 86% likelihood that SNAP will produce more benefits than costs.

SNAP has also enjoyed the support of Public Safety Canada, through the National Crime Prevention Centre, thanks to an investment of $10 million. More recently, PSC invested $6.3 million to bring SNAP to 100 communities between 2017 and 2021. The target was exceeded, and SNAP HQ implemented 160 new SNAP sites despite the pandemic.

Honourable senators, I hope you will join me in congratulating and thanking SNAP for the tremendous work it does with some of our most vulnerable youth in helping shape their future for the better.

I encourage you to learn more about SNAP 2.0 and its ambitious goal of increasing its footprint across the country. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable colleagues, on Christmas Eve, I agreed to sponsor a young Iranian teacher, Mona Afsami, who has been imprisoned since October 19. I did so at the request of the Iranian community in Montreal, which is trying to draw Canadians’ attention to the brutality of the Iranian regime as it executes its opponents. This sponsorship campaign is symbolic, but it gives a face to Iran’s 14,000 political prisoners.

More than 300 European parliamentarians led the way, and about 50 Canadian parliamentarians have followed suit. Senator Ratna Omidvar and I are sponsoring Mona Afsami who has been accused of collusion against national security. She faces five years in prison for daring to protest.

The unrest began last September following the arrest of young Mahsa Amini. For not wearing her headscarf properly, she died in detention, at the hands of law enforcement.

Iranian women took to the streets without their veils to denounce the harassment and oppression they endure. This “feminist revolution” then extended to all Iranians, both men and women, mostly young, who want the end of a regime that is suffocating them. Nearly 470 protesters have allegedly died, including several dozen children. There have been at least four public executions.

The stories coming out of Iran are chilling. Prison guards reportedly severely beat young Elham Modaresi for going on a hunger strike. Her family believes her life to be in danger. Another young woman, Sepideh Qalandari, is said to have died under torture after her arrest in Tehran. Her body was handed over to her family in exchange for a promise of silence.

The torture, crackdown on demonstrations and denial of fundamental justice for detainees have been denounced throughout the world. What can we do?

Canada has very little influence over the Iranian regime as economic and diplomatic relations between the two countries are very limited, but this does not mean that we are completely powerless. The Canadian government could take inspiration from other countries and increase pressure on the Iranian regime by adding the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to the list of 73 terrorist organizations, for example.

After the violent upheavals last year, 2023 will be decisive for Iranians who dream of freedom and for those who have stood with them, including thousands of Canadians. It is time for Canada to deploy all its means to support the aspirations of our friends in Iran: women, life, freedom.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, on Wednesday, February 1, 2023, the Senate adjourn at the earlier of the completion of deliberations on Bill C-11 for that day or midnight.

Senator Manning: Thank you very much.

[English]

I don’t pretend to be an expert in all of this, senator, but I am an avid listener, and I listened to many people who came before the committee.

You’re a bit surprised that I came forward with this; I’m a bit surprised that we’re not talking about any threshold. To go back to Oorbee Roy, the single mom who was facing all kinds of financial issues, found a home on the internet through skateboarding videos and took herself out of poverty, she told us. She established a home for her two children — I believe it was two children, if memory serves me correctly — thanks to the opportunities she had through that process.

I don’t think for a moment that Oorbee Roy is going to become a national broadcaster. I don’t think for a moment that the CBC or CTV are going to have to worry about Oorbee Roy.

What I do worry about is people such as Oorbee Roy who found a way to take herself out of poverty through the internet. She is in great fear now; not only her, but several others came forward to our committee and expressed great fear over the fact that, through the regulatory process, now they are going to have an immense amount of — trying to create that Canadian content, what meets Canadian content, what the final decision of the CRTC is going to be on what is Canadian content, as well as that she will be driven away from that opportunity.

When I looked at Bill C-11 in the beginning, and read through it first — before any amendments were made — I believed then that the purpose of the bill was to create an environment where people such as Oorbee Roy could thrive any place in this world. I come from a community in southern Newfoundland of 300 people. Somebody could make a living in that community through this process.

What I’m concerned about is that the last thing you want in anybody’s face is too much government. I believe that, unless we put a threshold in place, we are putting a roadblock up to people like Oorbee Roy, and many others, who would have the opportunity to not only create something, but to make a living for themselves and their families.

