Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s exactly why I’m saying that in this case, if we want to do a pre-study, it would be urgent to get on it instead of just talking about it. If we continue to discuss this and vote next week, we’re losing out on 10 potential days of work.

No, I’ve never experienced that problem before, and I probably shouldn’t have compared journalism to politics. I just wanted to highlight this idea of using all of the time available to get things done, instead of simply talking about deadlines and saying that we don’t have enough time.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

Senator Francis: Is the federal government at least willing to forgive debt for Islanders living at or below the poverty line? If so, what does this process involve and how long does it take? What are the consequences of non-repayment for this population?

Hon. René Cormier: Would you agree that the Senate is the master of its own affairs? We can read the following about the Rules of the Senate on the Parlinfo site, and I quote:

The Rules of the Senate allow the Senate to examine the subject matter of a bill before the bill has been passed by the House of Commons. The bill must have been given first reading in the House of Commons but not yet been passed by it and, therefore, not introduced in the Senate.

In the context of studying a quasi-constitutional act on which the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages worked for a very long time, demonstrating the complexity of this constitutional act, would you agree, Senator Gagné, that a pre‑study is, in this case, entirely appropriate in our context?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Certainly, and I have heard them as well. I didn’t attend the same summit you did, but of course, since we know that music and other cultural products are so central to francophone minority culture, it should be obvious that this issue is important.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is about the committee’s current mandate.

Can you tell us what the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is currently studying, and how important it is to francophones?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question. As I explained in this chamber, the government decided to appeal the ruling not because it is against the principle, but because the reasons set out in the ruling raise important constitutional issues that must be dealt with and determined by the Supreme Court.

Senator Martin: Last month, after the NDP-Liberal government once again failed to bring forward the Canada disability benefit, Kenzie McCurdy, with the accessibility group StopGap Ottawa, told CTV:

Look how quickly CERB went out. Why do they get it within a matter of months and people with disabilities can’t be helped before a three-year study and lots of promises and delayed action?

That’s a very good question, leader. What is your response to Kenzie? Why are Canadians with disabilities never a priority for this NDP-Liberal government?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Dasko, we have two more senators who wish to ask you questions, and you are out of time. Are you requesting five more minutes to answer questions?

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Saint-Germain, I was on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when we did that pre-study of the Fair Elections Act and I wonder if you were aware of the fact that when we did that pre‑study, it was quite a bit more advanced in the House of Commons than this particular bill is at this point in the House of Commons, and because of our pre-study in the Senate, we were able to make substantive changes to that bill by consensus at the Senate Legal Committee, suggest them to the government, and the government actually took our advice on that and made the changes to the bill. They were then able to incorporate those changes at the House of Commons and then send the bill to the Senate.

That is actually the ideal way that a pre-study would work, have it be advanced to a certain objective in the House of Commons, come to the Senate for a pre-study, have some definite work done so we can do our proper sober second thought, and then have the government take our advice, unlike some other matters where we had the Trudeau government not take our substantive pre-study advice we have given on bills in the last five years.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Batters, I’m aware that this bill is one of the 10 bills that were pre-studied under the Conservative governments in less than 20 months, and I see that this bill is related to the Elections Act. It’s interesting that the sober second thought of the non-elected parliamentarians served the elected chamber. That is an interesting exception because on such bills normally I would say the expertise and the specific context of the members of Parliament are really definitive, so I think the Conservative government made a very good decision. I congratulate you and all the other members on the Legal Committee then because you obviously did great work, and I’m glad that even the current Liberal government recognized this, so thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 17, 2022, moved:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, introduced in the House of Commons on March 1, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.

She said: Honourable senators, once again we find ourselves at this busy time of the year, all of us juggling competing priorities while we ensure that we continue to exercise our due diligence. Without rehashing the remarks Senator Gold previously put to the chamber, I do want to briefly echo his argument on why we must pass these motions on these two pre-studies.

Colleagues, a pre-study gives us an opportunity to maximize our time, to give proper and fulsome consideration to the government’s parliamentary agenda and it gives us the flexibility we need to best achieve our work. Work on government legislation, such as Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization, and Bill C-19, the budget implementation act, which has drawn on the resources of several committees, is coming to a close. This motion will empower committees to occupy new space as it becomes available.

