The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-226, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy to assess, prevent and address environmental racism and to advance environmental justice.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. René Cormier: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages entitled Francophone immigration to minority communities: towards a bold, strong and coordinated approach and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

(On motion of Senator Cormier, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

Hon. Nancy J. Hartling: Honourable senators, March is National Social Work Month, a time to honour and celebrate social workers for their unwavering dedication to their profession from coast to coast to coast. I believe they are absolutely essential to the well-being of Canadians.

Thanks to the Canadian Association of Social Workers, to Senator Bernard and our staff who helped organize two virtual events during National Social Work Month 2023. Since 2019, we have been involved in social work events like this on the Hill.

This March, we were able to highlight two very critical themes, including intimate partner violence, in the context of Bill S-249, with our guest speaker Rina Arseneault, former associate director of the Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research in Fredericton. Our second session focused on poverty and the impact of a guaranteed livable basic income and Bill S-233, with guest speakers such as Senator Pate and Chrys Saget-Richard, a social worker.

Poverty and gender-based violence affect all Canadians deeply, and social workers are always there to provide critical support. It was a great opportunity to discuss the intersection of legislation and issues that affect all of us and to explore with social workers the process of how legislation works.

In addition, I want to sincerely recognize and thank all social workers, who have worked diligently throughout the past three years and who will continue to work hard during this post‑pandemic period. So often quietly doing work without much recognition, you are valued, needed and deeply appreciated. Also thanks to all the social work students who often carried out studies online.

In Canada, there are 52,823 social workers and over 2,950 in my home province of New Brunswick. These dedicated individuals work in many different capacities and workplaces from hospitals to schools, child welfare, youth and seniors care programs, addiction centres, correctional institutions, community agencies, universities and even right here, as policy-makers. Thanks a million.

As a parliamentarian and a social worker — you never stop being a social worker — I know that social workers are essential to navigating complex systems on behalf of the people they help, in particular, the criminal justice, health, education and employment systems. They are essential advocates for diversity, anti-racism and the elimination of all forms of oppression and marginalization. They are focused on the future where dedicated social workers continue to have an extraordinary impact on people in this country.

Our social worker motto is, “We support. We mobilize. We advocate. We are accountable. We are social workers.”

[Translation]

Thank you to all the social workers across Canada for your incredible determination and commitment.

I wish everyone a happy National Social Work Month.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, when Minister Freeland brought forward her first fall economic statement as finance minister in December 2020, she said in an interview at the time:

If you have guardrails on the road, they need to be physical and anchored to something. Once we start driving down the road, let me assure you, there are going to be some very clear, anchored, material, concrete guardrails there.

I want to draw your attention to a comment that an analyst made on the Scotiabank report on the budget, where he was quoted as saying:

There will be $171B more spending per year than they were spending in FY19-20 by the end of the projection horizon. At present it is 32% higher in FY22-23 than FY19-20. Minister Freeland calls that prudent; I beg to differ as she is the most free spending Minister of Finance this country has seen in a long time.

Leader, the Trudeau government has sold themselves to the NDP and stopped even pretending to care about fiscal restraint. There are names for people who sell themselves. I’m not sure whether it’s parliamentary language or not, so I will refrain from using it.

Leader, there are no lines that the NDP-Trudeau government won’t cross, no fiscal guardrails and no anchors. What’s left?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. This budget provides important assistance to Canadians who are struggling with the high cost of living and targeted measures to make sure that those 11 million households receive important help, while at the same time meeting the moment that our country is experiencing to make the necessary investments in our future, our children’s future and our grandchildren’s future for a cleaner energy grid and a more sustainable environment.

Indeed, economists and commentators quick to respond will have differing views, as there are almost as many views as there are schools of thought and ideologies amongst them. Since you cited one such analyst, let me respond with the words of the former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who wrote extensively in The Globe and Mail recently. He stated as follows:

In a high-inflation environment with dark clouds on the economic horizon, a credible fiscal strategy should demonstrate caution. Acknowledge downside economic risks. Limit new measures. Maintain fiscal rules. On balance, the 2023 budget has a credible fiscal strategy.