We need to have a threshold; is it $10 million? The question mark is we started at $150 million. We went to 100, 50, 25 — now we are down to 10. Now do we go down to a $20 bill before we agree on something? No; I don’t know. The bottom line is, without any threshold, there is no limit. Oorbee Roy is going to be on the same level as a national broadcaster. To me, that doesn’t make sense.

Senator Manning: If the Senate gives me the opportunity, I have all the time in the world, Your Honour.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Fabian Manning: 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 in clause 4 (as amended by the decision of the Senate on December 14, 2022), on page 10, by adding the following after line 32:

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your answer, Senator Manning. I am trying to reconcile your amendment with the fact that Senator Simons and I removed anything to do with revenue from the amendment that we proposed and that was adopted.

When one reads the amendment, it is very clear that this woman, Ms. Roy, who roller skates and supports her family with her content, will not be affected in any way by Bill C-11. This amendment already guarantees that small content creators will be protected.

I am trying to understand how your amendment would be useful. Basically, what you are saying is that there is a chance that our amendment will be rejected by the government and so yours should be adopted.

I would like to know why your amendment is more likely to be accepted by the government than ours.

[English]

Senator Manning: Of all the things I will try to do in my lifetime, especially on this side, I’m not going to try to answer for what the government is going to do. I am afraid to do that half of the time, but I will leave that for another day.

What I’m concerned about is that, as I said in my remarks, your amendment may not be adopted. Yes, with all good intentions, you and Senator Simons put it forward. Certainly, it was a good amendment at the time — but, the fact is, it may not be adopted.

I am not saying that the government would adopt my amendment. We don’t know if the government will accept any amendment. We have sent back legislation from this chamber to the government, and they have not accepted any amendments that we have put forward at any time. The bottom line is that if we have one amendment, or ten, they may not accept any. The more that we have — at least that gives them some thought to put some thought into it.

The bottom line is that we’re — “protecting” may not be the right word to use — giving those people that we have called, in our discussions, “small players in the field” — giving them an opportunity to, at least, be able to stand on their own two feet, and be able to do what they are doing without interference. I believe the whole purpose of Bill C-11 was to create an avenue to do that.

The reason I put forward the amendment is because I believe that some type of threshold is needed. If we talk about no revenues, as I said, the government may not accept that, but they might be open to accepting a threshold; I don’t know.

I can guarantee you my amendment was put forward with the best intentions to protect those that we have brought before us. In my comments, I mentioned half a dozen of those who came before us and expressed this major valid concern they all have. I’m trying to find a way to address that concern. This is my way. I hope my colleagues support my amendment.

Senator Manning: I understand the concern you have. My concern is the absence of anything there to protect those people.

Having it embedded in legislation — yes, I know it takes 30 years to change something; but the fact is that, without something there, the people are not protected on the other end, in my view and in my humble opinion.

I would be more comfortable having something in legislation that people can refer to that becomes the law of the land than the fact that we have nothing there to show any protection to them.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Manning, for another attempt to bring some sanity to a very insane piece of legislation.

Honourable colleagues, how many times have we heard — time and time again, when concerns have been raised by digital content creators, by digital-first creators, in this country — “Trust us”? Trust us. User-generated content is not included in this bill.

How many times have we heard the minister, officials, government officials and sponsors of the bill come and say, “Trust us”?

“Absolutely. Platforms are in; users are out.”

At every turn, government MPs in the House, the government in the Senate committee, they have done everything they can to not allow for any thresholds, to not allow crystal black and white statements that clarify for the hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of Canadians who, today, are using the digital web as an opportunity to promote Canadian culture, and who have created outstanding businesses; they are looking at this, and they are saying that what we have created is at the fate — right now — of the CRTC without any clarity in the bill.

Senator Deacon, you are absolutely right: We need to get rid of red tape in this country. We need to make things less complicated. The best way to do that is to entrench those protections in the bill before it gets to the regulatory stage.

