Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, this is the story of Larry “Pretty Boy” Smith. He was, his friends said, always the best-looking guy in the room, but he kind of knew it. He is still the same, I said: perfectly coiffed hair, dapper, charming. But let’s turn to football.

In 1972, “Pretty Boy” Smith was the first overall pick in the Canadian Football League Draft, round 1, pick 1, then played nine seasons, always a running back, and won two Grey Cup championships, in 1974 and 1977. But 1975 was a different story. Eskimos versus the Alouettes, known as the “Als,” played in Calgary. It was bitterly cold. As was the fad, a young woman streaked the opening ceremonies. Many thought she was just looking for Larry.

But back to the game. Quarterback Jesse “Sonny” Wade completed a 23-yard pass to Larry. “That oughta do it,” someone heard Larry say, but then Don Sweet missed a field goal, and Edmonton won the Grey Cup by a point. But Larry had done his job. He always did. And he has two rings to prove it.

The man has a degree in economics and one in civil law. He was publisher of the Montreal Gazette before returning to his beloved game as Commissioner of the Canadian Football League, the CFL, in 1992. The league was in dire straits, so he tried expansion into the U.S. It didn’t work, but he relocated the Baltimore Stallions to Montreal, where they became the Alouettes.

His vision breathed life into a game that had been seen as a bit of an Anglo pastime and made it a passion for an entire province.

Of course, he later became team president and he has worked every day since to advise and guide and even help them find an owner with deep pockets and commitment.

So the résumé is impressive, very impressive, but he is also loved. I called a friend of Larry’s the other day. The two had careers almost in tandem as players and then as presidents of their respective organizations, the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Montreal Alouettes. Jim Hopson remembered the time that he and his daughter flew to Montreal at Larry’s behest for a game where they would be sitting with the Prime Minister. Montreal won, and the PM invited Jim and his daughter out for a celebratory drink. Larry didn’t get invited.

Jim later figured out, just as with everything else in the world, that there may have been a bit of politics at play.

The PM was Paul Martin. Larry was a bit more blue.

Larry ran for office and even contemplated a run for party leader but, in the end, he succumbed to the siren song of the Senate and served as Conservative Party caucus leader before coming to his senses and joining our team. His friend Jim said, “Just tell him he may have had a better career as a player and that he was prettier than me, but I went into the Hall of Fame first.”

So, Larry, better late than never.

Thank you for your love of the game; your commitment to the country; and for being a man with skill, determination, a sense of humour and a kind, generous heart. We take pride in being your colleagues and friends.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That the Address by His Excellency the Honourable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States of America, to members of both Houses of Parliament, delivered Friday, March 24, 2023, together with all introductory and related remarks, be printed as an appendix to the Debates of the Senate and form part of the permanent records of this house.

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on Senator Boniface’s Inquiry No. 10, calling the attention of the Senate to intimate partner violence, especially in rural areas across Canada, in response to the coroner’s inquest conducted in Renfrew County, Ontario.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional and unceded territories of Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation. The people of this nation are the original stewards of the land. It is important to show our humility, gratefulness and respect for their stewardship by acknowledging and thanking them. When we pay our respects to the ancestors, we reaffirm our relationship with one another. In doing so, we are actively participating in reconciliation as we navigate our time together in this place.

Intimate partner violence in Canada is a significant issue that disproportionately impacts First Nations, Métis and Inuit women, particularly in rural communities. In fact, 61% of all Indigenous women in Canada have experienced some form of psychological, physical or sexual abuse at the hands of an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 44% of non-Indigenous women.

While I’m specifically addressing Indigenous women within my speech today, I would like to note that intimate partner violence is not limited to race, sexual orientation or gender; it can and does occur across a great diversity of people and relationship types.

The overrepresentation of Métis, Inuit and First Nations women within intimate partner violence statistics cannot be attested to an isolated factor. It is a culmination of the intergenerational trauma experienced by Indigenous peoples, colonial legacies, structural and systemic inequities that exist within our institutions, the fragmentation of services and the deep sense of institutional mistrust resulting from those relationships.

One of the prominent factors relating to Indigenous women and intimate partner violence that I would like to highlight is remoteness. The geographic isolation of many Indigenous communities has exacerbated the violent experiences that many Indigenous women face. In rural Indigenous communities, police report that intimate partner violence incidents are 10 times higher than those reported in non-Indigenous areas. That is a staggering difference.

