Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the answers to the following oral questions:

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on December 14, 2021, by the Honourable Senator Wells, concerning pandemic-related travel restrictions.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on February 8, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., concerning the Special Olympics.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on February 10, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Cormier, concerning the LGBTQ2 Community Capacity Fund.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on February 24, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Petitclerc, concerning support for Paralympic athletes.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 1, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Cotter, concerning the Special Economic Measures Act.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 4, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Miville-Dechêne, concerning the fight against online sexual exploitation of youth.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 24, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Housakos, concerning Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on March 29, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Cordy, concerning proof of vaccination for international travel.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 6, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Loffreda, concerning Budget 2022.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 6, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning unspent funding.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 7, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning federal incorporation fees.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on April 7, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning transfer of small business.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 4, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Seidman, concerning the Global Public Health Intelligence Network.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 4, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Cotter, concerning the Strategic Innovation Fund.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 10, 2022, by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, concerning the Afghanistan crisis.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 12, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Wells, concerning assistance for victims of flooding.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 12, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, concerning support for veterans — Infrastructure Canada.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 12, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, concerning support for veterans — Veterans Affairs Canada.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 17, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Plett, concerning the rehabilitation of 24 Sussex Drive.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 18, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Coyle, concerning the Glasgow Climate Pact.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 18, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, concerning employment insurance and processing times.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 19, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Galvez, concerning the anti-racism strategy.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on May 31, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Omidvar, concerning the Afghanistan crisis.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 1, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning funding for primary healthcare.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 7, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Patterson, concerning the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 8, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning suicide prevention.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 9, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Wells, concerning the detention of Canadians in the Dominican Republic.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 15, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Ataullahjan, concerning airport screening employees — security background checks.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 16, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., concerning passport services.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 20, 2022, by the Honourable Senator MacDonald, concerning access to information.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 21, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Deacon (Ontario), concerning the Phoenix pay system.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 21, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Seidman, concerning the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy.

Response to the oral question asked in the Senate on June 23, 2022, by the Honourable Senator Martin, concerning the 2 Billion Trees Program.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable David M. Wells on December 14, 2021)

The use of ArriveCan is mandatory for all travellers entering Canada.

To be considered fully vaccinated, travellers entering Canada are required to:

1.Follow pre-entry testing and entry requirements;

2.Declare vaccination status of an accepted vaccine by the Government of Canada for the purpose of travel to Canada. To qualify as fully vaccinated, travellers must have received the second dose (or one dose Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine) at least 14 calendar days before they enter Canada;

3.Submit information via the ArriveCan application or website.

Travellers who do not meet these requirements must quarantine for 14 days and undergo two COVID-19 tests, one on the day they arrive in Canada and one on day 8.

No changes have been made to requirements related to ArriveCan. However, there are exemptions in place from the use of ArriveCan for persons with a disability, service disruptions, inadequate infrastructure, and natural disasters. To accommodate persons who do not have access to, or are not comfortable using technology, information can be submitted in ArriveCan by someone on their behalf, up to 72 hours before entering Canada.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable V. Peter Harder on February 8, 2022)

Budget 2018 announced funding to Special Olympics Canada totalling $16 million over five years, with ongoing funding of $2 million starting in 2022-23. The incremental amount for fiscal years 2018-19 to 2021‑22 supported the organization’s capacity to develop and refine high quality programs for athletes, volunteer coaches and officials, which were intended to be delivered using existing operational funding and the additional $2 million per year once developed.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a major impact on the sport sector. Many organizations had to assess their programs and, in many instances, redesign their delivery mechanisms. As the COVID-19 situation evolves, organizations will need to determine if the delivery of their programs and services requires any additional adaptations.

Sport Canada is working to assess the level of support required for Special Olympics Canada to continue to deliver the quality sport programs and services they have provided to athletes with an intellectual disability over the past four years. Ensuring that athletes with an intellectual disability continue to experience full and active participation in Canadian sport at all levels, in a safe and welcoming environment, remains an important consideration.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable René Cormier on February 10, 2022)

As part of its commitment to sustaining historic funding commitments to LGBTQ2 community organizations, Minister Ien announced the one-year extension for the Community Capacity Fund, enabling currently funded LGBTQ2 organizations to build on their initial successes in strengthening their organizations. The Government is committed to continue this capacity funding and is working closely with LGBTQ2 organizations to better understand their needs and ensure they have the support for their vital work to continue.

In addition to the LGBTQ2 Community Capacity Fund extension, the Government of Canada intends to launch a call for proposals this spring for additional project funding opportunities, as part of the $15 million LGBTQ2 Project Fund announced in Budget 2021. Currently funded LGBTQ2 organizations, and those that have not yet received federal support can look for announcements on this in the coming months.

Further, the Government of Canada has committed to launching the first Federal LGBTQ2 Action Plan and has been consulting LGBTQ2 organizations and stakeholders extensively on their priorities for this plan. This input will guide the Government’s work to improve the social, health, and economic outcomes of diverse LGBTQ2 communities throughout Canada. Budget 2022 proposes to provide $100 million over five years, starting in 2022-23, to support the implementation of the forthcoming Federal LGBTQ2 Action Plan, which will support a fairer and more equal Canada for LGBTQ2 Canadians.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Chantal Petitclerc on February 24, 2022)

The Government of Canada, like all Canadians, is extremely proud of our Paralympians.

We acknowledge that, while the Canadian Olympic Committee provides Olympic athletes with a financial reward for winning medals, the Canadian Paralympic Committee does not offer this same recognition to Paralympians.

The Government of Canada is committed to building a sport system that treats all Canadians equally.

The Government of Canada will work with the Canadian Paralympic Committee to explore ways to ensure that our Paralympians and Olympians receive equitable support and recognition.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Brent Cotter on March 1, 2022)

In response to the U.S. Section 232 tariffs on imports of Canadian steel and aluminum in 2018, the Government announced up to $2 billion in federal support, including $250 million through the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) to better integrate the Canadian steel and aluminum supply chain and bolster competitiveness. The $40 million investment for Evraz was provided to protect Canadian workers and industry.

The SIF contribution was awarded to support a project to modernize steel production facilities, enabling Evraz to increase steel rolling capabilities and productivity. The project received a $40 million contribution from SIF, which is repayable. No further payments are being made to Evraz until SIF assesses the situation.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Julie Miville‑Dechêne on March 4, 2022)

Mindgeek is not a business incorporated under federal legislation. The Senator may wish to consult provincial databases which are publicly available.

We must ensure that Canadian children and youth are safe online. In the last election, our government promised to build upon our work to implement Canada’s first Digital Charter and reform our laws to protect the personal information and data of individuals. That is exactly what we will do.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Leo Housakos on March 24, 2022)

The Government of Canada is aware of five Canadian firms having signed contracts as part of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)’s corporate procurement since Canada officially joined the AIIB in March 2018:

·In 2018, the LEA Consulting Group provided consulting services on an AIIB-financed project.

·In 2018, the Hatch consultancy firm provided services on an AIIB-financed project.

·In 2019, the Edmonton-based Insignia Software Corporation provided library management system services to the AIIB.

·In 2020, EQ Consulting Inc. was awarded two separate contracts by the AIIB for the implementation of market risk tools and order management systems support.

·In 2021, a joint venture company, involving the Canadian company ISW Consulting Limited, provided consultancy services on an AIIB-financed project.

The AIIB’s Treasury Department has also procured the services of Canadian financial institutions, such as TD, BMO, RBC and Scotiabank, as part of its funding program.

As these are private contracts with private companies, the Canadian Government cannot estimate how many jobs have been created.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Jane Cordy on March 29, 2022)

The Government of Canada’s international engagement strategy focuses on national health and scientific decision-making authorities with whom Canada has close, trusted relationships. This included the U.S. and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the European Centres for Disease Control, and the Caribbean Public Health Agency. The Government of Canada also engaged with the World Health Organization (WHO), given its global influence, and successfully added supportive commitments to recognizing mixed dose recipients in recent G7 and G20 Health Declarations.