For obvious reasons, over the past two years, our Senate work has been sidelined. Adopting our government motions, which would enable these pre-studies, is a small way for us to advance important work Canadians expect us to do.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, let me briefly explain why we should allow the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages to conduct a pre-study on Bill C-13. As you well know, during the Forty-second Parliament, the Official Languages Committee produced no fewer than five reports on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. The committee consulted young Canadians, members of official language minority communities, stakeholders who had witnessed the evolution of the act, as well as representatives from the justice sector and federal institutions.

The 20 practical recommendations set out in the report were aimed at correcting the issues with the implementation of the act and were divided into the following themes: leadership and cooperation, compliance, enforcement principles, and judicial bilingualism. In total, between April 2017 and April 2019, more than 300 witnesses and 72 briefs and follow-ups informed the measures that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages recommended taking to modernize the act.

In fact, the content of Bill C-13, and its predecessor Bill C-32, largely reflects the work of the Official Languages Committee. It should also be noted that Bill C-13 responds to most of the recommendations outlined in the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.

The committee members possess impressive expertise, and a pre-study of the content that has already been looked at will enhance their ability to guide the government. Let’s not forget that the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969, which was over 50 years ago, and that it has not been substantially updated in over 30 years. Society has changed considerably in that time. Our reality is more complex, and language laws have to better reflect those changes. A pre-study will give us the time we need to give the content of the bill the attention it deserves.

Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the Senate on February 10, 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages began its study on francophone immigration to minority communities in order to examine federal government support for the immigration sector. Because Bill C-13 includes elements essential to francophone immigration for the purpose of enhancing the vitality of francophone minorities in Canada, it is one of the focal points of exchanges between witnesses and committee members.

Practically speaking, we are doing preliminary work on this bill as part of our study. It is also important to note that the witnesses and official language minority community representatives very much want this bill to be studied and passed without delay so the government can adopt an immigration policy and start developing Part VII regulations and a multi-year official languages action plan.

[English]

Finally, I would like to remind senators that the general order of reference for the Official Languages Committee states:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study and to report on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the Act . . .

The order of reference goes on to state:

That the committee also be authorized to study the reports and documents published by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board and the Commissioner of Official Languages, and any other subject concerning official languages . . .

So the pre-study of Bill C-13 is consistent with this order of reference.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Senator Plett: So we know where it is not. Of course, I would like to know where it is. They’ve had three meetings so far at second reading — April 1, April 6 and April 12 — and we don’t know when they will have their next meeting. So they have not even considered a vote yet and sending it to committee. Bill C-11 has, at least, made that step, although it also isn’t nearly far enough.

Nevertheless, here is a bill that isn’t even at committee. It has not been referred to committee, let alone had any studies. Again, we are putting the cart before the horse here, and we are studying something that we have no idea when we will get it. We have no idea what it will look like because it may well be amended, and we simply have no idea when it will even go to committee.

Would you not agree, Senator Gagné, that maybe the government should start getting their priorities right over there instead of worrying about our priorities over here? They should get their act together. They should be able to schedule these bills. This, again, is a piece of legislation that is not new to the government. As with Bill C-11, these are bills that were promised — that were presented earlier — and here we are again asking to do a study when we have limited committee time. We are asking to study something that we have no idea what the actual bill will look like when it gets here.

[Translation]

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carignan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos, for the second reading of Bill S-229, An Act to amend the Language Skills Act (Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick).

(On motion of Senator Dalphond, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Griffin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas, for the second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island).

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-228 at second reading. This bill, introduced by Senator Patterson, would eliminate the requirement that senators have a personal net worth of at least $4,000 and that all senators representing a province other than Quebec own real property worth at least $4,000.

In its present form, Bill S-228 does not fix what I would call the constitutional discrimination against all senators from Quebec and only senators from Quebec. With respect to the real property requirements, in order to become and remain a senator, a senator from Quebec must not only own real property in their province of residence, but must also own property in the district or division that they represent. I will come back to this later to explain how this could affect a potential senator from Quebec.

Bill S-228 at least has the benefit of trying to eliminate a selection criterion that could prevent a potential new senator from serving in this chamber.

I do not wish to take up Senator Paula Simons’ historical account, going back to ancient Rome, of the reasons that may have induced the fathers of the Constitution to impose economic restrictions on eligibility for the officer of senator. I will simply state that it is no longer 1867 and that, no matter how much effort it takes, it is time to put an end to constitutional criteria that are nothing short of discriminatory for those who could be called to join this chamber.