Aside from the sheer geographical isolation that may trap a woman with her abuser, remote communities often suffer from heightened poverty, social and psychological isolation and multi-relational factors that hinder confidentiality. What seems to be clear is that remoteness fundamentally equates to a scarcity of services. Shelter and housing, medical resources and legal supports are very limited in rural areas.

The fragmentation of those services across provinces, the discrepancies between federal and provincial services and eligibility issues often deter Métis, Inuit and First Nations women from seeking support. When they do, it is extremely difficult to obtain meaningful assistance.

In addition, health care and social services that are available to Indigenous clients are often devoid of any cultural sensitivity and fail to engage Indigenous knowledge, traditions and laws. The engagement of traditional practices and cultural knowledge and values is essential to accessibility, healing and program efficacy. Culturally safe services are essential to combatting intimate partner violence.

And while there is a great deal of work to be done, I’m hopeful today to share with you some of the important developments made by some Métis, Inuit and First Nations groups across the country.

An organization called Beendigen, associated with the Anishinabe Women’s Crisis Home and Family Healing Agency in Thunder Bay, is one of the many Indigenous-run crisis centres that provide a plethora of services to Indigenous women experiencing intimate partner violence. I believe Beendigen has recognized that service fragmentation is a key deterrent for Indigenous women seeking support. It provides crisis homes, transitional housing, counselling, support for children, prenatal care, family support, court support and addiction services, all with cultural and traditional knowledge at the very centre of their service provision.

Other Indigenous-led organizations, such as Warriors Against Violence in British Columbia, are developing a unique approach to addressing intimate partner violence. Warriors Against Violence prioritizes the principles of restorative justice and reintegration. It understands the prevalence of intimate partner violence within Indigenous communities and that it stems directly from a loss of community and values that have eroded throughout time.

Warriors Against Violence works to help Indigenous families unlearn abusive and violent behaviours and reclaim traditional values of equality, honour and respect. Using traditional teachings such as the circle of life at the centre of their prevention program, Warriors Against Violence operates with the guiding principles that the best way to end intimate partner and family violence is to help men heal and break that cycle and the patterns of abuse. Their prevention program includes elders, life givers, men and youth.

The RedPath – Living Without Violence treatment program is located in Peterborough and serves 400 to 700 people a year. It was developed in 2003 to begin to break down the persistent patterns of family violence and abuse, including both physical and sexual abuse, which have never been systemically acknowledged and resolved in most Indigenous communities. Over the years, the program has grown and is now offered at dozens of locations across Canada. It makes a difference with every person who participates.

RedPath is an Indigenous-specific model that was first developed as an emotion management program and was initially piloted and delivered within the federal penitentiaries. As a result of its great success, the model was then developed into an addictions treatment program, a pre-employment program and for living without violence, which can be used with abusers and those being abused.

The underlying model in all the programs teaches facilitators and front-line workers the crucial importance of emotional health. The RedPath program is integrated into existing health and wellness programs to ensure their effectiveness and success. This program is based on an Indigenous holistic approach to healing and self-wellness to address the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual aspects of the participants.

The most effective way to decrease problems that lead to intimate partner violence is through strengthening an individual’s identity and awareness. The core element of the intervention is to skillfully deliver tools in a group setting to provide participants with knowledge and awareness that all events and behaviours are interconnected with the past, present and future. These key concepts used to facilitate action and change are identification, communication, reflection and experience of emotions.

I would like to quote Redpath facilitator Tracey Whiteye:

As one participant told me RedPath is his ‘precious bundle’ it saved his life. He said that there is no other program out there like it — he had been to treatment centres, to grief and bereavement programs — but nothing has changed his life like RedPath — he even made his partner, and two children take the program which he says changed their lives. He said that it took him to areas that he did not know existed — to the root of his problems, where he learned to understand himself better — the roots of his childhood. It was not a surface program it uncovered the root causes and forced him to be more accountable.

Importantly, the Redpath program reconnected these Indigenous men to their Indigenous culture, identity and traditional ways. This helped the participants recognize the importance of their roles and responsibility to the family system as protectors and providers. For women and children and their families and communities, these Indigenous men were reunited back with their families as healthy fathers, uncles, brothers and grandparents.

The Redpath framework helped them in their ongoing healing and wellness in their continuum plan of care. Although these are just a few programs that are seeing success addressing intimate partner violence, there are many more across the country that must be recognized and thanked for their good work.

Honourable senators, while there is still so much to be done when it comes to the relationship between Métis, Inuit and First Nation women and intimate partner violence, I’m pleased that there are innovative, Indigenous-led initiatives that are not only aiding in offering support and access to services, but further prioritizing ideas of prevention and breaking the intergenerational patterns of abuse.