Following the Government of Canada’s engagement, it was confirmed that at least 40 countries, including the U.S., the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, Australia, and the vast majority of Caribbean countries, consider individuals who have received mixed doses as fully vaccinated. Canada continues to address any emerging issues, as needed. As COVID-19 vaccination campaigns progress globally, there has been widespread and growing acceptance of mixed vaccines.

The Public Health Agency of Canada’s web team works closely with Health Canada, Global Affairs Canada, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Transport Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to review, update and optimize content posted to Canada.ca. This review process includes vaccine requirements related to travel.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Tony Loffreda on April 6, 2022)

Since 2015, the government has made investments to bolster Canada’s productivity and competitiveness. Through the Innovation and Skills Plan, the government invested in programs like business-led innovation clusters, while investing in Life-Long Learning to help Canadians obtain skills of the future. To provide a more competitive marketplace and attractive destination for foreign investors, the government has modernized regulations and established Invest in Canada – Canada’s global investment attraction and promotion agency. Budget 2022 continues to set a framework for boosting growth, with proposals to create a new innovation and investment agency, launch the Canada Growth Fund, invest in green technology and invest to implement Canada’s first Critical Minerals Strategy.

In terms of monitoring, Statistics Canada measures productivity and other economic performance metrics. The overview of these data is periodically published to inform the public on the performance of Canada’s economy. Further, in 2017, the government launched a horizontal review of innovation and clean-technology programming, and since April 2018, all government organizations have been required to report publicly on the results of their programs through the Departmental Results Framework. Treasury Board Secretariat has a mandate to continue to monitor the effects of government actions, including the strategic review announced in Budget 2022.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on April 6, 2022)

Veterans Affairs Canada

Unspent funds are a normal and expected part of a department’s budgetary process. The budgets voted in Parliament are “up to” amounts and legally cannot be exceeded. Veterans Affairs Canada ensures that there are sufficient budgets available in a given fiscal year to support all the eligible Veterans who may come forward requesting benefits and services.

Of the $634M in fiscal year 2020-21 unspent:

-Approximately 95% is quasi-statutory in nature and was approved by Parliament to cover the costs of Veterans’ benefits and services. Veterans Affairs Canada has no authority to spend these funds for any other purpose, ensuring they remain available to Veterans in future years.

-Approximately 5% was approved by Parliament to cover departmental operating costs and these unspent funds were made available in fiscal year 2021-22 through standard and common mechanisms/processes available to all departments.

As a result, 100% of the $634M unspent budgets were available beyond fiscal year 2020-21. The 5% from the operating budget was made available in 2021-22 and the remaining 95% from the quasi-statutory budgets was or will be made available in the future to cover the costs of serving and supporting Veterans, based on when they come forward and are eligible.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on April 7, 2022)

Corporations Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada continue to explore ways of making it easier and more affordable to start and grow a business in order to support small and medium-sized businesses in Canada. Corporations Canada conducts a fee review every 5 years and these have led to beneficial fee reductions in the past. For example, the last fee review process in 2019 led to a reduction of 40% in Annual Returns fees in 2020. As part of the next fee review process, Corporations Canada will assess the impact of an incorporation fee reduction with stakeholders and partners and seeking new ways to reduce business start-up costs, particularly for entrepreneurs where the cost of incorporation represents a systemic barrier.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on April 7, 2022)

Budget 2022 announced a consultation process for stakeholders to share their views as to how the existing rules could be strengthened in order to protect the integrity of the tax system while continuing to facilitate genuine intergenerational business transfers. The consultation concluded on June 17, 2022. The government is committed to bringing forward legislation, as necessary to address this specific issue, after conclusion of the consultation process.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Judith G. Seidman on May 4, 2022)

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) has taken a number of actions to improve the Global Public Health Intelligence Network (GPHIN). These actions include:

·Clarified and streamlined decision making and operational procedures for issuing alerts and other communication products;

·Migrated the IT system to a cloud environment and resolved outstanding technical issues with the current system;

·Hired a technical advisor to lead the development of a modernized GPHIN IT system;

·Put in place a dedicated team and action plan to address recommendations and implement improvements;

·Began work to strengthen partnerships with external and internal stakeholders.

The GPHIN program expended approximately $725,000 of the $830,000 received in the Fall 2020 Economic Statement in three broad areas:

·PHAC used the International Grants Program to provide support to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources program. Expenditures were approximately $158,000.

·GPHIN Migration Project — actual expenditures for the migration project were approximately $443,000.

·Approximately $124,000 of these funds were spent on human resource surge support and other operational expenses for the GPHIN Program in response to COVID-19.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Brent Cotter on May 4, 2022)

Working closely with other federal programs and agencies including PrairiesCan, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Natural Resources Canada, National Research Council-Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC-IRAP), and Global Innovation Clusters to support sectors and regions across Canada, the Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) funds large-scale innovation projects from larger, more research and development intensive firms.

Saskatchewan accounts for 1.6% of applications to SIF to date, and applications are expected to increase. Recently, SIF announced an agreement in principle for a contribution of up to $100M for BHP Canada to create a world-leading low-emissions potash mine in Saskatchewan and launched a Call-to-Action in partnership with stakeholders in Western Canada for large emitters as part of the Net Zero Accelerator initiative, which is expected to increase the number of applications from the Prairie provinces. Additional applications for proposed projects in Saskatchewan are under consideration.

SIF also funds networks to support SMEs across Canada. Specifically, the Canadian Agri-Food Automation and Intelligence Network (CAAIN) have announced five projects with Saskatchewan-based SMEs with contributions ranging from $100K to $1.5M, with additional networks ramping up activities to support SMEs from Saskatchewan moving forward.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Marilou McPhedran on May 10, 2022)

Since the Taliban takeover, Canada has announced $156 million in new humanitarian assistance to support vulnerable populations in Afghanistan. This includes the $56 million announced on December 21, 2021, and more recently the $50 million announced on March 31, 2022.

As of June 2022, $136 million of this funding, including all of the $56 million, has been allocated and disbursed. Allocation of the remaining $20 million (from the March 2022 announcement) will be forthcoming before the end of the fiscal year.

Humanitarian partners are seized with the need to provide assistance to people on the basis of assessed vulnerability. In Afghanistan, women and girls are particularly vulnerable and face additional obstacles accessing humanitarian assistance. Canada supports humanitarian partners who design programs to recognize these obstacles and refine how they deliver assistance to ensure it reaches women and girls.

Canada is delivering humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan through established United Nations humanitarian partners and the International Committee of the Red Cross and has strong counter-terrorism provisions in its contractual agreements with its partners. Canada does not give humanitarian assistance funding to governments; it provides funding exclusively through experienced humanitarian partners.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable David M. Wells on May 12, 2022)

The Government of Canada is committed to supporting the Peguis First Nation to ensure its resiliency to future floods and other emergency events. The government continues to engage with Indigenous leaders to support emergency preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery from floods, in collaboration with provinces and non‑governmental organizations.

While our focus is on responding to the current crisis, the Government of Canada is committed to mitigative solutions and will establish a working group to actively and comprehensively plan for long-term solutions that protect the members of the Peguis First Nation. The department has been working collaboratively with Peguis First Nation since the first flooding event in 2010 on both short-term and long‑term flooding preparations, in addition to the protection, repair and rebuilding of homes. As a department, we are also working with the province of Manitoba to identify long-term solutions.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on May 12, 2022)

Through Budgets 2021 and 2022, the Government of Canada has allocated $106.8 million over five years (2022-23 to 2026-27) to launch a targeted program to provide rent supplements and wraparound supports (e.g., counselling, addiction treatment, help finding a job) to Veterans experiencing homelessness.

Infrastructure Canada, in close collaboration with Veterans Affairs Canada and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, continues to diligently work on the Veteran Homelessness Program for its launch in 2022-23. The Department is working to secure the necessary policy, financial, and implementation authorities.

