Hon. Dennis Dawson: Would you accept another question Senator Simons?

Hon. Senators: Yes.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, in the words of former senator George Baker, “I will be brief.” I will try not to repeat the same arguments, of course, that I did in the previous motion in relation to Bill C-13.

I want to point out the following: I still haven’t heard from either the Government Representative or the sponsor of this bill what the urgency is, what the public interest is, with Bill C-11, in order for us to do what is really unusual in this particular circumstance. This place is the place of sober second thought. The role of the Senate is to be a complementary body to the House of Commons, not to be a parallel one. I agreed totally with Senator Simons and Senator Tannas when they said that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be dragged into the partisan context and aspect of studies and votes that are taking place over in the House of Commons.

I know it’s funny coming from me because I am unapologetically partisan, but I am also the chair of this committee and I have some experience in this place. I think it’s imperative to ask questions when we see the government so dead set on trying to get something done. And I don’t want to impugn motives, but, Senator Gold, although you might say that there is no objective for the government to ram this through this chamber before we rise in a few weeks, quite honestly, the vigour and the intensity with which representatives of the Government Representative Office are debating this and trying to get the point across in this chamber are making it abundantly clear that that might just be the intention of the government.

I also want to point this out very importantly: I have a great deal of difficulty, as the chair of the Transport and Communications Committee, with doing a pre-study on such an important bill where there is such a difference of opinion. It’s such a controversial bill across this country, and to date the government refuses, from my understanding, to deposit, to make public, the policy directives and the regulatory framework, which are such important parts of this bill.

Don’t nod your head back and forth. You will remember last summer we had the same argument on this same floor. The government finally made the regulatory framework public last June at, I think, five minutes to midnight on the side of the House of Commons. Now you want us to do a pre-study on this important bill — again, this controversial bill. To my understanding, as of today the government refuses to make public the regulatory framework in the House of Commons.

Now, the regulatory framework on such bills, as you know, is really part and parcel of the bill. It really determines some of the important elements of the bill that need to be studied and reviewed.

All I would like is a firm commitment from the Government Representative before we engage in even thinking about doing a pre-study. Will you commit the government to making the regulatory framework public, allowing us to have it once we are engaged in study? And I know the government will ram this through and we will commence the study. Will you at least commit to making the regulatory framework public so that the committees in both the House and the Senate will have it? I think it’s essential. Without it, we cannot do our work. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I, too, would like to join this discussion on the motion to force a pre-study on Bill C-11 — a highly contentious government bill, but not urgent in nature.

So let’s cut to the chase. This pre-study motion intends to ensure the passage of bills that have not been subjected to proper scrutiny or study or debate or anything close to first sober or second sober thought. We have been witnessing this in the other place for the last week, and it is shameful.

Pre-study of any bill is for the convenience, by and large, of government, not for the benefit of the public. In the case of Bill C-11, this legislation remains highly controversial. I have had literally hundreds of emails and exchanges with stakeholders and citizens who have repeatedly tried to make their cases, fact-based cases, but they have been ignored or shut down in the other place.

Government has been shown the fault lines, the evidence that, globally, we are out of step and that their attempts to control the high-tech sector will prove ill-conceived. Even their own officials have publicly contradicted them on user-generated content being subject to censorship. These are not simple commas or adjectives. This is a flawed, not-ready-for-primetime, core content problem, and it impacts fundamental rights.

In his speech on the motion on pre-study on May 18, Senator Gold said, “I just don’t know, nor does anybody else in this chamber,” if this bill will be amended in the House. Agreed. That is the point. Let them do their work, and then we will do ours. This is not a budget or a pandemic spending bill. No lives are hanging in the balance. There is no crisis. And governments can’t always have what they want just because they want it. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances.

Given all the drama that took place in and out of committee in the other place on Bill C-10 last summer — the secret amendments that were invalidated by the Speaker — it was an embarrassment then and we are seeing it again. It was then and it is again now not only a flawed bill but a flawed process.

Of course, the government wants this bill and all of their bills passed quickly and, usually, with as little examination as possible, but that is not what we do here. We have no right to turn a blind eye. Our job is to examine government legislation, fix it, improve it, make it Charter-proof and, all the while, ensure that the rights of Canadians are secured and protected.

