The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do we have agreement? I hear a “no.”

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

On the Order:

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

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of March 29, 2023, moved:

That, when the Senate next adjourns after the adoption of this motion, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 18, 2023, at 2 p.m.

Senator Anderson: Based on my research, the only way to fix this bill is to go back to the beginning. Somehow, the people who were intended to inform this bill were not part and parcel of this bill. They were engaged after the fact, and there was no meaningful consultation. As an Indigenous person regarding an Indigenous bill on reconciliation, I fail to understand how the bill could fail to meet that.

(On motion of Senator Brazeau, debate adjourned.)

[Translation]

Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, I wish to speak briefly in support of Bill C-228 sponsored by Senator Wells, with friendly criticism by Senator Yussuff. I do so with a small amount of trepidation.

An earlier speaker this afternoon, whom I won’t name now, highlighted the risk of using the word “fairness” in our speeches. I raced through my own, and I see that there are five such occasions. I haven’t had the time to remove them, but this is a “fairness” warning.

I will limit my remarks to statements of principle on the topic of Bill C-228 and a second, related topic that I will address in the remarks.

I would like to begin by just observing that I think the central question at the core of this bill is how we value, respect and balance the respective contributions of capital and labour to a business enterprise. Before I do that, I would like to share with you what I think is a metaphor for this theme.

Last Friday, I had the honour of attending a speech delivered by President Biden in the other place, as well as an outstanding speech delivered by Speaker Furey that honoured him, our Senate and each of us individually, and I want to acknowledge that publicly.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for putting forward your views. I would like to, in my question, set aside the matter of the CBC because I think there are many other points of debate that come into it, and that polarized view held among some of us in this chamber won’t be resolved through this particular bill.

I spent a number of years as chair of the Ontario Press Council and then the inaugural chair of the National NewsMedia Council. It has been my experience that any newspaper that brings forward critical arguments, whether it is of one political party’s positions or another, is named “fake news.” I have heard it many times from across the floor as well.

Here is what I want to understand from you: The voices of those small community newspapers that many of us in rural Ontario and across Canada rely on have largely been cancelled out and have not been able to have the resources and the staffing to do local investigative journalism. They rely on The Canadian Press and other feeds.

Your proposal doesn’t address how this issue will get resolved. Surely some of the $81 million is better than nothing at all. Could you speak to what the solution is, please?

Senator Moncion: You talked about the education sector. Several teachers came to talk to us about the importance of making sure there’s nuance to this clause when it comes to the education system. We know that sometimes some children need to be restrained, if you will, because they get extremely violent and they lose control of their emotions.

I don’t know whether you have any comments to make on these restrictions that seem to concern the education sector.

Senator Dasko: Excellent introduction. Thank you for your comments, Senator Manning. I wonder how you would respond to the fact that the top three sources of news for Canadians off-line are the same three sources of news for Canadians online. What, in fact, has happened is that the revenue that went to the off-line organizations has now shifted to the platforms where Canadians go online. Essentially, Canadians are still using and still interested in what we might call the traditional media, but they are accessing these media increasingly online and not getting the revenue for it.

I wonder what your response to that would be. It’s not as if Canadians are abandoning traditional media. Of course, online, they can get a lot of other sources, but they’re still accessing those same sources online for news.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Money laundering is a crime, and we have laws against those crimes. We have provincial police forces, the RCMP and the Attorneys General in all of the provinces to enforce those laws.

This is a serious issue that has been raised on a number of occasions in this chamber with regard to what specific steps might be taken outside of specific investigations of which, obviously, no comment can be, or should be, made. With regard to any further legislative measures, I will have to make inquiries.

This remains a serious problem in a number of different sectors, and this government, like all governments, is committed to addressing it.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

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. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Batters, I want to start by commending you for sponsoring this bill. I have been concerned about this for a long time, and I think it is completely unacceptable for the term “child pornography” to be used in the Criminal Code. As you know, I work on these issues. Pornography is referred to as “adult entertainment,” and it is absolutely unacceptable for this term to be used to refer to sexual exploitation.

That being said, the term likely dates back to another time when no distinction was made and people were probably less bothered by its use. However, it is high time that term was changed, so I thank you for that.

I have a translation question for you that you may not be able to answer now. I have always used the French terms “exploitation sexuelle des enfants” and “matériel d’abus et d’exploitation des enfants,” but the French translation of the bill uses the term “pédosexuel” instead. It is not incorrect.