You think we are cutting through regulations by sending this problem to the CRTC, and letting them consult for a year and come back to us with a list of regulations — without guidelines being clarified here and now in order to alleviate the concerns of generated content producers in this country? I’m sorry. I’m not going to leave it to a bunch of appointed individuals who, at the end of the day — as you’ll read in the Broadcasting Act — take their guidelines, ultimately, from the government. They have complete power. We have heard at our committee, over many months, the concerns of stakeholders — both from those in favour of and those against the bill — that the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, has an atrocious record when it comes to consultation and transparency. We also heard from many stakeholders, including large broadcasters, that in order to navigate through the bureaucracy of the CRTC, you need deep pockets and a lot of lawyers on your payroll.

So, yes, Senator Dawson, I am very excited and very stressed about this bill, more than I have been in the past, because I’m concerned about the hundreds of thousands of Canadians and digital first creators in this country who came and pleaded with us for some sanity in the legislation, and they have asked to be excluded. At the end of the day, I don’t believe Canadian culture is in peril nor at risk. I think our committee has seen in their study over the last few months that Canadian culture is booming like never before. Actors are busier than ever before. Producers are busier than ever before, as are directors, singers, songwriters and extras. Every region of the country is benefiting over the last decade; we have seen it. Movie production companies and documentary producers are coming in and using Canada as a place and using Canada’s talent and art to propel their work around the world.

The digital web has given us a market that we never dreamed of 30 or 40 years ago when we were looking at this archaic Broadcasting Act and protecting the broadcasting industry. Billions of people around the world are jumping onto YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and TikTok to look at our Indigenous talent, to look at our francophone talent and they are thriving like never before. With all due respect, I don’t buy the argument that we need to protect them.

Do you know who this bill is protecting? It’s only protecting one group of individuals, and that is the group involved in the old broadcasting model, which we all know has failed. In 2023, they are bankrupt. Bell Media is bankrupt. CBC is bankrupt. They are not making money because they are outdated. Canadians are not going to those platforms for their information anymore. Only old guys like me — old boomers — are sitting there watching the news on TV at night. My 26- and 23-year-old children walk by and laugh at me because they are streaming. Yes, they are on their iPads and their phones. I’m starting to realize they are getting information quicker than I am. That’s who I relied on in order to draw my conclusions in regard to this bill.

The traditional broadcasters can do somersaults and try to convince the government to throw more money into the Canada Media Fund and into Telefilm Canada. Change your model because, clearly, I don’t see any streamers rushing to become broadcasters, but we see every broadcasting platform going digital over the last 10 years. The CBC has spent millions trying to go digital — CTV and all of them — because that’s the way of the future.

We need to encourage Canadians and young Canadians to take advantage of that opportunity and to continue to grow, not to hinder them by basically saying to the CRTC, “Create an even playing field.” I use this analogy. We have right now the digital world — a Lamborghini — and we have the traditional broadcasting world — a horse and cart. We want to create an equal race. Well, unless you’re going to give the horse and cart a 5-mile lead in a 5.1-mile race, I’m still betting on the Lamborghini.

We have to start being realistic when we say it’s time to start reviewing our Broadcasting Act. We must understand the realities that we face today.

Senator Deacon mentioned that we must protect our industry and make sure that foreign investors don’t come in and somehow hinder the marketplace. It’s because of Netflix, Disney Plus and those foreign investors that we’ve had billions of dollars coming into Canada and that our industry artists are busier than ever before. They are working. There is a shortage. They are making money. They are paying taxes to the Canada Revenue Agency. By the way, all of these streamers, bloggers and independent content producers are paying a ton of taxes to the Canada Media Fund. Under Bill C-11, who will benefit from that? Even to this day, who benefits? The traditional broadcasters dive into that money, continuing to produce shows at taxpayers’ expense — shows that no one is watching. Do I need to pull out the ratings to let you know that, for example, no one is watching CBC anymore? Yet, the whole point of this bill is that someone is making money and someone isn’t, and for the guys who are not, there is a reason for it. Someone decided they need to be propped up. Well, prop them up all you want, but if the problem is your business model, you will die a slow, painful death.