As we know, pre-studies don’t allow for amendments. There is no guarantee that regular committee study will, in fact, ever take place when we do get the bills. But this bill, every bill, needs hearings and witnesses and, most importantly, we need some honest debate.

My concern is that by agreeing to ever more pre-emptive pre-studies, we are allowing a new culture to take hold here in the Senate — a culture of complacency, one where the government no longer needs to respect parliamentary procedure or weigh the cost of spent political capital. They no longer need to ensure actual debate or a fair exchange or airing of differing views or win the day with a solid argument with facts, never mind show that they have consulted and actually listened.

I fear that the role of the Senate to uphold the interests of the people we represent will become some quaint, out-of-favour ritual. If all government bills are deemed urgent or essential, then in fact none of them are.

During COVID, we let billions of dollars in spending and new programs slide by without proper scrutiny. We accepted that they were extraordinary times and that time was of the essence, but no longer. This is now a convenient and growing trend. Complicated changes are hidden in budget bills. Debate is curbed. With no ability to introduce amendments, without the guarantee of full committee study and without waiting to see if the bill will be changed in the other place, my concern is that we are truly becoming the thing that offends me to my core: We are becoming a rubber stamp.

The voters passed judgment on this government last fall and, in their wisdom, offered only a minority: a limited hold on power. There was a message from the voters: “We want checks and balances on what you do.” Yet, through a side deal, the government has now engineered a majority. So, given that, we must be, more now than ever, the check and balance in the process.

Our committees are capable of doing great work. We have been waiting to get back to our real work, stymied as we have been by technology, by lack of facilities and translators and by being considered second class when it comes to access to resources. We want the tools and the time to do our work.

The senators on the Transport Committee, of whom I am one — although I have been denied the right to participate because of hybrid scheduling — and all who remain bring a breadth of experience and expertise to any issue. I look forward to a careful examination of Bill C-11. But already under a constrained calendar, with very limited resources, and committees meeting just once a week, this is going to be a tough task.

At the Banking Committee, we have been asked to examine key components of a budget bill and Bill S-6, both of which make sweeping changes to a whole range of important laws in this country. Clearly, we do not have enough time, yet again, to address the increasingly complicated legislation. Changes to the Copyright Act and the Competition Act, which were quietly shoehorned into the budget, need and deserve more time to be carefully considered. But we are no longer afforded that right due to some contrived, I think, politically driven declaration of urgency. This trend is troubling.

Increasingly, government bills receive much less time in committee, and too often we hear from witnesses from the department or the minister, and there is little time for the critics or the concerned or even those who simply want to know why, when and how come.

Is this a fulsome examination of something as complex as a budget or changes to regulatory regimes or a bill that changes how Canadians fundamentally communicate with each other and interact with the internet?

I would like to make one final comment on this process. This debate on the pre-study motion is exactly the kind of healthy dialogue needed in this chamber. Let’s have it. Let’s have it out. Why? Because it is much more difficult to undo bad legislation than to get it right the first time. It clogs our courts and costs taxpayers and consumers unnecessarily.

Colleagues, I think it’s important that we remind ourselves of our unique role, why we exist within not only the parliamentary process but also the political world. As independent as we all believe we are, we must pass judgment on the actions of the government of the day. To believe that this motion for pre-study is somehow purely intended to give the committee more time, a gesture to afford us this luxury, would be naive at best, something I do not believe any of us are.

But I also find it an affront that someone in the other place would believe that this chamber could be tricked by such a transparent proposition.

And claiming that we’re wasting time by debating this motion is an insult to my intelligence and yours and undermines the very commitment when we swore in our oath to do the work necessary and to preserve the rightful reputation of the upper house and of Parliament itself.

So I ask, colleagues, let us not drift complacently into irrelevance. Let us not ignore the political or economic consequences of what we do. Let us not forfeit our very basic right to speak our minds, to fight in the arena of ideas and difference and not be silenced by political correctness or pressure or fear. Let the government do its homework before we do ours. It’s their job. Hash it out. Don’t silence the critics or shut down committees or curb study.

Let’s wait and see what the bill looks like when the fight has been had in the political arena.

Let’s not fall for the procedural games of any government. Please, colleagues, join me in voting against this motion for the sake of the Senate today, for those who will follow us into this chamber and for the oath we took. It is surprising what we may find when we shine a little light on some of the dark corners. Thank you.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Would the senator take a question?