I just find it strange that the English version uses the term “child sexual abuse and exploitation material,” while the French uses a term that comes from the word “pedophile.” The term is not incorrect, but it is much less commonly used when talking about these issues. In general, we refer to child sexual exploitation, which is broader in scope.

You probably can’t answer my question right now, but perhaps the committee could check and see whether that is really the best term. If we really want to convey the gravity of this issue to ordinary Canadians, then shouldn’t the word “child” be used in the French version as well?

[English]

Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Miville-Dechêne, and thank you so much for all of the work that you’ve done on this very important topic. That’s an excellent question. I don’t have the French version of it with me, but that’s something that I’m sure we will study in great detail at committee — we want, of course, to have the best possible translation and words being used because, as I said, words matter, in French or in English.

Hon. Marty Deacon: Senator Batters, thank you so much for your time and collaboration with the House, and for sharing it this afternoon. I know it’s late in the day, and people are tired, but it’s really important. I think it’s timely — I can’t even use the word “pornography” when I’m talking to the families of people I work with. I find it absolutely disturbing, uncomfortable and insulting in 2023.

With that being said, I’m really quite happy to see this at this time — the data is alarming, disturbing and gut-wrenching. I’m not a lawyer — by changing the term, I wonder what that does in the latitude, the possibility and the work that a lawyer can do. Does it also change the scope and the reality of that work, in addition to finding the importance of calling this what it is?

Senator Batters: It certainly does not impede the work of a lawyer. They took great care — I believe there’s even a particular section in the bill, and certainly in the work that was done in the House of Commons and at committee. Certainly, at the Senate Legal Committee, we will ensure that this is only a change in the term. It in no way impacts any of the definitions. Every single part of the bill simply intends to make that change from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material.” I’m a lawyer; Frank Caputo is a lawyer — we want to ensure that this helps the situation. None of us want to do anything to impede that, and we’re quite confident that is the case.

Senator M. Deacon: I was referring to the enhanced part, not the impeding part so much. There have been interesting cases, and I’m wondering if it also, perhaps, enhanced your work.

Senator Batters: Yes, as I indicated in my speech — and I’m sorry that it went on for a while, as it’s very dry in here, so I’m sorry about my voice on that. Certainly, this is something that’s being done internationally. There’s hope that it will be more understood by the general public that this is not something that should be even potentially considered as entertainment, art or anything like that. This is degrading, disgusting material. This is abuse of these children who are forced to be in this scenario. This is not for entertainment. Yes, I’m hopeful that it will help improve the situation, even in a small way. Thank you.

Senator Cotter: It’s a great initiative — and great research on your speech. Thanks from all of us for the work you did here. Your friend and colleague Frank Caputo is my former student; I feel bonded to this issue in a certain way. It reminds me of how old I am.

My question is as follows: I agree with you that words matter, but do you — or the sponsors of this bill in the House — have a view about their comfort level around the substance of the offence as well? You mentioned high levels of conviction in Saskatchewan in cases where charges are laid, but what’s your read on that, and whether that’s also a dimension of what might need to be considered here?

Senator Batters: Thank you very much, Senator Cotter. I was going to mention that not only is Frank Caputo a proud product of the University of Saskatchewan law school, but so is the judge, Greg Koturbash, whom I quoted in that case. I don’t know if you taught him as well — anyway, thank you. Kudos for U of S Law.

That’s the thing about private members’ bills. The most successful ones try to take a particular thing and make that change.

So perhaps there is something more to be done about the definition or what have you, but this is the particular part that Mr. Caputo and Mr. Arnold decided to go with, and I think that’s smart. Sometimes a private member’s bill can get a bit too all‑encompassing.

Perhaps that’s something to look at in the future, but this is what we’ve chosen to do right now. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Ontario), debate adjourned.)

Senator Plett: Leader, isn’t it embarrassing that the Prime Minister used President Biden’s visit to hide the truth from Canadians?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, time has expired. However, Senator Anderson, three senators seem to have questions for you. Are you asking for five more minutes?

Senator Anderson: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is it agreed?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Ask the question.

Senator Clement: Grand Chief for the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne Abram Benedict told my office that his community is concerned about the evolving situation, too. Akwesasne residents have to pass through the Cornwall port of entry, sometimes multiple times a day, in order to do business, go to work or school and seek health care. Long lines and appropriate staffing are already a challenge, he said. Now, wait times are expected to be even longer as more and more people come to the border seeking asylum.

How will the federal government work with communities like Akwesasne to ensure that residents can travel safely without impediment? How can we ensure the Canada Border Services Agency is properly staffed to minimize disruption to residents of Akwesasne and Cornwall?