Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Senator Plett: Certainly.

Senator Lovelace Nicholas: As you know, she’s already a minority, and we represent minorities here. Now she’s trying to protect and prevent herself from being a minority on top of a minority.

I’m sorry; I agree with you and I agree with Senator McCallum. We should not do this. She is a minority on a minority, and she is a woman — a Native woman.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and reminding us all that, although the hurricane came and went, its effects are still being felt with, in many cases, devastating consequences to our fellow citizens.

The Government of Canada is pleased to have partnered with the Red Cross, as it has done in the past, and pleased that Canadians have been so generous. The government is matching those funds, as you know.

I apologize for not knowing the details of the situation that you described. I will look into it as quickly as I can and report back to the chamber.

Senator Plett: That was an awfully long preamble, Senator Woo, and I am not consulting economists on this. I am making a speech that is contrary to what the government is doing, and I don’t need to defend that. They need to defend their bill. I don’t need to defend their bill.

You say it’s very difficult to reduce the GST, and then with that you said, “But your government did it.” So it’s not impossible. It might be difficult, but it’s not impossible.

Hon. Leo Housakos: While some of my colleagues — independent senators in this place — are preoccupied with why critics on government bills criticize and oppose government bills, I will continue to hold the government to account.

[Translation]

My question is for the government leader. Yesterday, an hour before a House of Commons committee meeting, someone let the cat out of the bag. Since 2017, the Liberal government has granted $21.8 million worth of contracts for facilities near Roxham Road to Pierre Guay, a Liberal Party of Canada donor. History is repeating itself. Liberals always benefit from the largesse of the Liberal government.

Sadly, Senator Gold, this comes as no surprise. The difference this time around is that, until yesterday, the Trudeau government refused to disclose the amount, claiming it was confidential information. In 2021, La Presse tried to get this information by submitting an access to information request to Public Services and Procurement Canada, but the request was denied.

Senator Gold, why did your government try to hide how much money it had paid to Mr. Guay? Are you ashamed? Is there any other information you’re hiding? Are other loyal Liberals taking advantage of this situation?

Senator Plett: Senator Lovelace Nicholas, I entirely agree with you, which is why I supported Senator McCallum in what she said. I believe that this chamber has been set up for minorities. We’re finding ourselves over here awfully close to being part of a minority as well. Of course, in the good old days we were not a minority. We’re still a few more in numbers than your caucus; nevertheless, we also find ourselves getting closer to a minority. But I support what you are saying.

(Debate adjourned, in the name of Senator Pate.)

[Translation]

Senator Plett: Whether it is end goals or future goals, some of us — and the one thing about the Senate is that we are allowed to talk about other people’s ages because anybody can look that up, and you and I are going to be retiring from here not that far apart — but for some of us, this has become looking toward the end as opposed to the future.

We have drifted a little bit away from what Senator McCallum was talking about, so I will simply leave it at that.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the family members of our new senator: her spouse, John Osler; her daughter, Juliana Osler; her son, Colin Osler; and her mother, Flordeliza Sharma. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Osler.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk of the Senate has received a certificate from the Registrar General of Canada showing that Flordeliz Osler has been summoned to the Senate.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable Senator Flordeliz Gigi Osler, all of my colleagues in the Independent Senators Group join me in wishing you the warmest of welcomes. We also welcome your family members. This will always be a very special day in your history. Our best regards to your family.

[English]

Senator, I would like to point out that you have demonstrated on several occasions how active and dynamic a woman you are, finding time not only to serve your patients but also to serve your professional association, in addition to sharing your knowledge and transferring your expertise to several universities in Canada and abroad. For the last several years, Dr. Osler, you have been volunteering in Africa to help train other surgeons in collaboration with the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Institute, Harvard University; University of British Columbia; University of Manitoba; and the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

This would be impressive enough, but I’m not done with your very impressive résumé. As a dedicated advocate for equity, diversity and inclusion, your appointment is a continuation of a career in which your professionalism, integrity and competence have long served the public.