Considering the condition for entry set in 1867, it is understandable that the first senators of Canada were all rich landowners, businessmen and bankers. The goal at the time was simply to bar a certain class of citizens from becoming senators. Such a clause would not be tolerated today. The eligibility criteria for the Senate must be modernized and updated for 2022.

Let’s come back to Bill S-228. I will not dwell on the obstacles that the real property requirement creates for the First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada who continue to live on their lands. Senator Patterson clearly explained that the citizens of Nunavut like himself do not own the land on which they live and are therefore excluded from being appointed to the Senate of their country. Because the lands of Nunavut are considered to be a shared asset, this makes the vast majority of its residents ineligible for the Senate.

In 1867, the drafters of the British North America Act that created Canada were inspired by the values of the time, of course. Nonetheless, it is unacceptable that the ability to participate in the politics and democracy of a country like Canada is still governed by archaic rules written in terms that in no way correspond to our demographic reality.

The bill we are studying aims to fix certain elements, at least in part. I would like to come back to the unique situation of Quebec senators.

The Constitution of 1867 gave Quebec 24 Senate seats. However, unlike the provisions for other provinces, where a senator’s territory is the entire province in which he or she resides, a Quebec senator is appointed for a particular senatorial district, otherwise known as an electoral division.

In the other Canadian provinces, the real property owned by Senate candidates prior to their appointment can be a residence, a cottage or a plot of land anywhere in the province.

The requirement is quite different in Quebec, as the 1867 Constitution is much more restrictive for Senate candidates in that province. Their property must be located in the electoral division to which they are assigned. I remind you that the province is divided into 24 districts.

Candidates for a Senate seat who reside in their electoral division simply need to own their residence. Anyone who rents is excluded.

That is one kind of discrimination.

Senate candidates who are assigned to an electoral division located outside major centres like Montreal and Quebec City, but who do not live in that division, have a lesser problem because all they need to do is buy a piece of bushland in the electoral division to be eligible for a Senate seat.

That is just as discriminatory because it takes money to do that.

Individuals offered the opportunity to become a senator for one of the two electoral divisions on the island of Montreal face a very different problem if they do not own property there. I am referring to the electoral divisions of Victoria, which I represent and which is located in downtown Montreal, and of Alma, which represents the senatorial district covering East Montreal.

Just like Senator Simons, when I was contacted about a Senate appointment in 2011, I had to scramble to find land or property I could buy to be eligible for the appointment, and I had to do it in record time.

It would undoubtedly have been easier to buy a small plot of land anywhere in Alberta, where Senator Simons lives, or even in Shawinigan. However, on the island of Montreal, or worse yet, in West Montreal, just try to find a piece of land worth $4,000 in 72 hours so you can become eligible to be a senator. Even a plot at the Notre-Dame-des-Neiges cemetery is more expensive than that.

To comply with the real property requirement for senators, I had to buy a condo on Nuns’ Island, which I do not live in. Year after year, I have to prove that I am still the owner in order to keep my Senate seat.

I certainly have no intention of making you cry over my predicament, which I fully accept, but those who would like to follow in my footsteps and become a senator from Quebec should never have to potentially be penalized because they are not property owners and they do not have the financial means to quickly buy enough real property to be eligible for a Senate seat.

In 2022, becoming a property owner in Montreal is not accessible to everyone. I would even say it is hard just to be a renter.

Now that we can all recognize that the constitutional requirements from 1867 regarding real property ownership are discriminatory, we can all make a serious effort to fix this. We can at least make a start with Senator Patterson’s Bill S-228, which would fix the problem for 9 of the 10 Canadian provinces and for the territories.

However, while we are working on this issue, we could also take serious steps to seek approval from the Government of Quebec to change the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding the eligibility criteria for senators from Quebec, to ensure that they are treated the same as senators from other provinces and territories.

Thank you.

Hon. Pat Duncan: Honourable senators, I rise today from the traditional territory of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation and the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council.

Later today, I will join the Yukon Aboriginal Women’s Council, who are hosting the Yukon’s MMIWG2S+ — Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls 2S+ — Family Gathering & Accountability Forum.

Accountability is a quality, a value, a principle of my life in politics and as a Canadian.