Senator Wallin: Certainly.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. Certainly, today, a lot is being said in the Senate, some direct, some indirect and some with innuendo, but the debate is really important. I would like to maybe even think about calling out the elephant in the room. I think we are all quite familiar with our former governor general, Mr. David Johnston, who wrote a book on trust and 20 ways to make this country better.

To you, my question is: Are we talking about the debate about having a pre-study, or are we talking about trust that the process and diligence that are supposed to take place, that we hear in the Senate, are going to be done in due course?

Senator Wallin: They are inextricably linked. To be asked to do a pre-study on the promise that we will have all of the time in the world is one thing, and many other senators, myself included, have heard other comments and other suggestions about what the real intent is. Of course, trust is at the core of it. I think this was part of Senator Tannas’s point.

We have a different relationship with one another in here than we see in the other place all too often. I am sitting on a joint parliamentary committee, and it is a frustrating process. I’m trying to clean up my language because we are here in the Senate.

We need to preserve that difference and a different approach. It’s hard because, of course, we are dealing with government legislation. As I said, that’s our job. We get to pass judgment on it, whoever the government of the day is, and whatever it is that we may think about particular bills.

But as for this process of saying we must get this pre-study done — and I think timing is part of it — if we were talking about a pre-study with months of runway in front of us, we might have a different feeling in our gut. But when we’re talking about the crisis that is at hand if we don’t start this pre-study tomorrow morning at dawn, then something goes off in my mind. I mean, I have been in and out of this city for decades covering politics and being part of the process in different ways, and my instinct tells me that you have to be wary. If somebody wants something so badly, and they want it now, let’s examine that. Let’s look at that. Let’s think about why. Let’s look at what their potential motivations might be — I’m not saying they are horrible people. Governments get to decide what they want to do. We get to decide what we want do.

I’m just saying let’s be intelligent and critical thinkers, and let’s take those gut instincts into account.

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Motion No. 42, which was moved on May 18 by the Government Representative in the Senate. It concerns a pre-study of Bill C-11, which seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act and is currently being studied in the House of Commons. I was appointed to the Senate as an independent senator in November 2016, and since then I have had the opportunity to participate in some pre-studies of bills dealing with all manner of subjects.

One that stands out was the pre-study of the medical assistance in dying bill, which I participated in as a member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In that specific case, our study of the principles and objectives of the bill enabled the committee to broaden its consultation and thereby take a deeper dive into all aspects of what was a very sensitive issue for people. If you were following the debate at that stage, you most likely know that the committee heard from numerous witnesses with highly divergent if not diametrically opposed viewpoints. They helped the committee zero in on the main issues with the bill.

The Senate’s sober second thought is not confined to a rigid procedural cycle.

I would note that rule 10-11 reads as follows:

The subject matter of a bill originating in the House of Commons may be referred to a standing committee for study at any time before the bill is received in the Senate.

The Senate is not required to wait for a bill to be passed by the House of Commons before it can begin its study. That is not our role as a chamber that provides sober second thought on legislation. We have the authority to make decisions about how we conduct our work on the bills that the government introduces.

Honourable senators, we have a duty to study the underlying issues of a bill as comprehensively as possible. We must find ways to make it clear that we want the public to participate more in our debates. Pre-studies of bills allow us to hear from more Canadians and more organizations on the issues that we are studying.

We are still governed by criteria that were set out in the last century, even though the public is much more educated. The Canadian public now has just as much expertise as we do in government and in Parliament, including here, in the Senate. We must acknowledge that and adjust our methods accordingly.

The Canadians we are today want to be more directly involved in democratic debate and decision-making. That is what we are hearing.

A pre-study is an educational exercise that is most important to us, senators, if only to provide the means to understand all the details of a bill, especially when it seems complex at first glance. A pre-study also provides an opportunity for hearing as many interested people and groups as possible, and to shed light on the views of Canadians as a whole.

In my opinion, pre-studies could become part of committee activities every time a bill meets certain criteria, including if it deals with a key element of public policy that has not been reviewed recently, if it deals with an element of public policy involving a significant change to a legislative or administrative regime, or if it deals with a controversial social issue on which it is difficult to obtain a consensus initially.

Nothing prevents us from establishing the criteria that would help us decide when a proposed pre-study would be appropriate.