Senator Osler, when you were only and mostly known as Dr. Osler, you once said:

In my own work, I’ve come to realize how important it is to say to a patient who is about to have surgery, “We’re all here for you,” and give them confidence that they’re in good hands.

As this new chapter in your illustrious career begins, I couldn’t help but think about this sentence and how, despite your great expertise as a surgeon, you realize just how important it is to reassure your patients about what they are soon to undergo. On a larger scale, whether it is the Manitoban community, the Filipino one or all citizens of our country you will be representing in your new functions, I have no doubt that you will exercise your role with the utmost empathy, and our fellow Canadians will surely be confident that they are indeed “in good hands.”

Senator Osler, you will bring a unique perspective to our discussions, and I trust that you will keep in mind our duty to ensure the best interests of all Canadians with the care, the dedication, as well as the patience that have marked your career so far.

You have expressed your love of being in the operating room. This I don’t share with you, though. Although this might not look like one, the issues we deal with in this chamber can be delicate in nature and require rigour as well as precision. I have no doubt that you will succeed with flying colours.

Today, you are officially opening in the Senate a new chapter of your life. As this chapter is beginning, I wish to express how eager all members of the Independent Senators Group are to work with you. With your rich background, your proven dynamism and your modern and innovative approach — we saw it on TikTok indeed — we can only look forward to a tremendous contribution to the future of the Senate, especially with the great advantage of the time you have before you.

Senator Osler, welcome to the upper chamber.

Hon. Diane Bellemare: Colleagues, I will try to be brief, but I do want to speak at third reading of Bill C-30. Before I begin, I would like to congratulate all my colleagues who spoke before me on this budget bill. The speeches have all been very interesting and have raised important questions. I share many of the concerns that have been raised, especially regarding the fact that this bill has not been thoroughly studied in committee.

As I told Minister Freeland in Committee of the Whole, I will be voting in favour of this bill. I would nevertheless like to share some concerns that could be studied more thoroughly going forward. My comments will focus on taking a critical yet constructive look at the government’s strategy for dealing with this period of inflation.

Many colleagues who rose to speak yesterday at second reading reminded us of what experts are saying about what caused the inflation that we have been experiencing for over a year now. All of the major international research institutions, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, the central banks, like the Bank of Canada, and the macroeconomics experts that the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has been hearing from over the past few weeks on the state of the economy agree that this inflation is being caused by supply chain issues.

In other words, the current inflation is a supply problem, not a demand problem. Were it not for the supply chain disruptions that have been going on since 2020, inflation would not be exceeding the central bank’s targets.

The disruptions in the supply of goods and services are the result of a combination of factors, such as the temporary halt to production due to the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and specific climate considerations that contributed to reducing the production of certain foods. We all hope that these factors are temporary. That is why the central banks are saying that the inflation will be temporary.

In its latest report, from September 2022, the OECD is still saying that the causes of this inflation are temporary. According to the OECD’s economic outlook, inflation is hitting the global economy and has spread beyond the food and energy sectors, but it will ease. However, some supply problems, for gas in particular, may persist as a result of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

For the time being, as confirmed by central banks, inflationary expectations did not get out of hand. Furthermore, the witnesses we have heard from so far at the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy confirm that there is no wage inflation in Canada.

However, despite the fact that current inflation may be temporary, the prices that have gone up could remain at those higher levels. In other words, even if price increases stabilize, prices will still be higher than they were in the past. It will take a lot of market competition for prices to come down. Moreover, with wages rising in many sectors in a bid to shore up purchasing power, a drop in prices is becoming less likely. In short, when inflation stabilizes, price levels will be higher. I want to emphasize that, and it will soon become clear why.

There are definite losers when it comes to inflation, namely the most vulnerable citizens, who tend to live on fixed incomes. Bill C-30 is aimed at individuals and families whose incomes are not increasing by much and who are struggling to make ends meet. That said, inflation also creates winners. Among these winners are governments, particularly the federal government, whose revenue is going up because of inflation. Goods and services tax revenue has gone up significantly and, most likely, permanently.