While this specific program has not yet been launched, there are existing ongoing federal initiatives to support Veterans who are experiencing homelessness. For example, the Government will invest almost $4 billion in Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy, which provides support and funding to communities across Canada to address homelessness, including Veteran homelessness.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu on May 12, 2022)

Veterans Affairs Canada

Unspent funds are a normal and expected part of a department’s budgetary process. The budgets voted in Parliament are “up to” amounts and legally cannot be exceeded. Veterans Affairs Canada ensures that there are sufficient budgets available in a given fiscal year to support all the eligible Veterans who may come forward requesting benefits and services.

Of the $634M in fiscal year 2020-21 unspent:

-Approximately 95% is quasi-statutory in nature and was approved by Parliament to cover the costs of Veterans’ benefits and services. Veterans Affairs Canada has no authority to spend these funds for any other purpose, ensuring they remain available to Veterans in future years.

-Approximately 5% was approved by Parliament to cover departmental operating costs and these unspent funds were made available in fiscal year 2021-22 through standard and common mechanisms/processes available to all departments.

As a result, 100% of the $634M unspent budgets were available beyond fiscal year 2020-21. The 5% from the operating budget was made available in 2021-22 and the remaining 95% from the quasi-statutory budgets was or will be made available in the future to cover the costs of serving and supporting Veterans, based on when they come forward and are eligible.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Donald Neil Plett on May 17, 2022)

Over the last decade, the NCC has completed some work at 24 Sussex including the rehabilitation of chimneys and fireplaces, fire compartmentalization, stabilization of the escarpment at the back and west sides of the property and the removal of hazardous materials, such as asbestos, from the main building. However, the corporation has not been able to proceed with the extensive rehabilitation of the residence and has been limited to completing repairs that were urgently required for health and safety.

As 24 Sussex Drive has not seen significant investment in over 60 years, the additional work required would include the rehabilitation of the building envelope, replacement of mechanical and electrical systems, and construction of universally accessible entrances and washrooms. All buildings on the site would require extensive recapitalization and the NCC would need prolonged access to the residence. The NCC is working with its federal partners to develop a plan for the future of 24 Sussex Drive and is ensuring that issues related to security, functionality, environmental sustainability, universal accessibility, design excellence and heritage preservation are taken into consideration in its preparations.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Mary Coyle on May 18, 2022)

The Glasgow Climate Pact stressed the need to address the gaps in the implementation of the goals of the Paris Agreement.

At the May Ministerial meeting on Implementation in Copenhagen, Canada emphasized our efforts in implementation by pointing to the Canada Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, which enshrines in legislation Canada’s enhanced Nationally Determined Contribution to cut emissions by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2030. It also legislates Canada’s target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. As a key deliverable under the Act, the Government of Canada established the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, which provides a roadmap to achieve Canada’s 2030 target and put us on a path towards net-zero emissions by 2050. Canada is finalizing our first National Adaptation Strategy in 2022, and delivering our five-year (2021-2026) $5.3 billion international climate finance commitment.

Canada supports the focus on implementation and, at COP27, will showcase Canadian climate efforts as well as advocate for ambitious and concrete action by all, particularly major emitters.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Diane Bellemare on May 18, 2022)

The Employment Insurance (EI) Program, including its Call Centre, remains at the forefront of the Government of Canada’s service to Canadians and the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department recognizes the hardship that delays in receiving benefits can cause to claimants and their families. Service Canada continues to onboard resources to ensure that the appropriate capacity is in place to meet the demand and deliver EI benefit payments to clients in a timely manner. Claimants will not lose any benefits as a result of any delays.

In fiscal year 2021-2022, Service Canada met its processing service standards. From April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022, 85.4% of EI payments or notifications of non-payment were made within the 28-day timeframe (against the annual target of 80%). In fiscal year 2020-21, the result was 88.8%. These are the highest results in the last 15 years.

In fiscal year 2021-2022, fewer clients waited beyond 28 days to receive their benefits (compared to previous years) and the average days it took for clients to receive their EI payments is 18 days. In fiscal year 2020-21, the result was 16 days. These are the best results since tracking began 14 years ago.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Rosa Galvez on May 19, 2022)

Canada takes its international human rights obligations seriously and is committed to responding to the requests it receives from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) through its Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedure (EWUAP). Canada has done so consistently over the past several years.

Canadian Heritage is coordinating the preparation of a response to the latest communication Canada received from the CERD EWUAP, on the situation of the Secwepemc and Wet’suwet’en communities in British Columbia in relation to the Trans Mountain Pipeline and Coastal Gas Link Pipeline. Under the rules of procedure of the CERD EWUAP, communications between UN member states and the treaty body are to remain confidential until final views are published by the Committee.

Canadian Heritage is currently coordinating the preparation of Canada’s combined 24th and 25th reports under the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which it will provide updates on implementation of this treaty, addressing issues raised by recent communications from the CERD EWUAP.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Ratna Omidvar on May 31, 2022)

Insofar as Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) is concerned:

IRCC has learned important lessons from past crises, including that each situation is unique and may require a tailored response.

A key principle is that although IRCC faces regular advocacy for special measures, the level of response should correspond to the severity of the particular crisis and be adapted to the geopolitical situation.

IRCC’s Operational Readiness function enables the department to provide an integrated response to emergency situations requiring special authorities or special program measures, particularly within the context of whole‑of‑government responses, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the Afghanistan Crisis, and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.

As the Department responds to an emergency situation where special measures are warranted, it strives to mitigate the impact on day-to-day operations.

When the situation escalated in Afghanistan and Ukraine, IRCC coordinated the departmental response by:

-Coordinating and operationalizing special immigration measures.

-Establishing an internal task force with departmental subject matter experts from affected programs and networks.

-Developing regular situation reports, briefings and decision-making support materials for senior management, including the Minister.

-Reporting on IRCC’s activities in response to emergency situations to the Emergency Watch and Response Centre, led by Global Affairs Canada, as needed.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on June 1, 2022)

Primary care is the backbone of high-performing health care, serving as Canadians’ first point of contact with the system and playing a critical role in the delivery of health services. We understand that Canadians still struggle to secure timely access to a regular primary care provider or team.

Health Canada, with other federal departments, is working with provincial and territorial governments and key stakeholders to identify immediate and longer-term solutions to the health human resources challenges that affect primary care.

Our response to the health human resources crisis is focused on sustainably increasing the supply of health care workers and helping create healthier workplaces to support retention and the mental health of health care workers.

The federal government remains a strong partner, supporting provinces and territories on access to care through recent Budget commitments and the long-term, predictable health care funding through the Canada Health Transfer.

Looking ahead, the federal government is focused on collaborating with provinces and territories to advance Canadians’ priorities. Budget 2022 noted the Government’s commitment to advance work on health human resources; integrated, patient-centred primary care; mental health; aging at home; and, health data and digital health.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Dennis Glen Patterson on June 7, 2022)

To date, the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) has conducted a small number of research projects to support CIB objectives. For example, the CIB partnered with the Conference Board to examine microgrids for Northern and remote communities. As research efforts grow, conducting research in partnership with the Indigenous community is a priority.

The CIB has established a target of $1 billion for Indigenous Infrastructure projects.

One example investment is Oneida Energy Storage, which features Indigenous participation through the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation’s equity partnership with NRStor.

The CIB is providing advice to projects such as the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link. The proposed project features a 1,200-kilometre, 150-megawatt transmission line with fibre-optic cabling to Nunavut from Manitoba.

Indigenous communities are often smaller and more remote. To address this dynamic, the CIB has launched the Indigenous Communities Infrastructure Initiative (ICII) for lower cost but vital infrastructure. Example projects under ICII include:

·Tshiuetin Rail investment in the first Indigenous-owned railway in Canada.

·Kahkewistahaw Landing developing an urban reserve in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

·Atlin Hydroelectric Expansion, a new hydroelectric facility and transmission line to deliver clean power to the Yukon microgrid.

To date, the CIB through ICII has made investment commitments that will benefit 29 communities.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on June 8, 2022)

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) announced that it will adopt 9-8-8 for Canadians to call or text when in need of immediate mental health crisis and suicide prevention support. This will be launched across Canada on November 30, 2023.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is preparing for implementation by:

·Selecting the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) to lead coordination of 9-8-8 service delivery;

·Determining anticipated demand through a contract with PricewaterhouseCoopers;

·Learning from international counterparts, including the United States, which introduced 9-8-8 in July 2022 after four years of preparation; and,

·Engaging with partners on service delivery considerations. Meetings with representatives from provinces and territories were held in May 2022 and July 2022.