I would like to close by sharing a few key points that Indigenous communities and service providers have shared that they have found are vital in working towards ending intimate partner violence in Indigenous communities. For instance, honing productive referral pathways for Indigenous women seeking help while increasing access to crisis shelters and housing services, and developing healing and well-being services for Indigenous men. By implementing a cohesive approach, it facilitates the ending of the fragmentation of services that deter women in remote areas.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, working to engage Indigenous teachings within all intimate partner violence services and programs that aid in facilitating a culturally safe environment for Indigenous women seeking help.

As my honourable colleague Senator Boniface has noted, while our understanding of intimate partner violence has progressed, there is a long road ahead, and it is imperative that we keep in mind the disproportionate impact this issue has on Indigenous communities. Thank you, meegwetch, marsee, all my relations.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Woo, calling the attention of the Senate to the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the contributions that Chinese Canadians have made to our country, and the need to combat contemporary forms of exclusion and discrimination faced by Canadians of Asian descent.

Hon. Paula Simons: I’m honoured to rise today to speak to Senator Woo’s inquiry which calls our attention to the enduring legacy of the Chinese Exclusion Act, which passed into law on July 1, 1923, one hundred years ago.

The act was designed by the government of William Lyon Mackenzie King. It put an end to the old head tax system, and instead, slammed the door on Chinese immigration entirely.

The rules were strict. Only four classes of Chinese people were allowed entry: diplomats and government representatives; children who had been born in Canada but left the country for educational purposes, but only if they returned in less than two years; students who were attending university or college; and, in rare circumstances, merchants who had received special status from the Minister of Immigration and Colonization.

Ships that brought Chinese immigrants to Canada were only allowed to carry one Chinese person for every 250 tonnes of total ship weight. Those who’d been born here all had to register and carry photo identification.

The language of the 1923 act empowered the police to detain and arrest, without a warrant, any person of Chinese origin or descent whom they suspected of having entered the country illegally. Those who were arrested were detained until they could provide legal proof that they were allowed to be in Canada. Those who could not faced deportation.

The result, by some calculations: Fewer than 50 people, and according to some sources as few as 15, were able to emigrate from China to Canada between 1923 and 1947.

To put things in perspective, in 1921, Canada had admitted 2,707 immigrants from China. In 1924, we admitted just three, and by 1925, just one.

In his original speech last month, Senator Woo suggested that one of the reasons that the Exclusion Act has not received as much attention as the head tax may be because most of its victims were hypothetical, the immigrants who might have come here if only they had been allowed.

But if I may be allowed to disagree with my respected friend and colleague, that’s not quite true. The primary and very real victims of the Exclusion Act of 1923 were the wives and children still in China, who were not allowed to travel here to be reunited with their husbands and fathers. And since an estimated 80 per cent of Chinese-Canadian men had spouses and families in China, there were plenty of stranded families.

Because of the difficulty and expense of travel — made all the more expensive by the head tax — it had been common practice for Chinese men to come to places such as Alberta and British Columbia to establish themselves, leaving their wives and families behind, hoping to bring them to Canada later. Now that door was slammed shut.

By 1931, the ratio of Chinese men to women in Toronto was 15 to 1. In Calgary, there were 12 Chinese men for every one woman. In Vancouver, there were 11 times as many Chinese men as Chinese women.

Families were, in many cases, permanently separated, and family ties forever sundered.

Wives left behind in China often suffered from social stigma and cultural isolation. Meanwhile, the lonely bachelors in Canada often turned to gambling houses and brothels to pass the time, to the distress of Chinese community leaders. The Chinese Benevolent Association of Vancouver protested that the lack of women and family ties in their communities led to “an undisciplined indulgence in bad habits and entertainment.”

The result, of course, was to fuel racist beliefs that the Chinese themselves were culturally immoral, even though such “bad habits” were the logical result of creating an artificial and segregated bachelor society.

Eventually, the draconian law’s natural consequences became evident. The Chinese population of Canada started to fall dramatically. In 1931, there were 11,592 Chinese people living in Vancouver. By 1941, the population had plummeted to 5,973.

That’s all the more shocking and disturbing when you think that anyone who went back to China in that 10-year period was entering an active war zone, a country subject to Japanese occupation.

Between 1921 and 1951, Canada’s overall Chinese population dropped by 25 per cent. That was most assuredly a feature — and not a bug — of the Exclusion Act. It was designed by the racist Mackenzie King government not just to keep Chinese immigrants from coming in, but to drive those who were already here back out again.