Now I’d like to talk about strategies recommended by the OECD and experts to get through this temporary period of inflation. The main recommendation is to reduce overall demand to alleviate price pressure caused by supply shortages. That’s why authorities such as the OECD and the International Monetary Fund recommend higher interest rates to cool demand and ease price pressure. That is what the Bank of Canada and most central banks are doing.

These organizations also recommend temporary income transfer measures to boost the purchasing power of low-income individuals. That is exactly what the federal government, the Bank of Canada and many other governments are doing. Bill C-30 is therefore consistent with the OECD’s recommendations.

Is this strategy really effective? Are there any alternatives?

Some people are beginning to question the effectiveness of this strategy. Various tools exist to temporarily reduce demand, and monetary policy is not the only tool. In a context of inflation caused by ongoing supply chain problems, using monetary policy can be very costly. It would be like using aggressive chemotherapy to treat a localized cancer at an early stage, which could kill the patient.

Some economists consider this strategy to be dangerous. Witnesses who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce shared their concerns with us. David Dodge, the former governor of the Bank of Canada, sent a clear message that increasing supply should be the focus for the medium term and acknowledged that short-term fiscal measures could also help reduce demand.

Professor Trevor Tombe from the University of Alberta, whom Senator Woo quoted, also questioned the unintended consequences of using interest rates to curb inflation caused by supply shortages. According to his study and others like it that he cited, raising interest rates can have a boomerang effect on inflation. Economist Jim Stafford also shared his concerns about using monetary policy to curb inflation.

In fact, a rapid, substantial interest rate hike may reduce demand, but it could also exacerbate increases in the cost of rent and other prices and services. It could even hinder our production system’s ability to fix supply shortages and to support the investments that are needed with respect to climate change. According to David Dodge, the only advantage of using monetary policy to reduce demand is that it is quick. It also relieves elected members of that responsibility.

As for the interim household income support measures also recommended by the OECD, they are by definition temporary. We might even question whether they are truly helpful for the most vulnerable citizens, given that we know that many people do not file tax returns and are therefore ineligible. These measures are politically beneficial, however, and the cost is temporary.

I consulted the latest financial reports from the Department of Finance, including The Fiscal Monitor for March 2022. For 2021-22, GST revenues were $45.5 billion, an increase of 48.9% over the previous year. Obviously, inflation is not the only reason for this increased revenue. It is also due to a return to normal consumption patterns post-COVID.

If we compare 2021-22 to the pre-pandemic years, we nonetheless see a significant increase in GST revenues. The fiscal reference tables that are published every year show that, for fiscal year 2019-20, the year before COVID-19, GST revenues reached $37.4 billion, and roughly the same amount was recorded in each of the preceding five years.

When we compare pre-COVID years to the fiscal year that ended in March 2022, there was an increase of $8.1 billion, or 21.7%, in the federal government’s revenues. This increase will be permanent. When inflation stabilizes, GST revenues will increase more slowly, but will remain high because prices will not go down.

In this context, Bill C-30, which, according to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, proposes temporary assistance that will cost $2.6 billion, represents a rather restrained measure in contrast to the GST revenues taken in by the government. The government could have done more by making the supplement permanent, given that the incomes of vulnerable groups are not going up while prices are not coming down. The government could have temporarily reduced the GST by an amount equivalent to the increase in revenues. A reduction in the GST would have had an impact on inflation because it would have reduced the cost of the market basket.

France, along with other European countries, chose to lower electricity and gas rates and prices. According to a study conducted by France’s national institute of statistics, this measure reduced the rate of inflation by three percentage points, from 8% to 5.1%. It is an important measure.

All in all, the federal government has followed the recommendations of the OECD, which suggested adopting temporary income support measures rather than reducing taxes, but is that enough for poorer Canadian families that are struggling to make ends meet? I am not sure.

