Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: As you know, Senator Simons and I are both members of the Transport and Communications Committee. We have discussed this bill at length. We received witnesses together — or should I say, lobbyists — to try to understand the situation a bit better. I subscribe to your analysis and I totally agree that it is complicated, that there are not just two parties, but many parties. However, I believe that the issues are very important. It is, in part, about the survival of the Canadian culture as we know it. Yes, we must change things; yes, we must innovate, but we nevertheless have a duty to protect this Canadian culture. How can we do that in an environment that is completely different?

How does starting a pre-study next week, when we could begin to receive witnesses who would give us a comprehensive view and people who are knowledgeable about the technology, prevent us from conducting a study that would no longer be a pre-study when the bill comes to the Senate? I do not see how that changes anything at all. We are seated in a room, we receive witnesses, we listen to them, we ask questions. What is the difference between a pre-study and a study we could do at that stage, which would be an extension of the other?

Hon. Claude Carignan: Would Senator Cormier take another question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now six o’clock. Pursuant to rule 3-3(1), I am obliged to leave the chair until 8 p.m. If you wish this session to be suspended, please say, “suspend.”

The Hon. the Speaker: The session is suspended until 8 p.m.

(The sitting of the Senate was suspended.)

(The sitting of the Senate was resumed.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, introduced in the House of Commons on February 2, 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted to answer the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Simons, I’m sorry, but before you answer, your time is expired. Are you asking for five minutes to respond?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before calling upon the next senator, I should point out that we are debating Motion No. 42, the substance of which is whether or not there should be a pre-study of Bill C-11, not the substance of Bill C-11. We have a fair amount of leeway when it comes to speeches and questions and answers, but, please, we’re debating Motion No. 42.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Gold, seconded by Senator Gagné, that in accordance with rule 10-11(1) — may I dispense?

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell?

The Hon. the Speaker: Forty minutes. The vote will take place at 10:02. Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

The Hon. the Speaker: If you are opposed to the motion please say “no.”

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry, Senator Plett, but Senator Dean’s time has expired.

Senator Dean, are you asking for more time?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “nay.”

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear a “no.” Those in favour who are in the Senate Chamber will please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?