Budget 2021 highlighted the Government of Canada’s commitment to supporting the three-digit number. Budget 2019 announced $25 million over five years to support Talk Suicide Canada, previously the Canada Suicide Prevention Service. Through this initiative, people across Canada have access to support in English and French by phone (24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days per year), and text (evenings).

PHAC’s suicide prevention policy and program teams are supporting this initiative, including two managers and their respective teams.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable David M. Wells on June 9, 2022)

The Government of Canada’s first priority is always the safety and security of its citizens. Canada has thoroughly engaged in providing consular support and assistance to the individuals involved since their initial detention and will continue to do so. Global Affairs Canada officials continue to monitor the situation closely.

As the legal processes develop, Global Affairs Canada will continue to raise the case at every appropriate opportunity. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs have also directly engaged on this file.

Due to privacy considerations, no further information can be disclosed.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Salma Ataullahjan on June 15, 2022)

The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) is funded to deliver a wait time service level, where on average, 85% of passengers wait less than 15 minutes to be screened at Class 1 airports, on an annual basis. There will be times when passengers wait longer as has been the case since before the pandemic.

Screening officers, employed through third-party contractors, must meet the qualifications established by Transport Canada in the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012, including possessing a Transportation Security Clearance, any exceptions must be approved by Transport Canada.

In May 2021, CATSA began planning for an increase in passenger traffic for 2022/23. As a result of the recent increase in demand for travel, CATSA has taken actions to ramp up screening capacity including obtaining a temporary security exemption from Transport Canada that permits recruits to undergo training while their transportation security clearance is being processed. They may work as fully trained screening officers under certain conditions. Even with the exemption, a criminal record check and five‑year background check are conducted for screening officers participating in the facilitation and screening of passengers.

Pre-certified screening officers are deployed at checkpoints to conduct non-screening duties, allowing fully certified screening officers to focus their efforts on key functions.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Claude Carignan on June 16, 2022)

The Government of Canada is taking steps to help streamline the in-person application process and better manage large crowds and lineups for passport services, in particular in large urban centres. Service Canada continues to work to resolve a range of issues in delivering passport service.

The end of the lease at 3 Place Laval resulted in the relocation of the site. A call for tenders was conducted, the site at 2214 Chomedey Highway, Unit 20 met the criteria stipulated in the call for tenders. The Passport office located at 3 Place Laval #500 served its last clients on Friday, May 27. The office reopened for business at 2214 Chomedey Highway, Unit 20 on Monday, May 30.

Signage advising of the change in location was posted on the doors and windows at 3 Place Laval, two weeks prior to the change and the details regarding the change in location were posted on the Government of Canada Website on May 30. Furthermore, the announcement of the move was published in the local electronic media “Laval News” in the week of May 23 and June 1^st.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Michael L. MacDonald on June 20, 2022)

The Government of Canada is committed to meeting its requirements under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The Access to Information Program needs to reflect today’s digital world and Canadians’ expectations for accessible, timely, and trustworthy information. TBS has provided guidance to institutions urging them to make best efforts to process requests and proactively publish information, in accordance with operational realities.

The Government aims to provide the best services to Canadians, while having the best value for taxpayers. The use of professional services is important in ensuring the delivery of Government operations. All federal government contracts are subject to the laws, regulations, policies, directives and procedures that guide and govern contracting, including requirements that contracts are issued in a fair, open and transparent manner.

In Budget 2021, the Government allocated $12.8 million to support further improvements to the online Access to Information and Personal Information Request Service, to accelerate the proactive release of information, and to support completion of the Access to Information Act Review.

The Government remains committed to always maintaining openness and transparency, particularly during this challenging period. Through the proactive disclosure of contracts, the Government demonstrates accountability.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Marty Deacon on June 21, 2022)

Next Generation HR and Pay Initiative is underway to develop recommendations for a flexible, modern, and integrated HR and Pay solution. This work involves exploring how to transform and modernize the HR and Pay landscape with a focus on simplifying and standardizing processes.

The initiative is currently in the Design & Experimentation stage and is testing a proposed solution against the complexities of the Government of Canada’s human resources and pay requirements. This will help provide a clear understanding of how the solution can provide accurate and timely pay as well as identify what needs to change to successfully adopt such a new solution.

All testing is happening outside of the existing HR and pay systems. This means that employees continue to be paid through the current pay system while testing is taking place.

The Design & Experimentation phase will conclude in the spring of 2023 allowing for the development of recommendations later in 2023.

(Response to question raised by the Honourable Judith G. Seidman on June 21, 2022)

Since June 2021, the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories (PTs) have been co-developing a Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy (PCHDS) to improve Canada’s collection, access, sharing and use of health data. This has been informed by the advice in three reports produced by the PCHDS Expert Advisory Group (EAG). In its final report published May 2022, the EAG provided ten recommendations to expedite the creation of a person‑centred, world-class health data system. All recommendations and insights provided by the EAG guide the PCHDS with an emphasis on improving interoperability standards and architecture, advancing data stewardship, and enhancing data literacy and public trust.

The Government of Canada and the PTs are working together to finalize the PCHDS, and to identify common areas for action and build consensus on how a PCHDS could be implemented to help improve health equity, respond to public health risks, and contribute to the sustainability of health systems across the country. This collaboration underscores our commitment to strengthening health data management for the benefit of all people in Canada.

(Responses to questions raised by the Honourable Yonah Martin on June 23, 2022)

NRCan is working closely with provinces and territories (PTs) to establish cost-shared partnerships vital to the 2 Billion Trees (2BT) program. In 2021, NRCan signed one‑year funding agreements with Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and the Northwest Territories. The program is currently negotiating multi-year agreements with PTs to undertake activities that maximize greenhouse gas benefits while enhancing biodiversity and forest resiliency.

NRCan’s program partners succeeded in planting approximately 29 million trees from over 150 different species at over 500 sites across Canada. Planting sites are located within every province across Canada, with the majority in Quebec and British Columbia. Tree planting within the territories is anticipated in coming years, particularly as territorial agreements are put in place.

Cost estimates for the program have not been revised. The budget includes $3.16 billion in new funding and $400 million of existing departmental resources allocated to the 2BT program, for a total of $3.2 billion. The program design involves cost-sharing with planting partners, generally 50% of project costs, which was not included in the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s estimate and explains the difference.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Minister Miller, welcome. In your mandate letter, the Prime Minister tasked you with upholding “. . . the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion” as you “. . . implement outreach and recruitment strategies for federally appointed leadership positions and boards.”

We all know we need more Indigenous representation in the highest echelons of our society. The business case for diversity is indisputable. Diverse boards with diverse perspectives achieve greater success.

What strategies are you taking to ensure fair Indigenous representation in these much-sought-after positions? Can you share with us some early results of your work on this file?

Hon. Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations: I certainly won’t take credit for the latest Supreme Court appointment — I’m not such a hypocrite as to claim a victory for that. However, I think it is emblematic of someone in their mid-forties who has had an incredible career who is now in a position to shape the future of this country.

That’s a highly visible area. I think when you look at the public service you will see, whether it’s Indigenous Services Canada or Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, a significant amount of Indigenous representation, and to their credit, because these are people going to work every day trying to make things better for their people. They are probably often criticized at the Christmas party. It’s difficult to go with that weight on your shoulders, whereas someone like me showing up to work like that doesn’t bear that weight.

But clearly you’re dealing with a highly qualified constituency that needs to radiate across the public service. For example, some people might not want to work at Crown-Indigenous Relations or Indigenous Services Canada; they might want to work at National Defence. I think that’s where you see some of the under-representation, whether it’s at the core level, the basic level, or even at the managerial and the executive levels where you see some crying needs.