It was not only Chinese Canadians, and would-be Chinese Canadians, who suffered as a result of the Exclusion Act. Canada, too, paid for its xenophobia and its bigotry by losing out on the talent and drive of those who were denied entry.

In this context, I think it’s illustrative to look at some of the extraordinary accomplishments of Chinese Canadians who came of age during the very time the Exclusion Act was in place.

Dr. Victoria Chung was born in 1897 in Victoria, the city which gave her her name. She was the first person of Chinese-Canadian descent to become a doctor — not just the first female physician, but the first Chinese-Canadian doctor, period.

In 1923, the year the Exclusion Act was passed, the Presbyterian Women’s Missionary Society sponsored Chung to go to China to work at a hospital there. But when she tried to come back to Canada, she was told she had been in China too long and was ineligible to live in the country of her own birth. Her parents made the choice to leave Canada to come be with her, forfeiting their right to return to the country where they had lived for decades. Dr. Chung could have fled China when the Japanese invaded. Instead, she continued to work as a physician and missionary through the war and the Chinese Revolution.

Peter Wing was born in Kamloops, British Columbia, in 1914. A successful businessman, he became the youngest member of the Kamloops Board of Trade in 1934. He went on to serve as the Mayor of Kamloops for three terms, making him the first Chinese Canadian to serve as mayor in Canada and, indeed, the first person of Chinese descent to be elected mayor anywhere in North America.

George Ho Lem was born in Calgary in 1918. His mother, Mary, was the first recorded Chinese-Canadian woman to live in that city. He was a dry cleaner, a restaurateur and a successful horse breeder who won two Alberta Derbies. He was a director of the Calgary Stampede board for 18 years. He was elected a Calgary alderman in 1959 and then went on to become the first Chinese Canadian elected to the Alberta legislature.

Gretta Wong Grant was born in London, Ontario, in 1921. In 1946, the year before the Chinese Exclusion Act ended, she was called to the bar in Toronto as Canada’s first Chinese-Canadian female lawyer. A graduate of Osgoode Hall, she went on to serve as London’s Assistant City Solicitor, the Director of Legal Aid, London, and as the first woman to head her local bar association. But then Gretta’s whole family was extraordinary. She may have been the duffer. Her two older sisters were doctors who had attended medical school at the University of Western Ontario, and her younger sister earned a PhD in biochemistry.

Douglas Jung was born in Victoria in 1924. He was 20 when he volunteered to serve in the Canadian Army among a group of 13 Chinese Canadians who volunteered for Operation Oblivion, a British Special Operations Executive mission to send secret agents into Japanese-occupied China to serve as spies and saboteurs.

After the war, Jung attended law school and become a successful lawyer. In 1957, 10 years after the Chinese Exclusion Act ended, he was elected as Canada’s first Chinese-Canadian member of Parliament.

Norman Kwong was born in Calgary in 1929 and grew up during the ugliest years of the Chinese Exclusion Act, but in 1948, at the age of 18, he began an extraordinary career in football. He played for the Calgary Stampeders for three years, becoming the first Chinese-Canadian player in the Canadian Football League, the CFL, and the youngest to win a Grey Cup. He spent 10 more glorious years playing for Edmonton, winning three more Grey Cups and earning the nickname “the China Clipper.” He twice won the Schenley Award for the most outstanding Canadian player in the league, and in 1955, he was named Canada’s male athlete of the year. He then went on to a successful career in business and became a co-owner of the Calgary Flames, making him the first — and perhaps the only — person to win both the Stanley Cup and the Grey Cup. After years of dedicated public service, he was named Lieutenant Governor of Alberta in 2005, filling the role with distinction and huge public popularity.

I could go on telling such stories, but I think these few examples illustrate my point. Just think of the extraordinary obstacles all those people had to overcome. Now imagine what we as Canadians lost out on with our self-sabotaging racism, all the talent and drive we turned away or drove away.

Now, we need to be extremely careful that we don’t repeat the mistakes of our past and let prejudice and paranoia cloud our judgment or lead us to question the patriotism and loyalty of Canadians based on ethnic origin. Let it be said: Serious, well‑founded allegations of interference by the Chinese government into provincial or federal Canadian politics should be properly, thoroughly and swiftly investigated. If and when they are substantiated, we must take firm action to safeguard the integrity of our elections and we should not be naive about the possibility of other nations’ agendas.