These same low-income groups are the ones that will bear much of the economic costs of the monetary policy. It must be said. The monetary policy lowers interest rates but creates other costs.

As you know, Canada’s monetary policy will slow the economy even though it has already begun to slow. That is already happening in the United States, where there have technically already been two consecutive quarters of falling output. It is generally the most vulnerable groups that pay the price of an economic slowdown. As you know, an economic slowdown is accompanied by job losses. More people draw on employment insurance benefits and, once again, it is lower‑income workers and small businesses that, proportionally speaking, pay a lot more than other groups for EI. Is that fair? The answer is obvious.

Finally, like other senators and like Senator Dupuis, I would have liked to see the studies the government did that prompted it to choose this strategy. I would have liked to understand the regional impacts and GBA+ impacts of this strategy. In essence, my goal is to question the information we get from organizations about fighting inflation and to promote more creative solutions going forward.

The government could have done better, but I’ll vote in favour of Bill C-30 because families need it. Nevertheless, I think budget measures like Bill C-30 are just short-lived band-aid solutions to a problem that calls for strategic supply-side measures to address supply issues responsibly and permanently. I urge the government to show us its supply-side strategy.

Thank you for listening. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: I very much enjoyed your discussion of alternative economic models and wanted to ask you about your recommendation of a GST cut as opposed to the measures in this bill. There is merit to the argument — and you’ve pointed out that some of the countries are doing it — but would you not say that the main difference between an across-the-board GST cut and the doubling of the GST credit is, of course, in its distributional impact? Whereas an across-the-board cut would benefit all consumers, the credit increase would benefit a targeted group of lower-income Canadians. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I’m sorry, Senator Bellemare, but your time is up. Are you asking for five more minutes to answer the question?

Hon. Scott Tannas: On behalf of the Canadian Senators Group, I would like to add my voice today in welcoming Senator F. Gigi Osler to the Senate of Canada. My colleagues have outlined your numerous achievements and accolades. Let me read out some of the statements made from outside this place to clearly show that Senator Osler is indeed needed here.

The Branch for Global Surgical Care of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of British Columbia said about your appointment:

Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler is an internationally renowned surgeon who operates in Winnipeg, an assistant professor at the University of Manitoba, and a dedicated advocate for equity, diversity, and inclusion. . . . Dr. Osler is known for her active involvement within and dedication to the medical community in Canada and abroad. . . . Congratulations Dr. Osler!

Dr. Rey Pagtakhan, former Minister of Veterans Affairs and the first Filipino-born Canadian to be elected to the House of Commons, said:

I am excited and it is good news for our community and country to have a talented woman tapped by the Prime Minister.

Even the Canadian embassy in Manila jumped in to congratulate her and said:

Congratulations to Dr. F. Gigi Osler, on her appointment as a Senator of Canada. . . . Dr. Osler serves as a role model, research supervisor, and mentor for Filipino and other racialized medical students in Manitoba and across Canada, including within the Filipino Association of Medical Students in Manitoba.

It is tributes like these that clearly show that this place will greatly benefit from your expertise and experience as we work together to improve the lives of Canadians.

Senator, I’ve seen some of your numerous online videos. They are quite remarkable. Your spirit, your openness and your ability to communicate across generations is amazing. The Senate will greatly benefit from your talents. On a personal note, I would suggest that you will some day need to model for all of us here in the Senate that T-shirt that says, “A woman’s place is in the House and the Senate.” I wholeheartedly agree with that.

It’s especially true because today is Persons Day. Again, welcome to the Senate, Gigi. We in the Canadian Senators Group look forward to working with you.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise to speak to the debate on the online streaming act. This is an important government bill that honours its commitment to creating a fairer, safer and more inclusive Internet for all Canadians. I would like to focus on the positive measures in the bill for promoting the official languages and enhancing the vitality and development of official language minority communities.