This is something that we have to be careful with, with an independent public service, but it’s something we can’t let other people kind of run at willy-nilly. The Clerk of the Privy Council is very well aware of what the challenges are to ensure Indigenous representation across the board, as well as racialized individuals.

You’re talking about talent that is undervalued. If you just take a value perspective, people who suffer from discrimination are people who are, more often than not, overqualified for the position they’re taking. So there is that business argument, but unfortunately it’s rooted in discrimination.

Hon. Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations: Thank you, Senator Klyne. I agree with you that more police in Indigenous communities is needed. It would respond to one element of a number of the reports that have been discussed today. But, again, policing alone is not the solution, and I do want to say that before I complete my answer.

Those communities need police services, Indigenous-led if they so choose, or enhanced RCMP presence if they so choose. It’s something we have dedicated resources to as a government in prior budgets, coupled with what you mentioned, which is to introduce legislation to ensure that First Nations policing as an essential service is treated as such.

The work is ongoing. Minister Mendicino recently issued a statement of where they are in terms of the consultation and discussions with Indigenous peoples. This is a piece of legislation that we hope to accelerate and make sure is introduced shortly, but I can’t share that with you. Indeed, it would be up to Minister Mendicino as the case may be.

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.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I am pleased to stand today to speak at second reading to Bill C-11, which is called “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts,” otherwise called the “Online Streaming Act.”

This bill has been in the works for some time. Introduced in the Forty-third Parliament as Bill C-10, it’s now back as Bill C-11, with significant changes. Our Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications began pre-study work in June, and we returned to this work last week.

One of government’s most important roles is to respond appropriately to technological change. For much of our history, when it came to television and radio broadcasting, entry into the system was guided by something called “spectrum scarcity,” where consumer choices were limited by the technology of the day. The regulator would set conditions, including Canadian content requirements, in return for a broadcasting licence and the ability for a broadcaster to reap advertising revenues. That was and still is the business model of traditional broadcasting.

Does anybody remember the phrase, “a licence to print money”? That phrase was made famous not by the owner of a sports franchise but by the owner of a television broadcasting licence. That person was a Canadian — Roy Thomson, Baron Thomson of Fleet — who famously and notoriously described his new licence to run a television network in Scotland as his licence to print money. That was in 1956. But those profitable enterprises have seen their revenues decline with the rise of the internet, as advertisers flee to the internet platforms, and consumers flee to the vast array of choices available on streaming services and social media.

In its recent report documenting broadcast revenues and viewership in 2021, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, said that revenues from commercial radio have declined by 31% from 2016 to 2021, and those from conventional television have declined by 15% over the same period.

While television shows a one-year increase from 2020, the long-term trend is downward. Since Canadian content expenditures are tied to broadcast revenues from the Canadian broadcasters, so Canadian production as well has declined from this source.

The government has positioned Bill C-11 as a response to this changing technological and market landscape. And just as governments regulated the cable and satellite technologies in the past — and, remember, in those days, that represented an increase in consumer choice — so now government intends to regulate the new internet services.

The main goal of Bill C-11 is simple: to bring online streaming services, like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Spotify, which are now unregulated, under the Broadcasting Act and under CRTC regulation to create a so-called level playing field. These streaming services will be required to contribute to the production of Canadian content and to showcase and exhibit Canadian content. A whole new word, “discoverability,” has been invented to describe this showcasing aspect.

Bill C-11 will require contributions for official language and Indigenous programming, and there is mention of serving the needs and interests of diverse ethnocultural and racialized communities and those from other diverse backgrounds. Indeed, Canadian culture, Canadian expressions and diversity themes are very prominent in the government’s messaging around this bill.

Above all, the CRTC is charged with determining all these requirements and how they will be carried out in a way that is flexible yet predictable, fair, information-based, equitable and informed by consultation. It will be given the tools to collect information from broadcasters, to audit them and to administer penalties.

Now, some critics of the bill argue that the internet itself cannot be regulated, but the internet is already regulated all over the place. In fact, some people claim it’s always been regulated. The real question we have here is whether this is the best way or even a good way to achieve desired goals and not diminish or discourage the great offerings of the new technologies.

Over the past several months, I have observed widespread criticism of Bill C-11 focused on three major themes. The first theme involves the threat to Canadian freedoms from Bill C-11. In hundreds and hundreds of letters I have received — and I’m sure other honourable senators have also received — since the beginning this year, Bill C-11 is seen to be the end of freedom in Canada. Here is one example of a letter:

Dear senator, I am terrified that our wonderful democratic nation is at the brink of banning free speech. I implore you to vote against Bill C-11. It must be defeated if we hope to keep our country democratic.

This was a letter to me from a woman in British Columbia just a few weeks ago.

So many letters and calls have the same message, yet the vast majority of these folks do not articulate how this bill is actually supposed to end democracy. I, for one, do not think the end of Canadian democracy is at hand, at least not from Bill C-11.

A second theme that has gained widespread attention and criticism is focused more specifically on the potential intrusion into viewer or listener choices by direction that will be given to firms to alter their algorithms for the purpose of making Canadian content more visible on platforms.

I would like to make two points here. Bill C-11 states that the CRTC cannot make orders that would require the use of specific algorithms. However, we do need more clarity on this, especially in light of the contradictory comments made to our committee by the CRTC last June. In fact, the CRTC chair, when he came to our committee, very much muddied the waters on this issue of algorithms, unfortunately, for many people. He had many very valuable things to say, but he most certainly muddied the waters on this issue of algorithms.

My second point is that we also need to focus on alternative methods to achieve visibility of Canadian content — that is, methods that are alternatives to algorithms. There has been a lot of time spent on this topic of algorithms; in fact, I think maybe too much time has been spent. Nevertheless, I’m hopeful that our committee can shed some light on this complex issue.

A third theme that is still getting the lion’s share of attention and criticism is the regulation of user content. Now, the minister has repeatedly said that platforms are subject to regulation and that individuals or users themselves are excluded. Bill C-11 does state this. But the bill also includes the so-called exceptions to the exclusions, which allow the regulation of user content in certain situations. Therefore, colleagues, we are back to the same conundrum as when we started, and this vexing and important issue remains on the table.

Other questions have received less attention but are still important. Should the CRTC have so much more power? Can the CRTC successfully carry out all the new responsibilities and tasks assigned to it? Should the CRTC have more direction from Parliament than Bill C-11 now provides? What will be the bill’s impact? What will happen to Canadian content in production into the future? Will the existing broadcasters really be helped by any of this? After all, that is supposed to be one of the main goals. Will creators from diverse backgrounds benefit from this bill? Will new technologies and innovation actually thrive into the future?

There is much for our Senate committee to examine. However, I want to speak very briefly about the process that has accompanied deliberations on Bill C-11 to date.

Let’s look back over a year ago to June 2021 and Bill C-10. That process was a mess. That bill spent four months in committee at the other place, which met 30 times — 12 times with witnesses and 18 times for clause-by-clause consideration, followed by filibustering and a rare imposition of time allocation at committee. So that was a disaster.

With Bill C-11 this year, I consider that the process was actually rather similar, only this time it happened within four weeks instead of four months at the House committee. Meetings with over 50 witnesses were followed by filibustering, closure motions and over 50 amendments passed in one evening on June 15 of this year. Does this sound to you like a thoughtful process? Does this give you confidence in the bill before us?

Clearly, sober second thought is greatly needed. Now, there are many good elements to this bill. In a Nanos Research national poll conducted for The Globe and Mail in May, two thirds of the public said they support the idea that streaming services should financially contribute to creating Canadian content just as Canadian broadcasters do. So we do see that high-level support for the idea of Bill C-11.

Also, Bill C-11 enjoys the support of stakeholders across the arts and culture and broadcasting communities, including many people in the Toronto community where I live. I have to say that a couple of weeks ago, one of the stakeholders told me that he really doesn’t like to mention Toronto very much. But I have no hesitation in talking about my city. My city is a vast, creative community of tremendously successful and creative people, and there are many, many people in my community who support Bill C-11 — organizations like the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, the Canadian Independent Music Association, the Directors Guild of Canada, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, the Canadian Ethnocultural Media Coalition and many of Canada’s major television broadcasters.