Today, I am rising with accountability to speak to second reading of Bill S-236, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Employment Insurance Regulations (Prince Edward Island). As senators may recall, I stood and offered the continued stewardship of this bill in the Senate when the sponsor, our former colleague Senator Diane Griffin, rose to move and speak to second reading on March 3 of this year. Today I account to our former colleague and all of you on Bill S-236.

As we heard from the recently retired sponsor and from the critic, Senator Rose-May Poirier, who spoke on April 28, Prince Edward Island has two different Employment Insurance zones, which results in a very skewed and unfair arrangement for those who live on the Island. It is this unfair arrangement, so eloquently described by Senator Poirier and Senator Griffin, that galvanized me to act.

Honourable senators, the EI divisions are in other places in Canada, including in the Yukon Territory. What stands out is how small P.E.I. is in comparison. The small size makes the current arrangement of a coastal region zone completely unfair.

In the Yukon, the capital, Whitehorse, is one region. The rest of the territory is another. This makes sense. The bulk of the population lives in Whitehorse. Whitehorse is the seat of the territorial government; the offices of the Council of Yukon First Nations, a leadership that welcomes all 14 Yukon First Nations chiefs and councillors to the leadership table; the offices of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation, the largest of the Yukon’s First Nations and a self-governing First Nation, as is the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council; and the municipal offices of the City of Whitehorse.

More than the seat of governments, Whitehorse also has a busy international airport, the Yukon’s largest hospital, and has a retail catchment area that includes the whole Yukon, Southeast Alaska and the northernmost home communities of Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, represented by my colleague Senator Anderson.

In short, the opportunities for employment are far different than the closest communities of Haines Junction — which is home to Kluane National Park and Reserve headquarters and the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations government to the west, or Teslin on the Alaska Highway in the south.

The separation of economic regions in the Yukon is understandable. The nearest other employment opportunities in a community are more than 70 kilometres away in Carcross or more than 100 kilometres in larger centres, like Haines Junction or Teslin.

Allow me to relate this economic region argument more closely to our senatorial duties and the time we spend here. The Parliamentary District, previously referred to as the National Capital Region in the Senate Administrative Rules, is “within 100 kilometres of Parliament Hill . . . .”

Prince Edward Island is divided into two economic zones. Charlottetown is one area. There are very few areas of P.E.I. that are 100 kilometres away from Charlottetown. Some Islanders tell me that, in some instances, you may end up in the ocean if you were to travel 100 kilometres from their economic zone. Practically, those who may reside in the Charlottetown area, which includes the towns of Stratford and Cornwall, work outside of the zone they reside in. The reverse is also true: Individuals might work in one economic zone and live in another. This is the situation that prompted me to take on this bill. A completely unfair situation exists in the receipt of EI benefits on Prince Edward Island.

Honourable senators, we have heard from both the critic and the sponsor in more eloquent terms than I have used that this situation skews the EI qualifying hours and eligibility period for benefits based on residential address, even if workers are employed at the same workplace. In the impact assessment accompanying the amending regulation published in the Canada Gazette on July 2, 2014, it shows the expected effect of the change in the Charlottetown zone and how, out of a projected 6,560 EI applicants, 5,450 would have their benefits reduced by more than $2,000. Meanwhile, in the other zone of P.E.I., of a total of 15,070 projected claimants, 9,150 would see an increase of approximately $1,620 in their benefits.

Honourable senators, in a June 2016 report titled Exploring the Impact of Recent Changes to Employment Insurance and Ways to Improve Access to the Program, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities made the following recommendation:

The Committee recognizes that the recent division of Prince Edward Island and each of the territories into two distinct EI economic regions has had negative consequences on the well-being of these communities, and for that reason, the Committee makes the following recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION 6

The Committee recommends that the federal government reconsider the new employment insurance economic regions created in 2014, and that previous boundaries be restored.

Honourable senators, we have also looked at this issue in the Senate’s National Finance Committee. On May 25, 2021, the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance heard testimony from the mayors of the three municipalities mentioned above, where the mayor of Charlottetown brought up the election promise made by member of Parliament Sean Casey to reverse the current two zones. Furthermore, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology made the following observation in a June 7, 2021 report on the subject matter of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures:

Your committee heard that the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada is aware of concerns regarding multiple Employment Insurance Economic Regions in small geographic areas, such as the two EI Economic Regions in Prince Edward Island. Your committee is concerned about inequities between these EI Economic Regions, despite the temporary relief provided by current COVID-19-related measures, and therefore suggests that the Government of Canada explore solutions to address these inequities.