In our committee, thanks to Senator Klyne, we heard from Indigenous witnesses. He fought hard right to the end to make sure they were heard, and they said it best. Under these new platforms, Indigenous culture from our country is being spread to places like France and South America — to all corners of the world, like never before. They pleaded to make sure that the CRTC and any element of Bill C-11 — or whatever it morphs into, because we don’t know what those regulations will be like — not stop them. They said, word for word, “Please, stay out of our way because we are being very successful.”

Why would we put in peril every Canadian who is on these platforms right now, enjoying the liberty to express themselves? By the way, we are dominating. We’re punching above our weight. Every single witness who came before our committee made it evidently clear that Canada is punching above its weight when you look at our footprint in terms of arts and culture around the world.

We are a small market. We need the world. We are not a trading country only in lumber, in agricultural goods and in energy. We are a trading country in culture as well. As Senator Richards appropriately said, there are so many people who can buy books in Canada, but there are billions of people around the world who can buy the works of Canadian authors that they like.

Now, one of the biggest problems with this bill is the scope. We must broaden our scope. We have to think large as Canadians. I think I heard Senator Miville-Dechêne say, in speaking about her amendment, that it would address thresholds and it would, for example, compel the CRTC — according to her amendment — to consider digital first creators. Correct? And I think one of the words in her amendment is “consider.”

With all due respect, colleagues, if I try to amend the bill and I’m telling the CRTC that we recognize weaknesses that we want them to address in their deliberations and their regulations and the amendment says, “I want the CRTC to consider A, B, C,” well, “consider” is not very prescriptive. We all know how the CRTC works. They’re going to consider it all right. They will hold hearings and they will report as usual. It’s not very binding.

We have fought very hard to put forward amendments with some teeth to protect content producers who are small players, who are living off their small stream of revenue — independent, Canadian content producers. A $10-million threshold is the bare minimum to provide some protection in a concrete way and to entrench it in the bill so that the CRTC has no manoeuvrability to avoid accepting that reality.

My only conclusion on why there’s such pushback from the government is that, at the end of the day and with all due respect, I just don’t believe when government says that, “Platforms are in, and independent digital content producers are out.” I don’t believe them; I’m sorry. If you won’t accept a threshold of $100 million, $50 million, $10 million, why would I believe you are going to accept any threshold on goodwill? How many of you will buy a product and have a contract in which everything is highlighted except the delivery date? How many of you would accept that?

“Can you just put the delivery date?”

“Oh, no, trust us. You will get it by February 1.”

“Well, yes, but can we just put it in the contract?”

“No, no, no. Just trust us.”

Please, colleagues, at a bare minimum, can we please accept this reasonable amendment that will give a little bit of hope to those young Canadians across this country who are looking for some clarity and some security so they can continue to promote their cultures and their businesses in a fair, free market way? Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Housakos: I totally agree with you that regulating the World Wide Web is very complicated, and, once you embark upon that, it becomes a runaway train. We know what happens when the CRTC takes what seems to be a complicated matter: They like to add multiple layers and make it complicated.

My understanding is that Senator Manning is trying to carve out broadcasting undertakings here. You are absolutely right that $10 million is a lot for small players. It is minuscule for the big players, and we’re going after the big players. I think this amendment attempts to say that we are all in favour of getting the big giant streamers to pay more, but let’s protect the small independent Canadians.

My question is on your and Senator Miville-Dechêne’s amendments, which I did support and I think they are a good step. The problem is that they are not very rigid or prescriptive. It gives the CRTC full latitude at the end of the day.

How hopeful can we be that the amendments as they currently are, with such wide latitude given to the CRTC, have the desired effect?

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Manning for the intention behind this amendment. However, I believe, if I may say so, that the senator may be conflating two separate issues with Bill C-11. The first has to do with user-generated content created by small social media producers. I share the concern of Senator Manning and Senator Housakos that clause 4.2.2 of the bill, as originally written, was an exception to the exception that had the potential to scope in small YouTubers and small TikTok artists because the criteria was whether it generated revenues directly or indirectly. It could have been a very small amount of revenue, or it could have been revenue that was created not from advertising or subscription but from sponsorship or from selling products.

Because I very much shared the concern voiced by Senator Housakos and Senator Manning, Senator Miville-Dechêne and I worked very hard to craft an amendment that surgically removed all user-generated content of this type from the bill.