Honourable senators, I am of the opinion that Bill C-11, which the government has stated has the objective of overhauling the Broadcasting Act, and in particular to make it more inclusive, meets the criteria I just set out.

First, it represents a major update to Canadian broadcasting policy, and it is intended to ensure that streaming services contribute to the creation and offer of Canadian music and literary works. Culture is the foundation of a society. The means of disseminating culture constitute an essential service and must be updated to fit the digital world.

However, the genesis of culture is found in the works of the creators, without whom we cannot talk about culture. It is important to remember this and to ensure that the work done by these creators is recognized for its value and its worth, which includes the fact that many others are able to benefit from their work. It is also important to ensure that copyright for their creations is respected and remunerated accordingly.

Honourable senators, Bill C-11 must be closely examined, particularly from this perspective.

Second, it extends the application of the current legislation to online broadcasting undertakings, but exempts them from the licensing requirement. What effect does this exemption have on creators? What benefit do they get from this exemption relative to businesses that are required to hold a licence?

Third, Bill C-11 proposes a new order regime under which the CRTC will be able to impose different conditions on broadcasters, particularly regarding program content. However, the CRTC could also decide that its orders will apply to only one, some, or all of the licence holders. If the CRTC is granted this discretionary power, will it choose to favour one or more categories of businesses?

The bill also amends cabinet’s powers to issue directives to the CRTC and gives the government more time to ask the CRTC to review or reverse its decisions.

Also, what are the views of Canadian and Quebec creators, including anglophones and francophones, creators of all categories of works, when it comes to respect for copyright and the rights of performers in the new regime set out in the bill? What are the views of the groups identified in Bill C-11, namely official language minority communities, Indigenous peoples and people with disabilities? Have the general public’s views on the new regime been sought, considered and documented?

Honourable senators, for all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Motion No. 42, which calls for a pre-study of Bill C-11.

[English]

Senator Dean: Well, are you done?

Colleagues, I want to speak briefly to support pre-study of Bill C-11. I want to start with a very short overview of the complexities surrounding the bill to preface my remarks. I have just three pages of remarks.

As you all know, Bill C-11 is designed to modernize broadcasting regulation in the face of revolutionary changes in the creation and consumption of online content in a context that is very much without borders.

Bill C-11 also aims to achieve more inclusivity of people who have been somewhat marginalized in the broadcasting landscape. Large swaths of this landscape are entirely unregulated, and they remain outside the requirements of other producers to create or contribute to the creation of Canadian content.

It is multivariate in nature, as Senator Simons pointed out, and some vocal opponents of Bill C-11 would like to keep it that way. Or, at the very least, they would prefer not to be enveloped by a regulatory framework developed previously for what they might term as “legacy broadcasters.”

Now, colleagues, there is nothing unusual about this in the world of regulation; absolutely nothing. There is nothing unique about it. In the regulatory sphere, colleagues, when it comes down to it, the unregulated rarely embrace regulation in any field. This is not a digital issue; it is a regulatory issue.

As you know, the first effort to regulate this ever-evolving and expanding landscape of digital content creation and consumption was represented in Bill C-10, which was set aside and has made way for Bill C-11. For its part, the government maintains that it has addressed in Bill C-11 some of the concerns raised by opponents of Bill C-10.

Now, colleagues, we have a considerable range of views on Bill C-11 with compelling arguments from those in the streaming services, traditional broadcasters, Canadian artists and creators and consumers of their content. These stakeholders have all raised big, complex issues that require a lot of time to examine. We will not be able to get a grasp of all of them, but a pre-study would allow us to look at four or five big-issue areas, to unpack them a bit and start to explain them to senators. This will be an iterative process, which makes sense. I don’t believe that anybody is rushing into anything. It is about learning, not rushing.

This would be a good pre-study service. It would mean we were all starting from the same point, and we need sufficient time, as a lot of people in this room have said, to start unpacking the bill and move us along a learning curve.

With the revised bill, with all of its complexities on its way into the Senate, why would we not start to carefully weigh the bill and the issues and questions arising from it to reduce the burden of a cold start, to complete an assessment, to get us started and to see if differences can be reconciled?

Colleagues, a pre-study could pass issues, dig into the issues and move this beyond the current polemic. The study of former Bill C-10 in the House of Commons heard from 128 witnesses over 28 meetings. We are now being told that Bill C-11 cures some of those issues identified by witnesses. Why not take a look at that? Why not hear from some of the same witnesses? That would be a good start.