However, let me first remind you why it is essential to act in the area of broadcasting. The last major review of the Broadcasting Act dates back to 1991. The act was therefore not designed for the Internet and digital technologies. This means that the CRTC, as an independent regulator, does not have all the tools it needs to regulate and monitor the broadcasting sector. As we know, that sector is rapidly evolving, I would even say with the click of a mouse.

While ensuring that the CRTC has the right tools to engage all the players who benefit from the Canadian broadcasting system, it is also important to support and promote the creation, production and broadcast of Canadian programs and music for generations to come. The time has come to act for all Canadians, including those in official language minority communities.

The official languages are at the core of our identity. That is why Canada has adopted laws and policies to promote and protect French and English throughout its history. The Official Languages Act is one example. The government has undertaken to modernize and strengthen the act in order to ensure substantive equality of French and English in Canada.

However, the Official Languages Act is not the only tool available. There are other tools and legislative mechanisms to promote the full recognition of both official languages in Canadian society. For example, the Broadcasting Act plays an essential role. As the Minister of Canadian Heritage rightly pointed out in his speech, the vitality of a language is closely linked to the culture. In other words, culture is expressed through language and, in the digital age, the programs we watch and the music we listen to are delivered through online platforms. These channels and portals are essential means for the transmission of language and culture today.

That is why Bill C-11 strengthens the provisions of the Broadcasting Act in order to support the official languages and official language minority communities.

It is important to remember that linguistic duality is one of the key principles of Canadian broadcasting policy. In addition, the Broadcasting Act recognizes that English- and French-language broadcasting have different needs.

However, official language minority communities have made it clear that this reference to linguistic duality alone is not enough. They want to be identified by name in the act. Official language minority communities have also stressed that it is crucial to their vitality and development that the Broadcasting Act take their specific needs and interests into account.

Honourable senators, it is also important to note that, as part of the work done by the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to modernize the Official Languages Act during the first session of the Forty-second Parliament, the committee’s 10th report states that the Broadcasting Act and the Telecommunications Act should include official languages obligations. Those observations can be found on page 24 of the report.

As a Franco-Manitoban who has had the pleasure of working with official language minority communities across the country, I would like to point out that the reflection and expression of francophone and Acadian communities in the Canadian landscape has always been problematic. The perennial question is this: How do we achieve Canadian cultural sovereignty and preserve Canada’s voice in this tidal wave of audio and video content? For francophone and Acadian communities, this issue is crucial. Their vitality and their future depend on it.

I am pleased to see that the voices of francophone and Acadian communities have been heard.

As a result, the online streaming act strengthens the official languages component of the Broadcasting Act. It sets out meaningful objectives for official language minority communities.

At this point, I’d like to concentrate on three provisions of the bill.

First, Bill C-11 states that the Broadcasting Act should be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with, and I quote:

. . . the commitment of the Government . . . to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and to support and assist their development, as well as to foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.

This is the new subsection 3 proposed in clause 2 of the bill.

Second, Bill C-11 stipulates that the Canadian broadcasting system should enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and support and assist their development. Supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs by and for these communities is key to this commitment. As you know, colleagues, the concept of “by and for” is essential for official language minority communities because it embodies and implements their autonomy.

Finally, the bill defines the CRTC’s mandate with respect to official language minority communities. It specifies that the CRTC should take into account the specific needs and interests of these communities and facilitate the provision of programs created and produced by them. That is important. Once again, the “by and for” is central to the objective. That is clause 6 of the bill, which adds sections 5.1 and 5.2 to the act.

Honourable colleagues, the Broadcasting Act must support official language minority communities. In Canada, approximately 2 million people belong to these communities. They need to see and hear themselves on television, on the radio and online.

Official language minority communities did not wait to go digital. They are at the forefront of this trend. I am thinking in particular of TFO, which reached the milestone of more than 1 billion views across all of its channels in 2019.

I am also thinking of WebOuest, a French-language digital platform that launched in February. WebOuest is a reflection of francophone communities from the Prairies to the Rockies to the Canadian North. WebOuest is the voice of the groups that make up our communities.