As I explained in my earlier speech, the amended bill you have before you fixes this problem by removing all revenue thresholds or mentions of revenue and scoping the bill specifically to include commercial content that has that unique identifier number that is only given to commercially released music. If I sing a song on YouTube — and I shall spare you an example — that would in no way have a unique identifier number except perhaps a user-content warning. So it would scope in that commercially produced music released by large commercial labels and scope in, for example, a sports specialty channel that rebroadcasts a sports game on Facebook. Those would be the only people who are now covered by the bill before you.

I understand what Senator Housakos is saying. We have no guarantee that the folks in the other place will accept our amended bill. I would say to you that the strongest way to send a message to the government that this amendment is absolutely essential is for us to be united as a chamber in saying that this is the correct surgical solution. There is no political blowback. We are not doing this for partisan reasons. We are not doing this to be obstreperous. We are doing this because we listened to 138 witnesses, and we came up with a workable compromise.

Now we come to the issue of thresholds.

I have been taking the time, while Senator Housakos was speaking, to review the testimony we heard at the Transport Committee. The threshold issue, as I recall and as my quick read through the transcript supports, never had anything to do with social media users. What it did have to do with was small streaming services.

This remains a concern because the question is that it is fine that Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime and Apple TV have huge revenues, and it is one thing to scope them in. What do you do with a small streaming service from Nigeria that is serving a Nigerian-Canadian diaspora population? What do you do about a small streaming service that is offering audio content in Punjabi? What do you do about a small streaming service serving an ethnocultural community or a community that has very specific interest that does not reach a broad general audience?

That was the threshold question in debate. It was never about social media users because they would never be captured. Even the most extraordinarily successful YouTube vlogger is not going to be making $150 million or $10 million. In fact, if you think about it logically, this could never have included YouTubers because YouTube makes more than $10 million, makes more than $150 million. This amendment would not protect somebody who is uploading content to a platform like YouTube or TikTok. Our amendment to clause 4.2.2, which is in the bill now, does that. This threshold would do nothing to protect them because they are on YouTube and TikTok, which have revenues well over $10 million in Canada.

The question that remains is what we do about those small niche streaming services. I thought long and hard before bringing a threshold amendment myself. When we spoke to the experts, the challenge was how to create a threshold that can stay static in legislation. What I would hope for is the intention behind Senator Manning’s amendment, which is not a bad intention, should be encapsulated in regulation. I want to say here on the record that I think it would be ludicrous for a small international streaming service that serves a niche language audience in Canada, a diverse and multicultural country, to be accidentally captured by legislation that is clearly meant to target the largest behemoth streaming services.

My final concern about the motion that we have before us is a technical one about the clarity of the language. Now that I have the amendment, it says, “regulations shall not prescribe a program of a broadcasting undertaking that generates annual revenues of less than $10 million.”

I’m not clear whether the $10 million refers to the broadcasting undertaking or to the program. There is a huge difference. Is it the intention of this amendment to scope out a program that generates annual revenues of less than $10 million, or a broadcasting undertaking that generates annual revenues of less than $10 million? If it is the former, almost no program would generate that amount. If it is the latter, a service like YouTube or TikTok would easily be scoped in, and then this amendment would do nothing to help those social media users that Senator Manning is rightly concerned about.

Therefore, I would suggest that this is an unclear amendment that does not do what its avowed intention is. I suggest to you also that we need to have further discussion to make sure that small niche streaming services are indeed exempted in regulation.

I thank Senator Manning for bringing forward this amendment, but I will not be able to support it.

Senator Simons: With respect, Senator Housakos, I don’t think there is a wide latitude. There was in the bill that came to us, but I think, as amended — and I am grateful that you supported the amendment — it is pretty clear. It includes only, at the discretion of the CRTC, pieces of professionally recorded and released music that have that unique international identifier number and things that have been previously broadcast on conventional broadcasting. It is crystal clear at this point, I think, that it absolutely does not include social media users.

More to this point, this amendment doesn’t speak to social media users. This amendment, as I read it, would in no way capture a mom who puts her skateboarding adventures on TikTok, or a comedian who posts his stuff to Twitter, because those platforms make way more than $10 million. This amendment wouldn’t help the people who you are trying to help, whereas the bill, as currently amended, does.