Our performance economically demonstrates this, colleagues. Our debt-to-GDP ratio in Budget 2022 was 42.4%. It has risen somewhat. Higher interest rates, to be sure, are contributing this year to 43.5% debt-to-GDP ratio, and it is targeted in our projections — consistent with the budget projections of last year — to fall below 40% within this decade. This compares to the debt-to-GDP ratios of 66% in Germany, 92% in the U.K. and 98% in the United States. We are leading the G7 countries in the important measure of debt-to-GDP ratio. It’s a testament to the responsibility that this government feels to Canadians now and in the future.

Senator Plett: You and I will both get our opportunity to make speeches on the budget in a few weeks’ time, but since you didn’t want to answer the question, let me answer it for you. I’ll tell you what’s left. That was the question.

What’s left behind by all the spending is debt that is beyond comprehension. Doubling mortgages is not helping the average person who can’t afford to make a mortgage payment. Canada’s federal debt for the upcoming fiscal year is projected to increase to $1.22 trillion. I can’t get my mind around a number that high.

Minister Freeland once promised Canadians that the pandemic debt would be paid down. However, according to the Jagmeet Singh-Trudeau government budget, the debt will never go down. By 2028, it will reach $1.31 trillion, leader. Let’s face it, if the NDP remains the driver of this government — and there’s no indication that they won’t — they will blow past that projection as well.

Leader, yesterday you said this was a responsible budget, and you alluded to that again today. I disagree with you. How can you say it’s responsible to leave a sky-high amount of debt for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to deal with? Is this the way you run your household budget, leader?

Senator Gold: I run my household budget responsibly. I invest now in my children’s and grandchildren’s future. This government is investing responsibly in our collective future.

You ask, senator, what is left behind. This budget makes sure it is not leaving Canadians behind. The new grocery rebate is providing targeted relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who need it most. It is addressing the hidden junk fees, such as higher telecom roaming charges, event and concert fees, et cetera, that nibble away at the spending power of those who can least afford it. It will tackle predatory lending by proposing to lower unreasonable rates of interest. It will lower credit card transaction fees, which benefits not only consumers but small businesses. It will provide automatic tax filing for more low-income Canadians to make sure they can file their tax returns to receive the benefits that too many miss because of either inability, a lack of knowledge of them or the fact they’re not filing.

The budget is helping post-secondary students to afford their education by increasing the Canada Student Grants Program and raising the interest-free Canada Student Loans Program. It will help Canadians purchase their first homes. The list goes on.

That’s what’s left behind: a legacy of helping Canadians as this government continues to do.

Senator Simons: Currently, our child pornography law encompasses things that are not actual depictions of children — it’s drawings and stories that are explicit and disturbing, but they are all encompassed. I’m wondering if there are any concerns that through this change of language we might accidentally narrow the parameters of what can be prosecuted.

Senator Batters: Thank you for the question. No, I don’t think so. I read out the exact definition. This does not in any way impact the definition. The House of Commons committee made it very clear that this was in no way designed to change the definition. When the courts are considering laws, they often look back to Senate committees, and they will also look back to the House of Commons committee consideration. As someone who sits on the Legal Committee, and as the sponsor of the bill in the Senate, I’m sure that we will have many excellent legal witnesses who will give us guidance on that. That’s something that the courts will look to — the speeches that are given and the committee testimony — in regard to definitions. I don’t believe that definition will be changed in any way — it’s simply to acknowledge the severity of this particular crime.

[Translation]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Government leader, what you’ve just highlighted over there is a spending spree that this government has been on for the last seven and a half years. Congratulations.

That explains, of course, why this Prime Minister has doubled the debt. He has created a bigger debt on his own than every other Prime Minister in the history of this country collectively. My concern, and the concern of this opposition, is not how you and I manage our financial affairs, because the truth of the matter is that I’m not concerned about people who are employed by the Government of Canada or the Parliament of Canada. I’m concerned about people who are working for Canada, who are being taxed to death and who are, right now, having a miserable time every time they go to the grocery store or try to pay for shoes for their kids to send them to school. Those are the people I’m concerned about.

My question is simple. In 2015, this Prime Minister made a commitment to the Canadian people that he would not have a debt run longer than two fiscal years, and he promised that he would balance the deficit by 2019. That’s what he promised.

The question is a simple one: Why did he lie to the Canadian people?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Senator Housakos, I will resist commenting on the fact that you have once again attributed to bad faith and, in some traditions, call a sin to our Prime Minister. It’s disrespectful and below this house.