Colleagues, I see this as part of the start of a linear process, not a race to the finish line. To allude to a comment made earlier, I see no buffalo in the room.

Similarly, many colleagues in this chamber have cited problems with the former Bill C-10 during second reading debate, and this would also be an opportunity for them to assess the changes in Bill C-11. We would all benefit from these sorts of analyses.

We did this in various ways with legislation on medical assistance in dying. We did it with cannabis reform, albeit more informally; we initiated vigorous research and debate among those interested in learning about that bill, and that included both supporters and detractors — and I can tell you that there were more detractors than supporters in this place when we started the debate of Bill C-45.

It readied us for our formal debates on those bills and for proposed amendments. This has, obviously, been done in many previous pre-studies in the Senate, including bills that had recently been referred to committee in the House of Commons. I’m not going to repeat the history of Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, both of which were studied concurrently with committee work in the House of Commons.

So, colleagues, I am not sensing that we’re breaking new ground here. I’m not seeing anything revolutionary in this. I am not seeing anything radical in this. The Senate has done it before in similar circumstances, and in doing so, the Senate has contributed to positive outcomes.

I am not sensing a rush. I am not sensing a runaway train. I am hearing a lot of rhetoric about runaway trains, though.

This is exactly what we should be doing, and what I suspect many of us want to do, because it is consistent with our constitutional mandate and responsibilities — to study bills. I am not hearing anyone talking about rushing this work, other than critics of the pre-study. This is not an emergency.

I am not supporting the pre-study because it is rushing anything; I am supporting the pre-study because it is important and I believe it can add value. I am saying nothing more than, “Let’s get on with it.”

Let’s contribute and add value to proposed government legislation. Let’s roll up our sleeves, colleagues, and give the very best of our advice and experience. That is what we should be doing. That is why we are here. That is our responsibility, and I am saying, “Let’s get on with it.”

Thank you.

Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Dean.

Let me start with a quote: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Senator Dean, I would hope that you would do the same thing, and in your preamble, you chose, rather, to drive wedges again in saying or intimating that when people don’t agree with you, they somehow don’t have the right to their beliefs.

This is a political chamber. I take no issue with somebody scrapping with me in this chamber and then going and having a drink with that individual after the chamber rises. This is a chamber of debate where different opinions are expressed.

Senator Dean, first of all, I do not disagree with probably 85% of your speech, which said, “Let’s roll up our sleeves; let’s get to work.” I agree with all of that. I don’t think any one of us here, any one of us that voted against the pre-study of Bill C-13, can be accused of not wanting to do their job or do their work. We happen to have a disagreement with you on what is important and how we should do things. That is why we have a vote. That is why we have bells. That is why we get together, and when the vote is done, it is over. I have accepted fully the results of the vote we had a few hours ago.

And then you feel the need to come in here and chastise us because of our beliefs. Senator Dean, my question to you is: Do you believe in the democratic system? Do you believe that I have the right? Would you defend to the death my right to my opinion?

Senator Dean: Well, of course I would defend your right to your opinion, and I would defend the right to the opinions of other people in this room. Absolutely. That is why I’m here. That is part of my responsibility. That is part of who I am.

If you took from my remarks that I was attempting to shut down anybody’s opinions, then I think you are mischaracterizing me, and I regret that.

I commented on the nature of the debate, on its divisiveness, on the fact that I thought that there was an excessive use of rhetoric and that I thought some of the comments that had been made by our colleagues in the Government Representative Office had been mischaracterized.

I stand by all of that without in any way acknowledging — nor do I want to shut down anybody’s right to talk and express their opinion. I have sat here, not left the chamber and listened to everything that everyone has had to say.

I was talking about the tenor of our debate, about the heat and the rhetoric of this debate, which is about a pre-study and a process. I will be honest in saying that I thought that I was hearing the intentions and the words of my colleagues in the Government Representative Office being mischaracterized. That is the way that I felt and I stand by that.

In that way, I was expressing my opinion freely, just as everyone else has in this room today. I am sorry if you did not like it, but we all have that right in this place. We have earned that right. We earn it every day and re-earn it.

Sometimes it is important to make a comment about the nature and the atmosphere of the debate, and that is all that I was doing. If I have offended anyone in doing that, I am happy to apologize. I do not think that I did. That was not my intention. I think the large majority of people in this room understand that.