Let us be extraordinarily careful not to make lazy, dangerous assumptions about the loyalties of tens of thousands of Chinese Canadians. Asian Canadians have already suffered through ugly racism prompted by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. While those racist attacks are abating, it would be tragic indeed if ethnic Chinese Canadians — including politicians — were smeared as a result of anonymous allegations.

We cannot and should not allow foreign governments or foreign actors to influence our elections, whether that influence comes from Russia, China, the United States, India or elsewhere. We must take credible reports of such foreign influence seriously. In our haste to protect our democracy, we must not sacrifice our own core democratic values. I fear that some of the increasingly heated rhetoric around this issue, even if it’s well intended, is already having the result not just of defaming specific Chinese Canadians in public life but also of fuelling a corrosive suspicion of Chinese Canadians more broadly. There is nothing our various adversaries and agent provocateurs would like more than to sow suspicion and discord amongst Canadians, to see us turn on one another, to foster disunity when we most need to be united. Let us not make it easy for them.

As we approach the one hundredth anniversary of a dark and destructive chapter in our history, let us be sure to learn from our past, and let’s be sure that we remember and celebrate the extraordinary legacy of the historical Chinese Canadians who have enriched our nation and the accomplishments and leadership of the Chinese Canadians today who have given so much back to this country that we all cherish. Thank you. Hiy hiy.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for underlining the importance of the contribution of international students to Canada. The government is very aware of it and is doing much to assist and promote it.

The government works, as we know, with universities and colleges across the country, along with the provinces and territories, as you properly note, to help international students better integrate and flourish in Canada when they come for their studies. Indeed, the government’s response is more tangible than that. It includes investments through the International Education Strategy of $147.9 million in collaboration with the provinces’ and territories’ associations and institutions such that Canada remains one of the top destinations for international students to come and learn.

With regard to the visas, the government, through its agencies, is committed to upholding the integrity of our immigration system. Indeed, officials are trained in detecting fraud. They work hard to protect the integrity of our system, and will continue to do so.

There’s a fair procedural process in place for those students who might have been the victim of fraud, such as has been alleged in the press. Students will be given an opportunity to explain what transpired. The officers will take that into account, of course, when coming to a decision.

Senator Omidvar: Senator Gold, there is a rather straightforward solution, which is that the federal government should allow international students to tap into settlement supports. In this case, they may not fall vulnerable to extortion in housing and through extortion of other kinds that has led them, as we know — these are anecdotes but they are serious — to suicide, sex trafficking, et cetera.

Will the government consider opening up settlement supports throughout the country to international foreign students in need?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The government recognizes how important investment is in fundamental research and support for the Canadian research community. It is essential to all of the challenges facing Canada, especially health challenges, which became very evident during the pandemic. That is why, in fact, over the last five years, we’ve seen an unprecedented increase in such investments.

In Budget 2018 alone, the government committed nearly $4 billion over a five-year period to support the next generation of Canadian researchers. In Budget 2022 — I am glossing over a number of initiatives and details that took place in the years between those two budgets — the government announced $20 million to study the long-term effects of COVID and $20 million to increase our knowledge of dementia and brain health that will be funded over five years through the CIHR.

The government takes this very seriously. It is working with provinces, territories and institutions to make sure we have world-class researchers getting the support they deserve.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, in 2016, around the same time the Prime Minister was holding cash-for-access fundraisers with wealthy donors connected to the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, in Beijing, his autobiography was republished by a state-owned enterprise, which serves as a propaganda department for the CCP. When this was brought to light in the media in 2021, the Prime Minister’s former National Security Advisor Richard Fadden indicated he would have strongly recommended against it, as it’s a classic ploy to cozy up to the Prime Minister.

I’ve had a written question on the Order Paper since November of 2021, leader, asking whether the Office of the Prime Minister or the Privy Council Office were provided with any security warnings about the republication of the Prime Minister’s autobiography. I have also asked if Global Affairs Canada had provided any advice on this matter.

Leader, why doesn’t the Trudeau government want to answer my questions, or do they also want the Rules Committee to deal with it?

Senator Plett: Well, at least it was a brief answer.

The Globe and Mail reported in September 2021 that the promotional blurb for the book in China noted that early in Mr. Trudeau’s first mandate, he signed Canada up for the Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a development that happened over the objections of the United States. It’s interesting that Beijing chose this way to publicize the Prime Minister’s book when the Trudeau government is very secretive when it comes to this bank.