I suppose the opposition would have preferred that, in the face of a global pandemic, we simply cut taxes and did nothing to help Canadians. I suppose that, in the face of the invasion of Ukraine by the Soviet Union, the opposition would have insisted that the government not provide the billions of dollars of assistance to Ukraine. Indeed, the opposition voted against the budget, which included such measures in it.

The fact is that this government has been here for Canadians and has responded to the circumstances and exigencies of events, and it will continue to do so. I repeat: It will do so in a way that has maintained the strength of our economy through the pandemic and beyond, maintained our credit rating and maintained our status as a country with the best growth in the G7 and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio.

Senator Gold: Senator Housakos, I’m not going to debate economics with you. I was a student of Friedrich Hayek before his name was famous, and I understand very well the different points of view.

It’s the position of this government that this budget is a responsible budget. If one canvasses the business community, those who are poised to profit from the opportunity to have funds to invest in the future of their industries — and investments that will bear fruit for our children and grandchildren in a responsible, creative and prudent way — this government is proud to stand on its record for being here for Canadians and investing in our future.

Senator Housakos: Government leader, the only thing this government’s wild and overkill spending has achieved is to create historic inflation that, again, is pummelling middle-class and poor working Canadians. This government is oblivious to the fact that interest rates can rise at any moment. That’s why, a year ago, we did have one of the best debt-to-GDP ratios in the world, as we did in 2015, but we are in decline there. We are falling behind. If interest rates go unexpectedly, about which you guys were shocked — it went from 2% a year and a half ago to 5% — wait until it gets to 7% or 8%. What kinds of excuses will we hear from this government then?

And yes, the Prime Minister lied; he misled Canadians when he made a commitment to balance the budget by 2019. In this town, we have to start coming up to speed with the fact that when we mislead taxpayers, we have to account for it somehow and not double down.

In this budget tabled a few days ago, your Minister of Finance has added $63 billion of new debt. Do you think that’s fiscally responsible when we’re on the eve of a recession?

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

Since IRCC began transferring asylum claimants to Cornwall in September 2022, it has worked closely with the Province of Ontario and the City of Cornwall. It meets on a biweekly basis with partners to discuss the respective roles and responsibilities, and the transfer of claimants, so as to ensure operational readiness.

Since the beginning, IRCC has been transparent with provincial and municipal stakeholders about the department’s plan to house asylum claimants in Cornwall and in other communities, given how so many have arrived through Quebec. It has passed along all available information at every step in the process. Furthermore, IRCC delegates made a trip to Cornwall in late January to discuss with officials the community challenges that came to light following the transfer of claimants.

IRCC is committed to working closely with its municipal partners to determine the future of operations when current hotel contracts are set to expire, and it will maintain open lines of communication.

Senator, you’re quite right to underline the challenge of human smuggling. It’s a global problem. It requires both domestic and international solutions. In that regard, Canada works closely both with its domestic and international partners, and the government remains confident in the ability of Canadian law enforcement agencies to work together to maintain the integrity of our border with the United States.

The changes in the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement are intended to deter irregular crossings between ports of entry and to reaffirm that foreign nationals should claim asylum in the first safe country they enter, whether it be Canada or the United States. Now that the terms of the Safe Third Country Agreement apply across the entire border, entering between ports of entry no longer provides greater access to Canada’s asylum system.

Again, the IRCC and the government will continue to work closely with the communities that are bearing the burden, costs and challenges of accommodating in a humane and dignified way those who are in Canada seeking asylum.

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

The global economy is undergoing what might be fairly described as the greatest transformation since the Industrial Revolution, and Canada, as a leading country, cannot allow itself to be left behind. Our friends and partners — notably chief amongst them, the United States — are investing heavily to build cleaner economies and the net-zero industries of tomorrow. That’s why the measures in this budget put a strong accent on helping Canadian businesses in Canada with their efforts to invest in the clean economy with clear and predictable investment tax credits, low-cost strategic financing and targeted investments and programming designed to respond to the specific needs of the different sectors or projects that have national economic significance, to list some of them.