That said, I think it is important that we say on the record that there is a remaining concern about streaming services, because the thresholds were never supposed to be about people giving cooking tips on YouTube. They were supposed to be about how we deal with ethnocultural streaming services that fall below the threshold of the big companies.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your speech, Senator Manning. I would also like to express my appreciation to the committee members, who were very patient during the nine meetings where we did the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I just wanted to express my appreciation.

[English]

I would like to state the government’s position on this. The proposed amendment would create a revenue threshold for social media users and user-generated content.

Again, I know Senator Housakos has said that, but I will repeat again that the government stated that the obligation is on the platforms, not on social media users and the content they create. As noted by a Canadian Heritage official during clause-by-clause consideration, the CRTC is only to regulate those undertakings that are in a position to contribute in a material way to the policy objectives of the act. Additionally, the CRTC should regulate in a way that is responsive to the nature of the undertaking.

I just wanted to mention also that the government has been clear that it opposes the establishment of thresholds of this nature. They are likely to introduce distortions in the application of the policy. It creates circumstances where business practices, business organizations and accounting procedures can be structured in such a way as to avoid or fall below the threshold regardless of the amount set.

I would encourage senators to vote against the amendment.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I want to thank Senator Omidvar for bringing this motion forward. It is timely and widely supported, I’m certain, including by me. I want to thank her for the advance notice of her intention to ask for leave, which then allowed us all to discuss it in our respective groups and understand it.

I want to say, on behalf of our group, that we would like to register a concern: It is the rising practice in the House of Commons of bringing unanimous consent motions — especially on issues that are emotionally charged and sometimes on issues that are politically charged — where denying unanimous consent would make those who might want to better consider or study the motion vulnerable to ridicule or disrespect.

So I would ask — not in this case; this is a very worthy case — that we not tread the path that the other place is treading by using unanimous consent motions for things that are other than extremely urgent and time bound and not designed to force somebody to sit uncomfortably in their chair. Thank you.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Thank you, senator, for the question. Some work has been done since the committee was formed. The committee began by making a list of all the topics that may be of interest to senators who are members of the committee and to their group. That was a rather long process. We wrote the list with the idea that we might try to get through it.

We started with relatively simple topics that weren’t contentious.

So far, three reports have been adopted by the committee. Two of the reports have been presented and adopted by the Senate, and one report has been tabled. We’re about to finish the fourth report.

We drafted the report on the election of the Speaker pro tempore. We changed the Rules accordingly to ensure that we elect the Speaker pro tempore properly from now on.

Our second report was on the significance of First Nations objects, clothing or ceremonies. One of the questions we asked ourselves during the drafting of this report was whether we wanted to add anything to the Rules that had previously not been officially recognized.

Our third report allowed us to review the committees’ mandates. We conducted a stylistic analysis of the wording of these mandates because in the Rules there were different types of descriptions. Some of the text of the committees were described by the themes that they should or could address, while others were descriptions that were more general in nature.

We reviewed the description of all the committees to adopt a more general view of their mandates since it is always the Senate that refers matters to committees. Therefore, it isn’t useful to provide a restrictive list of subjects for committees. This report was tabled and adopted.

We included in this report changes to the names of certain committees. The name of the Committee on Aboriginal Peoples was changed to Committee on Indigenous Peoples.

We then prepared a report on the creation of a special Senate committee on human capital and the labour market, but the report was not adopted.

As you know, during our study for this report, we heard from the chairs and former chairs of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and we agreed that there’s one field that the Senate hadn’t studied very much — the field of human capital, human resources and the labour market — and that we should make room for this subject.

The committee hasn’t been established at this point because there are concerns about our financial and especially our human resource capacity, as well as our capacity, within the Senate, to complete the work for that committee. However, we will resume studying that committee soon at the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament.

We also undertook a review of the Standing Orders, at the request of the clerks of the Senate, to correct some language that didn’t really reflect current Senate practices or that was outdated. The language has been standardized, and you will soon receive the fourth report on this matter.

We also worked very hard last November to try to see if we could find common ground on the motion on equality of Senate groups, as it was known, which ended up combining motions from Senator Woo and Senator Tannas —