I have two questions on the Senate Order Paper on this matter. One question has been there for almost a year, asking if the Trudeau government will make any further payments to this bank. The other question has been there for two years, leader. What’s the purpose of us asking written questions for two years — since March of 2021? It asks how many middle-class jobs were created here in Canada by sending tax dollars to this bank. It is a simple question.

Why doesn’t the Trudeau government want to answer these questions, leader? And why don’t you want to answer these questions? Surely you have the resources to make the inquiries and get us these answers.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Gold, yesterday, the Auditor General of Canada released a report and noted that Global Affairs Canada was unable to show how the approximately $3.5 billion in bilateral development assistance that is prioritized each year for low- and middle-income countries actually improved outcomes for women and girls. While not arguing against the government’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, the Auditor General did identify serious reporting and accountability failures in monitoring the policy objectives.

Research conclusively shows that local women leaders are crucial multipliers in social, economic and democratic development, because women typically invest higher in their incomes and energy for their children and families, and because women never give up.

Investing in women’s empowerment is essential to reducing poverty, ending hunger, promoting democracy and achieving the global commitments of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Sadly, the Auditor General’s report finds that Global Affairs Canada missed an opportunity to collect evidence-based data to demonstrate the value of Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy and galvanize progress to reach these crucial global goals.

Senator Gold, what is the government doing to rectify these gaps in effectiveness at Global Affairs?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

The government values the work of the Auditor General, takes its recommendations seriously and is working to make its processes more effective and impactful.

The challenge with the ambitious agenda that the government has put in place — and it is an ambitious agenda — is not only to gather data on individual programs, but to aggregate it so that it can be analyzed. It is critical that we assess the impact that it’s actually having on the ground on the lives of women and children and, indeed, on all projects that we fund.

We have been funding significantly. Indeed, in 2021-22, 99% of Canada’s bilateral development assistance either targeted or integrated gender equality results, which exceeded the target of 95% by 2022 that the government gave itself.

The challenge is also one of timing, because the programs get up and running, money is transferred, and schools, clean water facilities and the like are built, but then the collection of the data and the analysis take more time.

The government is committed, and now believes it begins to have the data to then properly aggregate and analyze and make sure that our money is being well spent with the impact that it needs to have to make a difference.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I received a notice from the Government Representative in the Senate who requests, pursuant to rule 4-3(1), that the time provided for the consideration of Senators’ Statements be extended today for the purpose of paying tribute to the Honourable Landon Pearson whose death occurred on January 28, 2023.

Is it agreed to continue tributes in Senators’ Statements?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Since 2015, the government has committed over $120 billion and introduced over a hundred measures to support environmental action and climate mitigation such as banning single-use plastics, putting a price on pollution and making zero-emission vehicles more affordable. Under all of this, it’s just a scientific brute fact that climate action cannot be stalled.

Now, with regard to the report to which you referred, Minister Guilbeault responded quite clearly that he will be taking a hard, long look — I think were his words — as to whether we can hit our long-term greenhouse gas emissions targets 10 years earlier than planned. That’s under review by the minister, and he and his team will be studying the IPCC report very carefully.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: second reading of Bill C-18, followed by consideration of Motion No. 91, followed by second reading of Bill C-43, followed by second reading of Bill C-44, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare, for the second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Honourable senators, I rise in support of Bill C-18, legislation to enhance fairness in the news marketplace, which was sponsored by Senator Harder.

This bill is a necessary tool to level the playing field for Canadian publishers. For years, the publishing industry has been overrun without government intervention. Governments have stood by as an industry once comprised of local papers, owned by local proprietors and committed to local stories was overtaken by conglomerates and tech giants. These giant companies shuttered community newspapers, consolidated larger papers and established online platforms to become the dominant source of information.

Big tech companies like Google and Facebook have overtaken our Canadian publishing industry and fail to pay our publishers anything close to fair value for the right to share their work. Journalism is a pillar of our democracy, and we must correct this situation. Bill C-18 is a promising start.

The discussion on Bill C-18 has focused on Google, the world’s most popular search engine, and Meta, the company that owns Facebook. Both platforms are used by millions of Canadians, and both offer tools that allow Canadians to connect with friends and family and access information.

They have become conduits between people and news, especially local news. Unfortunately, neither company has lived up to the responsibility inherent in this new role, which includes protecting and promoting freedom of expression and dealing fairly with Canadian publishers in sharing their work.

These tech giants have monetized the work that publishers produce for their own gain, collected data on its readership and have taken steps to dominate the online advertising space.