Recently, we received correspondence from the Government Representative in the Senate about the review of the entire EI system. Phase 1 is concluded, and phase 2 is underway. There is no mention of the peculiar situation in P.E.I. in the phase 1 report. Considering this is a comprehensive review, it is not certain that it will include the very specific situation in P.E.I. Considering the unfairness of the current regime, I suggest the relatively simple amendments that are proposed by Senator Griffin are an elegant, worthwhile solution.

I respectfully remind honourable senators of the considerations by the House of Commons and our own Senate committees that I noted earlier in my remarks. I have listened carefully to my colleagues and observed in my relatively short time in the Senate the excellent work of the Senate committees. I appreciate their advice that, although two Senate committees and the House have made recommendations on this matter and those committees have heard from Islanders — as I have — we must be thorough in our review and examine the legislation itself carefully. That legislation is, of course, Bill S-236.

Some senators feel that the Social Affairs Committee is the best committee to conduct such a review. At the National Finance Committee — guided by our principles of transparency and accountability, enunciated at most meetings by our able chair, and having heard from witnesses like the elected mayor of Charlottetown on this issue — some of us would like to complete this review. However, upon examination of the matters currently before the Social Affairs and National Finance Committees, there is neither the time nor space, nor is there an ability to create the space, for a review of Bill S-236. Currently, there is an ability, as well as the time and space, for the Agriculture and Forestry Committee to examine Bill S-236. I have to emphasize the “currently” with respect to this study.

Colleagues, this situation has existed since 2014. It was briefly ameliorated during the pandemic with the return of cruise ships to P.E.I., the tourism season and spring planting — in short, the return of seasonal employment. This rural-urban divide that artificially and unfairly divides Islanders in their receipt in EI benefits must end. Delaying this study when there is a Senate committee eminently capable of reviewing it perpetuates the problem.

Earlier today, we heard senators speak of the need for urgency in referring other bills to Senate committees for expeditious review. I do not suggest that this issue is of national urgency. I do suggest it is urgent to Islanders, our fellow Canadians, and that the tools exist for senators to address this matter expeditiously. Today, I ask that we do so.

Senators will recall that I often stand and say that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you. Today, my grateful journal reminded me to be authentic and true to what drives you and to use this passion to do good for the people, places and spaces around you. I believe I have been authentic today in my passion for seeing fairness for the Islanders in their receipt of EI benefits. With the passion that I have for the Senate doing good work, I would respectfully ask for us to support the passage of Bill S-236 today and its subsequent referral to the Agriculture Committee.

Mahsi’cho. Gùnáłchîsh. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Moncion, seconded by the Honourable Senator Simons:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the Canadian assisted human reproduction legislative and regulatory framework and any other related issues deemed relevant by the committee, when and if the committee is formed; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than October 31, 2023, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Senator Dalphond: Thank you so much for this very useful information. I understand from your previous exchanges, including the one with Senator Batters, that in some cases, a pre‑study has yielded very interesting results for the subsequent study of the bill, in two ways.

In some cases, the message sent by the pre-study has resulted in amendments to the bill in the House of Commons. One case that comes to mind is the example given by Senator Batters.

In the case of medical assistance in dying not so long ago, that is, about a year and a half or two years ago, the Senate committee conducted a pre-study of Bill C-7 that did not deal with the substance of the technical details of the clauses, but rather the broad principles and thrusts of the legislative expansion.

Following the pre-study, the committee tabled a lengthy report in the Senate, which subsequently studied the bill thoroughly, drawing on the lessons learned from the committee’s pre-study. The Senate then proposed no fewer than five or six amendments, several of which were adopted by the House of Commons.

A pre-study does not mean that there will not be an in-depth study later. I understand that the government may see pre-studies as a way to speed up the subsequent study, but there is no incompatibility between a pre-study and a later substantive study that is enriched by the first.

I also understand, from what Senator Batters was saying, that the pre-study sometimes even helps enrich the debate in the other place, so pre-studies can have a positive impact.

Is that what I am to understand from the exchange between you and Senator Batters?

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for providing the answer in your question. I would add, as I indicated in my speech, that a pre-study does not preclude or replace a study if one is necessary.

Often the pre-study is on substantive issues and complex bills. You gave the very important example of medical assistance in dying. Canadians had different points of view, all of them justified, on a moral issue that was often the subject of disinformation and that deserved clarification that went beyond partisanship.