Thank you, Senator Plett. I acknowledge your comments. I have nothing more to say. Just like anyone else in this place, I have stood up and offered my opinion. I am not going to make any apologies for that.

Some Hon. Senators: Dispense.

Senator Cormier: Absolutely.

Senator Cormier: Thank you very much for your question. Indeed, there are other topics to discuss. In fact, the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages is currently conducting a study on francophone immigration.

Bill C-13 addresses this immigration issue, among others, and proposes that the Minister of Immigration adopt a national policy on francophone immigration. In the context of a pre-study, we would have the opportunity to delve further into certain aspects, such as francophone immigration, for example. This of course would be useful with respect to modernizing the Official Languages Act, but I should also say — and I agree with you on this — that the issue of francophone immigration is an extremely important theme for the future of official language minority communities and for all Canadians.

[English]

Senator Gold: I notice you have a motion on the Order Paper to authorize the committee to meet at their approved time on any Monday that immediately precedes a sitting Tuesday, consistent with the recommendations of the Selection Committee. Would this not help manage the workload?

Also, am I correct in thinking that you had hoped to have a committee meeting this past Monday? Can you explain why you were not able to have that meeting?

[Translation]

Senator Tannas: I think we can. It comes down to some degree — and I will be frank — of a measure of trust that we do not wind up in a situation where we create the expectation that a pre-study equals that we know everything there is to know, so if we have a quick debate here, we can get this all done before summer.

I know the subtext is all the way through here; and I know Senator Gold has been clear, both in private and in public, that this is not going to be the case. But I think we will add to the heat, because it will become a narrative; it will, potentially, get in the way of the work that will be done; and it will add to the commotion that will potentially carry on in the House. I think that, in a controversial situation like this, we risk getting dragged, along with our reputation, into the game that is going on there, with whatever calculus and score there is.

I think there are many places for pre-study and that it is a good argument to say that this is sufficiently complicated or the timing is such — because of a deadline, a court decision or money — that we need to do it.

I just do not know why, if we say we are going to take all the time necessary — and it has never been directly said that June is off the table. Given the state of play right now, I think we risk signalling that we are in a rush to pass this, and I don’t think that is appropriate.

Senator LaBoucane-Benson: I am glad that you spoke about the complexity of the bill. The question I have for you is this: Do you believe the committees are masters of their own domain and that they will chart out the scope of the study and how many witnesses they hear from? The committee will make the decision as to how broadly the bill will be studied. If that takes us into September, so be it. Once we start the pre-study, the committee is in charge of that.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I want to speak on this important debate. I don’t want to debate the merits of Bill C-13 or Bill C-11, but my comments will equally apply to both the motions on the Order Paper, the current one and the one to follow.

Clearly, there is no urgency requirement, colleagues, in order to have a pre-study. I think anybody who attempts to make the argument that a pre-study is urgently needed here is doing nothing more than acquiescing to what may be the government’s agenda, for political reasons.

Senator Plett made a very compelling case in his speech about all the examples where pre-studies have been used. It’s an important tool in Parliament. It’s a tool we use whenever there is an urgent public interest in order to address an issue. We have seen it done time and time again. More often, it seems to happen toward the end of a parliamentary session because government wants to get something out before we rise either for the summer break or for the Christmas break. It’s not done ever, to my knowledge, because all of a sudden they — successive governments — want Parliament to dive into an issue for as long a time as possible, study it and analyze it because it’s so important.

That seems to be the impression we’re getting from our honourable colleague Senator Cormier.

So if this is such an urgent and pressing issue in the case of Bill C-13 and Bill C-11, why has the government putzed around for seven years before in both these instances of moving legislation forward? They haven’t because, clearly, there hasn’t been an outcry.

In the case of Bill C-13 and Bill C-11, if they don’t pass by the end of June — and, clearly, the government’s objective is to get it out of the House and this chamber as quickly as possible before we rise — but if it doesn’t happen, what will happen?

We have been operating with our Official Languages Act now for a very long time before this has come before us. Our Telecommunications Act and Broadcasting Act have been neglected for decades by governments. For this government, it wasn’t much of a priority either because they tried to drop it in this chamber on the eve of prorogation last year around this time, before they were going into an election.