But there are many outstanding issues, which I mentioned earlier, and the process in the other place, in my view, was fraught. Colleagues, I look forward to the next several weeks of Senate study and debate, for Bill C-11 will receive the sober second thought it so clearly needs. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Welcome, minister. The Inuit‑Crown Partnership Committee has done significant work in advancing and promoting a whole-of-government approach to the stated Inuit priorities. President Obed and his board have been successful in getting your government’s support for many important social and economic issues.

One very important example is the framework to eliminate tuberculosis from Inuit Nunangat by 2030, which came with a $27.5-million commitment in 2018 from your government to be spent over five years. However, as I’m sure you know, The Globe and Mail carried out an investigation in June and found that $13 million allocated for tuberculosis countermeasures in Nunavut has been largely unspent, despite an active TB outbreak in Pangnirtung that has been ongoing for months.

Can you use your good offices — the funds came from your ministry’s table — to see that these desperately required funds are deployed where they are critically needed, in Pangnirtung?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise at second reading of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is currently studying. Some 30 witnesses have already been heard.

In the time that I have been a senator, I have never seen a bill elicit such passionate reactions and divergent views.

On the one hand, many representatives of the cultural sector are urging us to pass the bill as written or to strengthen it. On the other, as my colleague Donna Dasko stated, our inboxes are full of form letters from citizens who fear for their freedom of expression and their freedom to listen to and watch whatever they want on the internet.

As for me, I do not believe that Canadians’ rights and freedoms are threatened by this bill. However, I do recognize that in a polarized social and political context, where some people do not hesitate to demonize their opponents and twist their words to whip up their supporters, some words have become radioactive. The word “algorithm” is one of them.

There are also concerns about some grey areas in the bill and the regulations that are to follow.

The more I hear the objections of stakeholders regarding Bill C-11, the more I realize that there are several interrelated debates. It is not just about being for or against the bill, as is the case with simpler legislation.

Bill C-11 is basically an adjustment exercise. It adjusts Canada’s broadcasting policy to bring it in line with the new technological environment.

In the past, music and audiovisual programs were broadcast via radio and traditional television networks that held licences and were subject to many rules, including the well-known quotas. The government was thus able to ensure that our country’s artists and cultural diversity were supported and showcased.

As we know, today, a significant portion of Canadians access music and programs via online platforms, often foreign platforms, that are not subject to any regulations. For the first time last year in Quebec, subscriptions to online platforms exceeded traditional cable subscriptions, with 71% of adult Quebecers having paid subscriptions to online streaming sites. That is a lot. We are seeing the same trend with music, where people are increasingly turning toward streaming platforms on which only 8% of the music listened to by Quebecers is French music.

The result is that our artists are losing visibility and the government no longer has the means of showcasing Canadian culture and content, including that of French and Indigenous people and other minority groups. In the wild west of digital platforms, the biggest players make the rules and, as we know, the biggest players are American companies.

There are two possible ways to deal with this new reality. The first is to do nothing and pretend that, in the internet era, the government has no role to play. The government could stop regulating altogether. The regulatory framework would have to be phased out gradually as the public moves to digital platforms. In the end, within a few years, all programs and music consumed by Canadians would be determined solely by market forces. The problem with this approach is that it means giving up on defending the values of Canada’s cultural identity, to the benefit of the web giants.

Officials from YouTube and TikTok appeared before the committee to reaffirm that the business model that has made them successful is working just fine. Their message was simple. What they call their secret recipe works, as evidenced by the success of Canadian YouTubers and singers.

Beyond these generalities, however, there is little information. What percentage of audiences do these Canadian artists get? How is this distributed between artists, content types and across the country? YouTube doesn’t have any precise statistics to share. In fact, YouTube officials don’t really care where the creators are from, because according to them, we live in a global world, so we should take their word for it and hope for the best.

However, the survival of our francophone culture cannot depend on only one or two successful artists like Charlotte Cardin and Coeur de pirate, whose names we hear over and over. People need to be able to discover and listen to others.

The second option proposed in Bill C-11 is a compromise. It involves bringing new platforms into the Canadian regulatory framework, but not in the same way as traditional broadcasters. The platforms will have to help fund production of Canadian content and will have to showcase Canadian content while continuing to offer a rich and diverse menu of program options. The CRTC will have the complex task of tailoring the rules to each foreign player. At least, that is the promise. I’ll be frank; it will be a mammoth undertaking, and I fear the CRTC will be overwhelmed.

I personally support the broad strokes of Bill C-11. Canadians will retain the best of digital platforms, that is, the freedom to listen to and watch what they want, based on their preferences, while giving our artists a chance to carve out a place for themselves and find their audience in this new broadcasting ecosystem.

However, as is often the case, the devil is in the details. Here are some of the main issues. The bill delegates a lot of power to the CRTC to make the rules for online platforms and implement Canada’s broadcasting and cultural policy. Many of us think it would have been better for the government to give the CRTC its instructions right now. This kind of feels like handing over a blank cheque.

One of the central issues the CRTC will have to consider is Canadian content. How should we define it now? Are some criteria more important than others? Should the focus be on subject matter, artists or intellectual property in productions? It will be up to the CRTC to review this crucial definition.

Much ink has been spilled about discoverability; it has taken up a lot of bandwidth. The term “discoverability” appears only twice in the legislation, which does not provide further details.

How will discoverability work for Canadian content on digital platforms? Is promoting that content without influencing algorithms and viewers’ or listeners’ choices enough? How will new content requirements differ from the old quota system? A lot of questions remain.

For example, at our brief hearings in June, I asked the chair of the CRTC how he would ensure the discoverability of Canadian content without involving the algorithms. He answered that the platforms themselves would have to change their algorithms to achieve the desired result of having Canadian users consume more Canadian music and shows.

As you can imagine, this answer shocked those who were closely following the hearings. For them, it was proof that algorithms must be changed even if the bill states that the CRTC does not have that authority. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC, and I quote, “shall not make an order . . . that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm.”

I believe that the debate on this specific point is so polarized that it is difficult to come to a conclusion. For example, YouTube and TikTok state that, without changing their algorithms, they go to great lengths to promote Canadian creators, whether through subsidies, programs or revenue sharing. They boast about their efforts and the success of certain Canadian artists.

Why are they worried about Bill C-11 when they will be able to choose how to get results in terms of the Canadian music that is listened to? Is it because only algorithms really have the power to influence the habits of the users of these platforms?

The logic of algorithms is simple. The only content suggested to the customer is similar to what they have watched before in order to keep them watching. How then can we hope for minority cultural content, whether it be French or Indigenous, to be automatically recommended to customers in a predominantly anglophone North America? How can we trust the mathematical algorithms to point to the exception rather than the rule?

Another distinction needs to be made. For artists from English Canada, the playing field is global, whereas for French-speaking Quebec artists, the main market is Quebec. These artists create in a beautiful language, but it is a minority language.

By making the algorithms off limits, as the platforms want, are we giving in on the main issue and allowing Canadian culture and artists to be steamrolled by American giants? However, if we tinker with the algorithms, we risk harming the lesser-known artists that we want to support, since they could be downgraded by the existing system if customers do not accept the recommendation in question. It is quite the dilemma.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the foreign players in our market should be responsible for finding innovative solutions so that we can see ourselves in this flood of global content. I understand that they feel rushed and that they do not want to lose users, but let’s remember that Canadian broadcasters are subject to much heavier and rigid regulations regarding Canadian content.

We also have to be mindful not to rely on what other countries are doing. This specific aspect of the bill, in other words the idea of requiring platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and others to showcase Canadian works, is a world first; it has never been done anywhere else. Many have thought about it, but Canada is the first to try. This is uncharted territory.

Another issue that raises debate has to do with social media, YouTube in particular, which offers both content for users to download and commercial content. I believe it is possible to further clarify in the text of this legislation what commercial content is in order to reassure content creators.

Obviously, although the purpose of Bill C-11 is to develop Canadian culture and artistic expression, it has several economic dimensions.