The answer is yes. A pre-study allows for in-depth discussions on principles and substantive issues and helps enrich a later study.

[English]

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on the motion before us, which would authorize the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to conduct a pre-study of Bill C-11. My comments today are brief.

Bill C-11, sometimes called the online streaming act, is a substantial bill that will essentially take the regulatory framework we now have over broadcasting and apply it to online undertakings. Numerous stakeholders and interests are involved, including cultural producers and creators, the legacy broadcasters in television and radio, online streamers, social media platforms and many others.

Many of us will remember this bill’s predecessor, Bill C-10. That bill was referred to the House Committee on Canadian Heritage for pre-study on February 1 and for regular study on February 19 of last year. That committee held 30 meetings before returning the bill to the House for third reading in mid-June.

Over those four months, that committee heard from numerous witnesses and proposed many amendments. The process involved significant debate of the issues but was contentious, messy and overly political. Indeed, significant changes to the bill were introduced late in that process at clause-by-clause consideration. Unfortunately, it was too late to call any witnesses representing the interests that would be materially affected by those changes.

That bill then made its way to our chamber, completed second reading and was referred to our Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on June 29 of last year. My Independent Senators Group colleagues on the committee and I were willing to work over last summer to examine the bill in committee in response to the expressed urgency in passing this bill, but that offer was not taken up. As a result, the Senate conducted no committee work on that bill, which died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Its successor, Bill C-11, has now completed second reading and has just been referred to committee in the other place. That committee held two meetings this week but has not yet taken up Bill C-11.

We have on the table a motion to send this bill to Senate committee for a pre-study. I have serious concerns about this. In my view, a pre-study is not a substitute for proper Senate study of a bill. Over the last few weeks, Senate committees have been engaged in pre-studies on a number of bills, including Bill S-6 and Bill C-19.

I have been part of some of these deliberations, and I offer some of my observations about this process. First, the participants have been excellent. The committee chairs have done an excellent job. The witnesses have made solid arguments regarding the bills on the table, staff have worked hard and senators have asked pertinent questions.

However, in my view, the process has been unsatisfactory. Typically, government witnesses present the bill and take questions, followed by other witnesses who offer a critique of the bill or propose changes to it. In some cases, their suggestions for change cannot be adequately assessed. We want to know: Are they practical changes? Do they fit with the goals of the bill? Are they doable? Are they good ideas? These questions come up after the witnesses testify, but often these questions remain unanswered in this process; that is what I have observed. Often there are time limitations to this process, and that is one of the reasons why some of these questions cannot be addressed, but in other cases, proposed changes from witnesses that do seem desirable cannot become amendments to this bill, because this is not possible with our pre-studies.

My concern with Bill C-11 is that I fear we will be doomed to this inadequate process and its shortcomings and that we will not conduct the proper investigation we need on Bill C-11, and we have no assurances that a regular committee study would follow from our pre-study. With Bill C-11, the ideal process, in my view, would be for us to take into account all the learnings from the House of Commons committee, their proceedings and their report, and build from there.

Let’s look at their witnesses, the issues arising from their work and the arguments that have been made, and let’s go forward from there. Of course, amendments may result from their process as well, which a pre-study here would not have and, therefore, could not consider. We wouldn’t have them in a timely fashion, and therefore, we couldn’t consider them. Remember Bill C-10, and how that bill was significantly changed very late in their process.

Honourable senators, during the pandemic over the past couple of years, the number of our Senate sittings was cut back dramatically, our scrutiny of legislation was reduced, with minimal review of so much legislation, and our committee work was curtailed. I look forward to returning to a better and more thorough process as we go forward.

In the end, colleagues, when it comes to Bill C-11, I am looking for assurances that a regular committee review process will take place. Even if a pre-study is undertaken, we should and must commit to this. If committees are indeed the masters of their fates, as we learned yesterday, I will be seeking the views of committee colleagues over the next several days for their commitment to a fulsome process.

But there is more than just that. We also need assurances that the committee will have the time it needs to do its work. When I hear about the urgent need to pass a bill, I can’t help but wonder whether we will really have the time to review a bill. If we keep hearing about the urgent need, it most certainly raises questions about whether we will be given the time.

Honourable senators, let’s do this properly. Thank you very much.

Senator Dasko: Yes.