I have come to the conclusion that this pre-study is an attempt to do what governments historically have done when it’s not an urgent public issue: They usually try to use a pre-study and try to ram stuff through Parliament because it’s controversial. There is no consensus; there are two sides that just don’t agree. As a result, governments don’t like for such bills to linger. They don’t like them to linger in the House or in the Senate.

Well, I’m sorry to the executive branch of government, but as we have experienced with Bill C-11 — it was called Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament — we all understood what the government was doing and we stood up on the eve of the last prorogation as parliamentarians, in consensus, and we said that it required an in-depth debate. I was happy to hear Senator Cormier, who all of a sudden embraces pre-studies, say that it required a long and lengthy debate.

Now to the fundamentals of reality, Senator Gold. Again, we look at the life of this session before we rise for the summer. Normally, it would be at the end of June. Again, Senator Plett appropriately highlighted the challenges we’re currently having for our committees to meet in the actual times that we require to do our work, let alone add pre-study requirements to the government agenda, which is already taking up all our resources. As the House is adding more resources, the chamber here gets hurt with that reality as well.

If I can remind people of another government motion — and we should start reviewing these government motions a little more diligently when they are tabled — we were promised when we accepted the last government motion to extend until the end of June hybrid and virtual sittings that somehow that will be a catalyst in returning our committees to their times of two meetings a week, because we all have come to the realization that we’re not producing the output of work the way we used to as a chamber.

We were given the commitment that, if we support that government motion, committees will get their two slots a week and we’ll get back to getting this place revving forward and doing its work.

Now in addition to the government not delivering on that promise, they want us to add a pre-study to two particular bills that none of us see the urgency of getting out before June. All of us see that they are contentious bills and require in-depth study. We know that many, many witnesses have expressed a desire to come before the respective committees in order to address the issues. Yet the government continues to insist that we need to have a pre-study.

Furthermore — and I don’t want to repeat everything that Senator Plett said, because his speech was an outstanding one — the truth of the matter is these two chambers are independent in our Westminster model. If committees are going to do their respective work in a diligent fashion, they also have the right to amend bills, right?

We should not assume that they are going to be steamrolled through a House committee without amendments and steamrolled through this chamber and a Senate committee without amendments, particularly when we know that both these bills are controversial and that many stakeholders have concerns.

We have an obligation to independently hear the committees on both houses. We have an obligation to hear the debate in terms of second and third readings. What we particularly have an obligation to do in this place is to take the politics outside of all bills, including government bills, which inadvertently will happen on the other side. That is why it is called the House of Commons.

I think only where necessary should we accept the use of this tool of allowing pre-studies to happen in extenuating circumstances. We’ve done it many times when there is a public need, when we’re dealing with an existential crisis that requires funding and there is a general consensus and we know that there is a consensus from the public in order to get money bills through here quickly. We did it through COVID non-stop. If there is a particular crisis or emergency of sorts, again, we understand that we have to make exceptions, and then the traditional parliamentary rules in order to accommodate those public interests.

But, government leader, in both these instances, there is no emergency — we all know it and you know it — other than the fact that the government doesn’t want these two contentious issues to be dragged out in either part of our two chambers, because like any government they don’t like to get a headline where someone is criticizing their agenda.

The other thing I have to highlight, colleagues, is that this particular Trudeau government has not been very good at identifying emergencies. The last time that they had this chamber debating on something which was an emergency it was called the Emergencies Act, if you all recall. Some of us were up on our feet questioning that emergency at the time, and there were other senators who were embracing that emergency as the Prime Minister was running to a press gallery to basically say, “Sorry, I’m pulling the plug now, it is not as big an emergency as it was yesterday.”

So there is a track record here, government leader, of this government not being good at identifying emergencies and dealing with emergencies.

Again, I asked the question last week when this motion was tabled. I never got a legitimate answer from the government leader. Given the resource challenges that we have as a chamber and as a Parliament, given the fact that no one has made a compelling case that there is an outcry by the Canadian public either for Bill C-13 or for Bill C-11 to be rammed through this Parliament without thorough debate, the reality is even if we accept this pre-study, I still have not had an answer from this government: What is a timeline that you think is reasonable for this bill, government leader, to become law?