In reviewing this bill, I draw upon my experience as the former publisher and CEO of two major daily newspapers in Saskatchewan. In this role, I saw first-hand what operating a newspaper looked like in the digital age. The business is simple: publishers — whether they operate online or in a newsprint format — depend on advertising and subscription revenues to fund their operations.

Advertising pays for the newsroom, the equipment and for all the people that get the daily miracle out every day and have done so for over a century.

This system worked well for years, even when the internet came along and turned the industry on its head. Today, however, circumstances have changed, and it has become impossible for publishers to receive fair compensation for their work.

Allow me to dispel some myths about this bill and the publishing industry. First, I’d like to address the fiction that publishers made little effort to adapt their products when the internet began to take over the medium. This is false. Publishers made great efforts to move their products onto multiple platforms. They tailored their news content and advertising, depending on whether a person was reading it on their desktop, their cell phone, their tablet or in newsprint. Unfortunately, these efforts were impeded by Google’s unfair advertising practices, and I’ll talk more about that in a moment.

Second, I’d like to address claims that this bill is being used to subsidize legacy media. Again, this is not true. Bill C-18 is not about trying to preserve old systems. It’s about ensuring that Canadian publishers are properly compensated for their work. Bill C-18 has nothing to do with propping up a legacy media.

Finally, I want to be clear that sharing someone else’s news content without providing proper compensation is not good business. It’s unfair and damaging to the free press. Depriving content creators of proper payment deters creation. That means less content for platforms and less credible news for Canadians.

Of course, using someone else’s work without reciprocity is not new in the publishing industry. Radio stations refined the practice of “rip ‘n’ read” decades ago. With platforms like Google and Facebook, however, that practice is elevated to a whole new level.

Google is not just the world’s leading search engine. It morphed into a dominant online advertising company. That’s not a hyperbolic statement. Google effectively owns the business of online advertising placement, and their anti-competitive practices have made it difficult for publishers to get their fair value for ad placements and hence difficult to thrive and pay for their publishing operations.

Colleagues, allow me to share a short history lesson of Google’s advertising business and, in doing so, help define the problem before us. In the early 2000s, Google began to increase its online advertising presence. Their goal, seemingly, was not just to compete in this space, but to dominate it. As an article in the National Post recently noted, “Google’s strategy wasn’t to remain a search engine, but to expand and control all online advertising.”

But it wasn’t going to be simple. To control online advertising, Google first had to take over its competitors. In the early 2000s they acquired DoubleClick, a company that held a 60% market share in the software that publishers used to sell ads on websites. While Google’s purchase of DoubleClick may have seemed like a simple corporate transaction, it forever altered the way digital ads would be bought and sold. Buying DoubleClick allowed Google to own the market. They now had a huge list of advertisers and owned much of the existing ad space online.

At the same time, they owned AdX, an ad exchange network that connected buyers and sellers. This gave the company a near‑monopolistic level of control over online advertising — maybe a quasi-monopoly. That remains true today, and Canadian publishers have tried in vain to compete in a digital world where buyers, sellers and brokers of ads are all working through a limited number of companies under one umbrella.

The numbers don’t lie. The United States Department of Justice suggests that Google has a 90% share of the sell-side inventory on the digital advertising market. In other words, Google controls nearly all the market space that publishers use to sell ads on their websites. By their own estimates, Google collects “. . . on average more than 30% of the advertising dollars that flow through its digital advertising technology products . . . .” I don’t understand why the United States Federal Trade Commission did not block Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick in 2007, but this is the reality publishers must live with.

The situation has become so bad that the United States Attorney General recently launched an antitrust lawsuit against Google for monopolizing digital advertising technologies. The United Kingdom has launched a similar suit. The United States lawsuit argues that Google has engaged in “. . . a systematic campaign to seize control . . .” of the online advertising market, and they further argue:

. . . that Google itself believes “increased competition between (its ad exchange) AdX and publishers . . . would increase publisher revenues by 30 per cent to 40 per cent.”

These statistics underscore one simple fact: Canadian publishers are forced to do business with Google because Google is virtually the only game in town. This allows Google to set the terms, and they’ve been denying publishers their fair share for years.

Critics of Bill C-18 have argued that the bill is being used to prop up failed publishers who had their chance to adapt and didn’t. That doesn’t add up. I know because I was in the business during the years when Canadians were embracing the digital world. Traditional publishers made huge efforts to move online, and many new digital-first publishers were created. Both traditional outlets and the new companies did their best, but they simply could not and still cannot compete in a domain where their ability to receive fair compensation is blocked. Canadian publishers are not unable or unwilling to adapt, nor are they suggesting they have an inherent right to Google’s money. They are simply asking for fair value.

