Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Simons, thank you. That was another eloquent speech by you. It’s much appreciated.

I particularly like the phrase that you brought forward from the Conservative strategist about a “thought scam.” I’ll elevate my language because I have been calling it a “bot scam.”

Quite frankly, it’s not just Bill S-233; this began immediately following the occupation that took place in Ottawa. It involved communications legislation, which you were just referring to, and others.

(1550)

It is absolutely clear to me that a large majority of these have been electronically generated. When they come in 1,000 at a time and they have very similar themes, you know those are not individuals.

I have also reached out — when it appeared to be a genuine, individual person — to discuss it, to tell them my views, to tell them what I think the reality is, but the other ones, any that I have tried to reach, there is no reaching because there is no person. This is fundamentally an issue of an undermining of democracy.

Do you, Senator Simons, think there is, beyond our individual actions, a collective response from the Senate that should be taken? The leaders of the various groups in the Senate, some of whom —

Senator Woo: If I could follow up again, your non-answer would seem to suggest that the cultural organization would, in fact, be covered under the registry, even though you said it would not be in your speech. Presumably, other organizations, such as alumni associations, sporting groups, municipalities, again under the direct or indirect control of the state, would have to be registered if an individual representing that entity were to speak to a parliamentarian or indeed with a senior official.

In that situation, where essentially every legally constituted entity in the People’s Republic of China would have to be registered under this act, would you not agree that the assertion of the two authors in the op-ed about the circulated “disinformation” in text messages and WeChat posts saying that many entities and individuals associated with China would be targeted under Mr. Kenny Chiu’s failed bill was in fact accurate?

Hon. Stan Kutcher: Senator Simons, thank you very much for your extremely passionate, well-conducted and well-thought-out speech on this issue.

There certainly seems to be a coordinated disinformation campaign specifically around Bill S-233, but it’s not the only one we are seeing. Bill C-67 is another one, which isn’t even in the federal Parliament.

However, in addition to the conspiracy theories that have infiltrated all this communication, there has been increasing concern recently — although this has been going on for some time now — about the role of malicious state actors, particularly Russia, in initiating much of this kind of campaign, or in amplifying campaigns currently under way, with the clear intent of destabilizing democratic institutions.

You mentioned some ideas that we as parliamentarians need to be involved in for addressing this. Are there any specific things you can share with us that you think parliamentarians should be doing to address those kinds of disinformation campaigns?

Hon. Marty Deacon: Thank you for your speech.

Something I think we’re all thinking about is how we practise and do our work, how we are efficient and how we can do better. I have great empathy and respect for the day we spent before Christmas, on December 17, which was much guided by Senator Tannas. I thought that was a very important day. We took an extra day. I’m sure for some folks that might have even been a stressor going into Christmas, but it was good to have that day and to be able to step back from it.

I am continuing to ask my question — and thank you to Senator Lankin, also — on the problem we’re trying to solve. I hate to be that basic here, but I find that’s where I need to go back to because we do have a set of standards, a set of rules, that we follow. And we do have a problem that we all seem to look at, at the end of June and before Christmas, that we never want to be in again. We want to get away from this.

Is the problem that we don’t have the collective courage and understanding on how we can take the rules of the game in this frankly oversized sandbox — and I mean that in the kindest of ways; I really do, but it’s an oversized sandbox — of understanding how we can progress forward so that we are not sitting again — we might feel an artificial sense of security because we have heard — yes, we have heard — that we might be in a somewhat more stable position until 2025. I don’t know if it’s true or not, but we’ve heard that. So people might think, “Oh, well, this isn’t a rush because I think we’ve got some time.”

What is the collective courage that we need, in your opinion, to make this right within the rules of the game in this sandbox?

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question. You referred, as I also did in my speech, to courage. But courage is linked to remembering, each and every day, why we are here. We are here to give sober second thought to the government bills, to the elected chamber’s analysis of those bills, first and foremost, and to make sure that Aboriginal peoples, vulnerable peoples, regions and people who have no other voice than ours are duly represented. The courage is taking the needed time to do so but not to interpret and use the rules for other objectives.

We are also responsible for our own organization. If we interpret and use the rules in a way that is not aligned with sober second thought, we are accountable to Canadians for that.