At the heart of these debates are Canadian organizations such as producers, broadcasters and unions. There is a mix of corporate, protectionist and other interests behind the requests to amend the bill.

For example, independent producers want to keep the advantage they’ve had for the past 30 years under the Broadcasting Act. They want to be given priority. On the other hand, broadcasters want their own production companies to be treated as independent businesses.

It’s not necessarily a matter of promoting more or less Canadian content; it’s a matter of promoting certain players and changing the power dynamic. This bickering among the players in Canada ultimately undermines efforts to come together.

Beyond these more specific issues, Bill C-11 also brings out different political, cultural and economic views and sometimes pits them against one another.

As I look at my colleague, Senator Housakos, I can see that division here.

In this new global cultural market in which Canadian creators have access to the entire world but are also competing with the entire world, should we be trying to protect our creators from this competition or finding ways to help them stand out? Is it possible to give our creators, artists and tradespeople a chance without needlessly restricting the Canadian public’s options and preferences?

Clearly, I don’t have all the answers. While I agree that Canada must protect its cultural sovereignty, including francophone culture, my duty is to assess whether this bill can be improved and, if so, how.

My personal belief is still that culture is not just another commodity. It deserves substantial support from governments, particularly in cases of a minority culture, such as French in North America.

I’m extremely concerned about the underlying trends in Quebec, particularly in terms of the music people listen to. We can’t surrender all of our cultural sovereignty and national identity to algorithms and market forces. It would be akin to cultural suicide in the medium term, the result of a voluntary blindness to the reality of the power imbalance that is at play. In that regard, I believe that Bill C-11 has a legitimate political objective.

That said, we need to find compromises and modern solutions that also respond to the desire of Canadians and Quebecers to participate in and consume cultural products from around the world, without unduly limiting their choices. Defending and promoting our distinct identity is more valid and timely than ever, but we can’t expect a return to the past, to a time when the availability of cultural content was strictly controlled.

Our challenge is to strike the right balance.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Welcome, minister. Minister, 10 people were brutally murdered and another 18 injured in a series of stabbings in the vicinity of the James Smith Cree Nation. The individual in question had a long criminal history. In fact, he had 59 criminal convictions. Despite this record, he was serving a sentence of only 53 months for an additional series of violent offences, and he was at large despite having violated the conditions of his statutory release.

We were told that the Parole Board of Canada is conducting a review of this horrific case, but the problem in our Canadian justice system is a systemic one which exposes the deep flaws in our revolving-door justice system. What we need now is transparency so Canadians know that your government is actually doing something.

Minister, in that regard, how specifically is your department engaged in this review, which not only involves an Indigenous offender but also had a horrific impact on a vulnerable community that was effectively left unprotected?

Hon. Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, senator, for the question. First, I think it is important to acknowledge the pain and hurt the community is going through. This is the largest mass casualty event in an Indigenous community since the North-West Resistance. You highlighted as well that no Indigenous community is immune to this — no community in Canada. This does not begin and end with one or two individuals. There are systemic natures to the violence and the response needs to be a systemic one that cannot be limited to policing our way out of the problem or locking people in jail and throwing away the key.

That is not notwithstanding my own views on how the Parole Board acted, but again, it is not necessarily my place to be judge, jury and executioner in a role that the Parole Board properly plays in determining whether people’s lives should be in an incarcerated scenario or free to go or free under certain conditions. Certainly, there was a failure here. Certainly, it is a systemic one. Certainly, it is one that involves policing and the criminal justice system, but it is much more than that. It is one where there is violence that is far too frequent in Indigenous communities because of systemic reasons, socio-economic barriers and ones that are the legacy of colonization.

In that respect, my department is intimately involved in the response.

Senator Plett: Minister, your answer to the question about how your department is engaged in the Parole Board’s review of the murders was not specific. I also tried to get an answer on this issue yesterday from Senator Gold, the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

The terrible crimes in Saskatchewan clearly demonstrate that the way we are approaching criminal justice matters in our Indigenous communities is failing to protect them. Indigenous leaders in Saskatchewan have said that their communities are not equipped to develop programs that might help better address criminality in their communities.

Minister, Canadians need to understand how you are working with the communities in the face of this. How are you working with the Parole Board in its review of this specific case to better balance Gladue factors and risks?

At the same time, again, you highlighted the systemic nature of it. There are socio-economic underpinnings to the reality that Indigenous communities face that make them vulnerable and susceptible to this type of crime. It is not an Indigenous issue; it is a societal issue that has its deep roots in colonization, in dispossession and ones that are not fixed with simple solutions.

That said, there is a crying need to reform, as we have said as a government, First Nations policing to make it an essential service in communities and to reform the way policing itself is done. That is a much greater conversation where I welcome your advocacy.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, I also rise today to speak to Bill C-11, and I hope you’ll indulge me if I begin with a historical anecdote.

In 1881, the French engineer Clément Ader showed off his latest invention, the théâtrophone. Ader set up 80 telephone transmitters across the front of the stage of the Paris Opera, which allowed people to hear operatic performances at the International Exposition of Electricity some two kilometres away from the theatre. Ader, you might say, was the first person to livestream a show, the original over-the-top streamer. For context, this was 15 years before Marconi patented radio and almost a quarter of a century before radio waves were evolved enough to broadcast music.

By 1890, La compagnie du Théâtrophone was running a full‑fledged subscription service in Paris so that subscribers could listen to the latest concerts, plays and opera via their home telephones. And if you didn’t have a phone of your own, pas de problème; the company set up cheap coin-operated telephone receivers in all the coolest Paris hotels, cafes and clubs so that you could listen to the hottest new shows at your leisure, without the expense or bother of going to see them in person.

The novelist Marcel Proust was an enthusiastic subscriber. In 1911, he wrote to friends about the pleasures of listening to Richard Wagner’s Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg and Claude Debussy’s Pelléas et Mélisande from the comfort of his own home. However, eventually, the théâtrophone was outcompeted by radio — supplanted. And just as “video killed the radio star,” radio killed the théâtrophone.

[Translation]

Why this remembrance of things past?

[English]

Because I think this tells us a lot about why over-the-top streaming services are so popular today. It is human nature to want to access entertainment as cheaply and conveniently as possible, even if it means that artists and performers themselves do not get much by way of compensation. It is human nature to try to use the latest technologies and platforms to access entertainment, because we are all suckers for novelty and for the feeling that we are on the cutting edge. And it is human nature to get tired of an old technology when a new technology comes along, and then pine, somewhat romantically, for the joys of the technology we just lost.

While we cannot sustain or subsidize an older technology if no one wants to use it anymore, we often still miss the things that made it special and of its time.

And thus we come, as promised, to Bill C-11, a bill that attempts to bring international streaming services, such as Spotify, Netflix, Apple TV+ and Disney+, into the ambit of the Canadian broadcast regulatory system.

Let us start by trying to sort the signal from the noise. As my friend Senator Dasko has already assured you, Bill C-11 will not censor or regulate your free speech. It will not allow the government to take down your critical tweets. It will not allow the CRTC to micromanage your Facebook feed or curate your Tumblr. It is not a Communist plot or a conspiracy dreamt up by the World Economic Forum. It is not the work of the Illuminati.

I know that far too many Canadians believe all those things and worse, because for months now, my email inbox, Twitter mentions and Facebook page have been filled with thousands of angry and terrified messages from Canadians who have been led to believe that Bill C-11 is a full-frontal assault on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the fabric of Canadian democracy.

That is just not true.

I myself do not support Bill C-11 in its current form, but I am interested in analyzing its actual flaws — and there are plenty — and not in indulging in the rhetoric of political hysteria that has been whipped up around this piece of legislation and used as a bogeyman to frighten and divide Canadians. Such malicious mischief not only creates a culture of fear and paranoia, and undermines faith in Parliament, but also makes it next to impossible to talk about the actual weaknesses of the actual bill.