I also want to address Google’s public response to Bill C-18, and to share my concerns with their recent actions. In February, Google made the decision to restrict some Canadian users from accessing news content on their search engine, with the explanation that this was being done as part of test runs in response to the bill. As we learned from Google’s testimony at the Canadian Heritage Committee in the House of Commons on March 10, the tests were targeted at “. . . less than four per cent of Canadian users.” That may seem like a small figure, but when we consider that Google has over 30 million Canadian users, that works out to over 1 million Canadians being restricted from accessing news content.

Google has a right to make changes to its products, to run tests and to modify its services. None of that is up for debate. But when Google decides to block Canadians from seeing news stories from their local publishers, that amounts to intimidation in the public square. We have a responsibility to challenge this behaviour.

We’ve seen this type of aggression from both Google and Meta before. In December 2020, the Australian government introduced legislation that required Facebook and Google to pay local media outlets for the right to share their content. From the time when the legislation was introduced until it was passed, both companies mounted significant efforts in Australia to resist the law. Google threatened to pull its search function tools from the country, and Facebook temporarily restricted Australian news and publications from being shared on their platform. Leaked internal messages from the company show that, during this time, Facebook went so far as to block pages for local police services and government pages containing public health information.

Google’s recent actions seem to suggest that they are looking for a fight. And now, just like it did in Australia, Facebook is threatening to block news content in Canada should Bill C-18 pass. We already have an idea of how this will play out: Google ultimately backed down from their threat to pull their search engine from Australia, and Facebook restored the ability to share news articles in that country after a few days. I had hoped both companies might have learned from their past experiences and would emulate a more responsible approach here in Canada, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

By threatening to block Canadians from local news even before the legislation has been voted on in the Senate, Google and Facebook have underscored the need for this bill. These companies have a tremendous amount of power over what Canadians see online. By choosing to restrict Canadians’ access, they reminded those same Canadians of the value that local news provides to communities. They reminded them that access to local news and information that is enlightening, engaging and entertaining is vital to them, and that private corporations appear to be messing with that which provides not only information on current events, but in many ways, respite. I think these companies may come to find that declining audiences lead to declining ad revenues.

In an update to their 2017 report The Shattered Mirror, the Public Policy Forum notes that:

Every community in Canada remains keenly interested in its own local affairs. Google and Facebook did not do away with that interest. But between them, Google and Facebook drained advertising from the news publications for which that interest was both the point and the business model. . . .

When we look at advertising revenues for community newspapers, that rings true. News Media Canada estimates that advertising revenue for community newspapers shrunk 66% from $1.21 billion in 2011 to $411 million in 2020.

We know that this legislation can work; we’ve seen it in Australia. Since their legislation was passed, Google and Facebook have signed deals with publishers worth AU $200 million annually. Canada needs Bill C-18 so our publishers can continue to do what they do best: hold powerful voices to account, which, for all intents and purposes, serves as a pillar of democracy.

Colleagues, credible journalism is the cornerstone of our democracy. I support Bill C-18 because it supports investigative journalism’s role in our democratic society. Journalism plays an important role in holding those in power accountable. It helps to foster a well-informed citizenry that can make informed decisions about the policies that affect their lives. In a complex and increasingly globalized society, it is more important than ever to be able to sort through the noise and find reliable sources of information. This means requiring tech giants like Google and Facebook to deal fairly with Canadian publishers and, hence, relevant investigative journalism reports. Parliament can make this happen. As a senator, I am duty bound to support Bill C-18. I believe in fortifying this cornerstone of democracy, and that’s why I established a scholarship fund for journalism at the University of Regina. Colleagues from all groups, I ask you to please help move this bill to committee quickly.

Thank you, hiy kitatamihin.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

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

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate) moved second reading of Bill C-44, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak, if only briefly, to Bill C-44, appropriation bill No. 1, 2023-24. The funding in the 2023-24 Main Estimates is requested through this interim supply bill and the full supply bill, which will be voted on in June.

Bill C-44, on the interim supply, seeks to allocate funding to federal departments for the first three months of the fiscal year. It seeks to withdraw $89.7 billion from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I want to once again thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance for their hard and careful work on a relatively tight deadline. The committee heard from witnesses from more than eight departments, including officials from Infrastructure Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Global Affairs Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

I will provide more details on the bill at third reading.

[English]

An Hon. Senator: Fifteen minutes.