Personally, I just don’t like having to rush at the end of a session but, at the same time, what if we never took the time to amend, when so needed, the bills that we really believe need to be amended at the end of a session? Do we then have the courage to send back those bills, to send back a message with amendments to the other place? I do believe this is part of the problem because then the onus will be on us for not having done our job in a timely manner.

But the first condition, I do believe, or the first goal that we should have, is to better organize our work. Frankly, there is a need there, and I think that belief is pretty unanimous.

To that end, I commend the Rules Committee for the work and the dynamism they are having now. I know that the Selection Committee, if and when it has to act, will be acting as well.

Senator Housakos: Thank you for that very thoughtful speech. Again, it was well articulated.

Senator Tannas, I hope we’re still friends after I ask the question, but we’ve done a fair amount of naval-gazing in this place. We’re always looking at the Rules. Of course, I’m not against the idea of constant improvement. Nothing is static. We should review the Rules.

However, I’ve been here a number of years, and at the end of the day, we have rules to give certain advantages to the government. We have rules to protect the role of the opposition. I’ve looked at the last few parliaments. Have there been any examples where we haven’t found a consensus to make sure the opposition’s voices are heard? Are there any examples where this chamber hasn’t respected the agenda and timelines of the government in order to respond to important issues, be it during COVID or what-have-you?

It seems that every time we engage in debate here, we need to fix something. I listened to your speech carefully, and it doesn’t seem that the proposition that we have here is fixing anything. Is it really fixing a problem that exists?

Second, we also have time allocation, which the government, of course, has hailed as a badge of honour due to the fact they’ve never used it, which it is, because it also indicates that we have found consensus among leadership, even though we’ve added so many leadership groups.

Would you agree that we’re not really fixing anything at this particular point with this motion?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I agree with what you said in your speech, but I wanted to ask a question about something specific that has always seemed very simple to me but that also seems to cause huge problems: our schedule.

The problem I have with Senator Tannas’s motion is that it doesn’t take into consideration what we can do to give ourselves more time to study bills. I have to tell you that it’s bewildering how, during the first months of a parliamentary session, we’re always rushed because of upcoming break weeks. We have very little time because of break weeks and our three-day schedule here. That said, our senators’ schedule is surely the main tool we have to work longer hours so we can study government and private members’ bills more in depth.

Ever since I arrived, it has seemed to me that we can’t expect any sympathy from the public if we say we don’t have enough time to study bills, especially if people take a close look at our schedule. I know what I’m saying is a little harsh, but I think it would give us a lot of power if we could all agree to modify the schedule.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Simons, thank you. That was another eloquent speech by you. It’s much appreciated.

I particularly like the phrase that you brought forward from the Conservative strategist about a “thought scam.” I’ll elevate my language because I have been calling it a “bot scam.”

Quite frankly, it’s not just Bill S-233; this began immediately following the occupation that took place in Ottawa. It involved communications legislation, which you were just referring to, and others.

It is absolutely clear to me that a large majority of these have been electronically generated. When they come in 1,000 at a time and they have very similar themes, you know those are not individuals.

I have also reached out — when it appeared to be a genuine, individual person — to discuss it, to tell them my views, to tell them what I think the reality is, but the other ones, any that I have tried to reach, there is no reaching because there is no person. This is fundamentally an issue of an undermining of democracy.

Do you, Senator Simons, think there is, beyond our individual actions, a collective response from the Senate that should be taken? The leaders of the various groups in the Senate, some of whom —

Hon. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I think there may be some controversy here. I truly appreciate your speech, senator. In addition to Senator Simons’s speech, this is an important moment in the Senate, with a laser focus on this. I want to ask you three questions.

First, you said that you didn’t think the registry was a silver bullet. Will you explain how the registry would work and how it will help? Embedded in that is an understanding of how some of this foreign influence takes place, that the people doing the targeting are not always obvious and that names could not always be added to a registry.

Second, if there were a criticism of your bill, what do you think it would be? Where could the bill be improved?

Third, is there something the Senate could do beyond passing or amending your bill to bring greater focus on this issue? Is there a joint project in which we should be engaging? Thank you very much.