Because given our agenda the next three to four weeks both in the House and in the Senate it is very unrealistic to think even if there is a pre-study, even if a majority of senators here will stand up to support the government on this motion, I still find it difficult to believe, realistically, that this bill can pass, unless the government thinks that it is such an emergency that they are willing to keep Parliament here past the month of June through July and August — which, by the way, you had the right to do last year as well and chose not to, right? We need clarity on all of those things, government leader, and we have not had it up to this point.

For all of those reasons I have highlighted and outlined, I do not believe, colleagues, that this is in any way a compelling case for a pre-study, neither on Bill C-13 nor on Bill C-11, and, of course, we’ll leave it to the good judgment of this chamber to decide. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: I am not certain my comments will contribute much to the discussion, but we shall see.

I rise today in support of Senator Gagné’s motion proposing that the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages be authorized to study 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.

I am a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages and have been part of the study on modernizing this law, and I am convinced that such a study will enrich debate in the House of Commons and the Senate. This pre-study will not prevent the Senate from conducting a proper study once the bill arrives here. Believe me when I say that we have waited too long for this bill to rush it through.

In recent sessions, senators have debated whether it would be appropriate to conduct a pre-study of Bill C-11. That discussion is also relevant to the debate on the pre-study of Bill C-13. In particular, several senators emphasized the benefits of the two chambers maintaining a dialogue in order to achieve a more refined final product that better represents what stakeholders and Canadians are looking for. I share this view as well.

[English]

The context of the pandemic and the hybrid session format makes it difficult to follow the usual committee meeting schedule. The uncertainty of committee schedules and the labour shortage that also affects the Senate is another reason to have a pre-study of Bill C-13 at the Official Languages Committee. It would be unfortunate, in my view, not to take advantage of the valuable meeting time that is available in the coming weeks to study the subject matter of the bill and to get ahead of the game. Giving ourselves time should be a priority in such an uncertain environment.

As Senator Saint-Germain pointed out in her speech on the pre-study of Bill C-11, many pre-studies of non-budgetary bills have been conducted in previous parliaments, including under previous governments. Therefore, we would be continuing a well-established practice. I thank the senator for providing the historical context in this chamber.

Also, the current political environment suggests that there will be sufficient time to do a proper study of this bill, in addition to the pre-study. This is a bill that official language minority communities have been awaiting for over 30 years. I believe that we need to give time and proper consideration to this quasi-constitutional piece of legislation, which is at the heart of Canada’s social contract.

[Translation]

I sincerely believe that, by proposing a pre-study with no constraints related to exchanges and procedure as we approach the end of the session, this motion offers us a reasonable and judicious way to begin our work.

Many of the stakeholders who have been waiting a long time for this have already expressed their concerns about some aspects of the bill. They are ready and we are ready, so why wait?

For one thing, a pre-study would enable us to be proactive in our study of the following aspects.

Stakeholders want Treasury Board to be designated as a central agency responsible for implementing the bill as a whole, but the bill makes Canadian Heritage responsible for exercising leadership in relation to the implementation of this act. We have to examine the complex issue of the central agency.

Next, the clause about francophone immigration policy does not explicitly state that the policy must increase the demographic weight of French-speaking Canada. Should this clause be amended to clarify its remedial purpose?

Many stakeholders are concerned about the fact that this bill does not contain a provision requiring the government to include linguistic provisions in agreements with the provinces and territories. What jurisdictional issues prevent the government from including a clause requiring linguistic provisions? Are there viable alternatives that could satisfy stakeholders?

[English]

The bill does not contain a provision for the disposal of federal real property, a long-standing request by stakeholders to facilitate the acquisition of such property by French-language school boards whose infrastructure is insufficient to meet the needs of their communities.

Finally, we must also consider how the bill will affect the English-speaking minority in Quebec. The Quebec Community Groups Network has expressed significant concerns about various issues that deserve our attention.

The Official Languages Committee has particular expertise in the reform of the Official Languages Act, having conducted an extensive study on this subject matter during the Forty-second Parliament. We should build on this expertise by initiating a pre-study as soon as possible, in parallel with the study of the bill by the Standing Committee on Official Languages in the other place. The other place could benefit from our knowledge. A productive dialogue between these two committees would be an asset to stakeholders and to Canadians.

[Translation]

This bill is long overdue and we need to do it justice. Esteemed colleagues, I urge you to support this motion to ensure that we can start studying the substance of Bill C-13 as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention.

[English]