The Société des Jeux de l’Acadie, whose mission is to develop the Acadian Games movement in order to enhance the vitality of francophone youth in the Atlantic provinces through competition and athletic and cultural activities, has created the digital platforms Acajoux and Les Étoiles d’Acajoux. They help support the athletic and cultural development of young people from an Acadian language and culture perspective, because as we say in Acadia, “As long as the flame burns, the star of Acadian youth will shine.”

Now it is our turn to do our part by ensuring that the legislative framework reflects the realities of broadcasting in the digital age, that every player that benefits from the Canadian broadcasting system also contributes to it, and that stories and music produced by and for official language minority communities are supported financially, made available, broadcast, presented and showcased for generations to come. To promote our art and culture, an online presence is imperative, and discoverability is crucial to our cultural sovereignty.

[English]

I quote and echo the sentiments expressed by the minister:

. . . as francophones, we depend on culture to preserve our language. If we want our children to speak our language, we need to keep our culture strong. To do that, we need a system that is both just and fair.

[Translation]

Culture is a vital part of a vibrant francophone community because it is expressed through the way we tell our stories, celebrate, remember the past, keep ourselves entertained and imagine the future.

I would like to close my remarks by borrowing the poetic words of Viola Léger, who played the famous Canadian character La Sagouine, because they express how important culture is to us francophones. She said, and I quote:

Culture is like breathing. Culture breathes. It is in our blood. It lives between the lines. Art is the hope of humanity and culture is the vehicle through which that art is expressed. The art that makes us believe. That makes us want. That makes us live.

That is why I invite you, honourable senators, to support the online streaming bill at second reading so that it can be sent to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications as quickly as possible. The vitality and long-term survival of our official language minority communities depend on it. Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, what a pleasure it is for me to welcome our newest colleague, Senator Flordeliz (Gigi) Osler. Senator Osler is a proud born-and-bred Manitoban of Philippine and Indian heritage. Her background and career achievements are most impressive. She is a surgeon, an assistant professor, an advocate for diversity, equity and inclusion, a past president of the Canadian Medical Association and a mentor to Filipino students through the Filipino Association of Medical Students in Manitoba. She has been president of the Federation of Medical Women of Canada since 2021, chair of the Canadian Medical Forum since 2020 and co-chair of the Virtual Care Task Force since 2019.

As CMA chair in 2018, Senator Osler spoke in favour of Senator Boyer’s work in ending forced and coerced sterilization of First Nations, Inuit and Métis women and committed the association to working with the federal-provincial working group being set up by the government.

Senator Osler has trained surgeons in Africa in a volunteer capacity, and during her two-year tenure as president of the CMA, she initiated its first in-house policy on equity and diversity.

However, for tens of thousands of viewers, she may be best known as a COVID TikTok star. By her own admission, since the beginning of the pandemic, Senator Osler wanted to reach younger people, those in their twenties and thirties, who rely on social media for so much of their information. In her estimation, the best way to do this was to provide the information on the forum they used. She posted her first short video in March of 2020, demonstrating the best hand-washing techniques to stop the spread of COVID. It was a big hit. She went on to post dozens of more videos displaying and explaining to people how they could stay safe and avoid lockdowns.

When asked why she chose this particular medium to get her point across, she explained that these were the simplest ways for people to understand how best to continue their lives even in the middle of a pandemic. She stated:

So that’s my message that I keep trying to get across, [it] is one of hope. It’s not one of fear.

Senator Osler has also expanded her TikTok education to include a short history lesson on the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, of which she is the president.

Colleagues, I suggest that you take that 48 seconds that it will take to learn about the founders of the federation and the snub at the 1924 Canadian Medical Association conference, which is the raison d’être for the organization.

Senator Osler, your experience and talents are a welcome addition to this chamber, and on behalf of my colleagues in the Government Representative Office, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada and very much look forward to working with you.