By the same token, Bill C-11 will not magically create a billion-dollar production fund, some instant bonanza for Canadian musicians and filmmakers. It will not offer salvation for private radio, local TV news or the beleaguered francophone music industry. Overly optimistic promises by the government have led many to believe that Bill C-11 is some kind of enchanted cornucopia — an infinite horn of plenty — that will lead to hundreds of millions of dollars of income for Canadian artists and creators.

Alas, this is just not true, especially not in the short term.

So what does the bill do? Bill C-11 attempts to bring big international streaming services, most of them American, under the remit of the CRTC. It would require Apple, Disney, Netflix, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, Google and others to contribute monetarily and substantively to Canadian film, television and music production, and it would require them to make Canadian content more discoverable. The logic is straightforward and blunt: These companies — huge cultural behemoths — make millions of dollars in a small Canadian market. The government wants some of that money, and it wants that money to underwrite Canadian cultural industries. So, the government is simply going to strong-arm the big corporations to cough up the cash.

Now, you may not have too many tears to shed for Apple, Google, Amazon and Disney, some of the largest and most profitable companies on the planet. They can well afford to ante up, and they have the capacity in their enormous catalogues to showcase more Canadian productions. But despite Senator Dawson’s assurances yesterday, I worry that these rules may inhibit small specialty streaming services from entering the Canadian market, especially non-English-language streamers and niche arts channels. I’m not worried that ordinary Canadians’ free speech rights will be impinged, but I am sincerely worried we may be denied the opportunity to watch unique international programming because we’ve made entry into the Canadian market prohibitively expensive or complicated.

What is my second major concern with Bill C-11? As my friends have outlined, it’s that tricky issue of discoverability. What does the word mean? It’s never defined in the bill. It would be one thing if we were simply asking Netflix and Spotify and the like to create a search bar for Canadian content or to curate CanCon for our various tastes. Such static discoverability would not be a big concern. Although, honestly, who goes down to the rumpus room to watch Netflix for an hour and say, “Gosh, I feel like watching some Canadian content”? That is not how ordinary people consume television. They say, “Hmm, I’m in the mood for a romantic comedy or a nature documentary or a superhero action flick.”

No, I’m far more concerned that when the government says it wants more discoverability of Canadian content, it really means that it wants services such as YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and Apple to tweak their algorithms to privilege Canadian programs and posts. That’s where things get dicey. Those mysterious proprietary algorithms rule and organize so much of what we see online. Once the government starts trying to monkey with them, the consequences could be unexpected.

If YouTube serves up CanCon you aren’t particularly interested in and you don’t click it, you could actually be sending a message. You could be prejudicing a Canadian artist’s chances of being seen by telling the algorithm that this isn’t content that people want. This kind of online protectionism could backfire internationally and keep CanCon trapped in a kind of regional tidal pool and cultural backwater, and deny Canada’s brilliant digital-first producers a chance to compete for international attention and revenue.

I know the government has insisted this bill isn’t about algorithms, but just last June at a hearing of the Standing Senate Committee of Transport and Communications as we were conducting our pre-study, we heard something quite different from Ian Scott, the head of the CRTC.

Let me clarify some of the mud. In answer to a question posed by my friend Senator Miville-Dechêne, Mr. Scott said the CRTC would ask streamers to change their algorithms to meet Canadian content expectations. Here’s precisely how he put it:

We want Canadians to find Canadian music. How best to do it? How will you do it? I don’t want to manipulate your algorithm. I want you manipulate it to produce a particular outcome.

Fine, so the government won’t directly manipulate algorithms, but if the CRTC directs or compels companies such as YouTube to manipulate their algorithms to achieve the government’s desired outcome, it starts to become a distinction without a difference, doesn’t it?

Next comes the issue of user-generated content. Bill C-11 starts off in section 2 with admirably clear language, making it plain that the stuff we all post on our social media is not captured by the bill. Our Twitter posts, our Instagram reels, our Twitch streams are not included. That’s fine until you get deeper into the bill to clause 4.2(2), where we get an exemption to an exemption: one that appears to scope in larger producers and posters who are monetizing their content.

The government and the CRTC insists that language is only meant to capture the really big producers, such as major record labels who post their utterly professional music videos to YouTube. Unfortunately, that’s not what the bill actually says. It talks instead about people who are monetizing their content directly, or even indirectly, and that lack of clarity has led to justifiable confusion and concern that successful independent Canadian digital producers who use YouTube or Twitch or TikTok to reach global audiences could indeed be scoped in, captured and treated like Sony and Disney.

Canadian Heritage estimates that some 50% of YouTube content may well be produced by major commercial players who are more akin to Netflix or Spotify. We need to have clearer language and thresholds to ensure that people who are small independent artists won’t lose the unique flexibility of YouTube, TikTok or Instagram to distribute their content to Canadian and global markets.

In short, I have problems with the cultural paternalism of the bill with the government’s somewhat antiquarian belief that we should be induced to consume CanCon because it is good for us, and not simply be allowed to embrace CanCon because it’s good. I have problems with the technical aspects of the bill which may actually be counterproductive and undermine new and emerging Canadian artists in their ability to reach international markets. And I have even more problems with the conspiracy delusions and wild hysteria whipped up around this bill that are keeping us from having a meaningful public policy debate about how we best encourage and enhance Canada’s cultural industries without hamstringing their unique potential.

I’m happy to say that our Transport and Communications Committee has already begun a thoughtful pre-study of this bill. I hope we will soon be able to turn that into a formal study so that we can bring back to this chamber for its consideration an amended bill that truly supports Canadian culture and respects the nature of technological change and human nature.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

(On motion of Senator Downe, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of September 21, 2022, moved:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order, or usual practice, until end of the day on December 22, 2022, any joint committee be authorized to hold hybrid meetings, with the provisions of the order of February 10, 2022, concerning such meetings, having effect; and

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

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it is now 3:20. If you agree, we will receive the minister and move to Question Period.

Honourable senators, we will suspend for a few minutes until the minister arrives.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

[Translation]

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

Hon. Marc Miller, P.C., M.P., Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations: Senator, I’m glad you read about what I was up to this summer. At the beginning of summer, in Inuvik, I did have a chance to visit the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation’s food security initiative that they implemented during the pandemic thanks to funds provided by Indigenous Services Canada. Particularly during a pandemic, where supply chains were severely compromised in remote locations — not limited to the remote locations in the North, but across Canada — we had a number of innovative measures, not only Nutrition North Canada, which has experienced challenges and to which we have increased funding, but unique challenges in ensuring that people could get proper food on the land, and fresh food, in a situation where we were shutting down communities altogether to keep people safe and alive. Those solutions worked. I was able to visit some of the amazing initiatives with wild food that is provided to a number of the communities that are in Inuvialuit. I would encourage you to take a look at those initiatives because they are game changers.

In the context of inflation, that is something Minister Freeland focused directly on, namely, those who are most vulnerable. I would point you to the recent announcements that we hope will get the support of all parties in the house to support the most vulnerable and those who are the most subject and sensitive to inflation pressures including getting food on the table.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Welcome to the Senate, Minister Miller. I’m a senator from Mi’kma’ki and a member of the Aboriginal Peoples Committee. My question for you is related to the full implementation of Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Passamaquoddy rights-based fisheries. Our Senate Fisheries and Oceans Committee report on this matter, Peace on the Water, outlined 10 recommendations. The committee recommended that the responsibility for negotiating the full implementation of rights‑based fisheries be immediately transferred from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, with your department becoming the lead negotiating department and DFO assuming an advisory role.

Minister, can you tell us what is the status of the government’s response to this critical recommendation and has there been any action taken?

Hon. Bernadette Clement: Welcome, minister.

According to Public Safety Canada’s 2020 annual report, in 2019-20 Indigenous offenders represented 26.1% of the total federal offender population, while Indigenous people make up only about 5% of the total population in Canada. In the federal prison population, Indigenous people account for 32% of incarcerated people.

Since Bill C-5 in its current form will not completely eliminate mandatory minimum penalties, which significantly contribute to the overincarceration of Indigenous and Black people, how is your government instead helping to resource Indigenous communities based on the priorities they have identified? What is your plan for meaningful consultation with the people who are impacted by your government’s policies?