As I mentioned, there is a suite of new investment tax credits designed to attract and accelerate investments in clean electricity, clean technology manufacturing and clean hydrogen — projects already under way by businesses and supported by governments in many of our provinces, from labour requirements to investment tax credits, to ensure government support for businesses to be able to grow and provide workers with good wages and opportunities for apprenticeship. There is $3 billion over 13 years to support clean electricity programs. There is a clean electricity focus for the Canada Infrastructure Bank, with investments of at least $20 billion to support the building of major clean electricity and clean growth infrastructure projects. And, of course, there is the standing up of the Canada Growth Fund to partner with the Public Sector Pension Investment Board to attract the private capital needed to invest in Canada’s clean economy.

These measures are designed to make sure that we, as a country, do not fall behind our partners and the world as the world undergoes this transformative change. Budget 2023 is the Government of Canada’s response to that to help our Canadian businesses and our economy succeed as we go through these changes.

Senator Gold: It’s the position of the government that this is precisely the time to make these investments. First of all, the world will not wait. Climate change doesn’t wait; capital markets don’t wait; our partners aren’t waiting and Canadian businesses don’t want to wait. The workers who depend on good, solid jobs, whether it’s in the current energy sector, in agriculture — in every sector — have the right to have their governments support them as the world changes around them so that they and their children can continue to have a prosperous, nourishing and meaningful work experience.

Happily and fortunately — and I am repeating myself —

Senator Plett: Yes, you are.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, to the surprise of absolutely no one in this country, it turns out that the member of Canada’s delegation to Her Majesty’s funeral last September who stayed in the $6,000-a-night hotel room was — you guessed it — Justin Trudeau. This information was not given during any of the times that the Prime Minister was directly asked about this in the other place. It also wasn’t provided through access to information, as his name was redacted from hotel invoices released in February. No, this information was given to the House committee just as Air Force One was touching down in Ottawa last Friday.

An Hon. Senator: Facts.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, the online news act.

A few weeks ago, the bill’s sponsor, Senator Harder, said he hoped that we could all agree that action is needed to address the challenges faced by the Canadian news sector at this time.

I do agree that legacy news media in this country are facing challenges, as they struggle to compete with online news outlets and platforms for eyeballs and for advertising revenue. Some are struggling more than others, and I think that’s something that should be included in any study of this legislation.

Why are some succeeding where others are failing? That’s partly where I take issue with this legislation — that it establishes, as its baseline, that journalism as a whole is in peril in this country. Where I take further issue is that it is a problem that warrants government intervention. I have difficulty wrapping my head around the notion that government sticking its nose in will somehow ensure a free and independent news media — the two don’t really go together.

There is no denying that bricks and mortar newsrooms in Canada are being decimated — in particular, newspaper publishers and small, independent outlets. Canadians, like everyone else in the world, are consuming news differently. More and more, they are turning to online platforms for content, and advertisers are following them. As a result, legacy media are now forced to compete for advertising revenue over which they used to enjoy a monopoly. But, colleagues, if they’re unable to successfully do so, that’s a problem with their business model, not with journalism at large.

Let’s be honest about the intent of this legislation: It’s not about preserving a free and independent press that, yes, I agree, is so vital to a healthy democracy. It’s about preserving a system of journalism with which we are familiar and comfortable — and, in the case of the current government, has also served them well.

For a government that proclaims to embrace innovation and technology unlike any other government before them, they keep drafting legislation that punishes and disincentivizes innovation. The simple fact is that government has no business in the news business within a robust and healthy democracy.

When a government steps in to dictate what qualifies as “quality” or “professional” news, and starts handing out financial supports on that basis, that is no longer a free and independent news media.

Colleagues, it’s human nature to distrust someone whose very survival is dependent on another person or entity. It’s why we have conflict of interest laws and codes. Even the appearance of a possible conflict is to be avoided. That is especially true when it comes to news media.

I am very disappointed to see the government, including the sponsor of this bill here in the Senate, use the prospect of fighting disinformation and misinformation as justification for this legislation, as if only the government, or its proxies, can be the arbiter of what information is worthy of consuming.

It’s very dangerous, colleagues. Yet, it keeps coming up, even after a member in the House of Commons was forced to apologize.

Liberal member of Parliament, and a former journalist herself, Lisa Hepfner claimed in committee during study of Bill C-18 that:

. . . we’ll see the argument that a couple hundred other online news organizations have popped up in that time, what we don’t see is that they’re not news.

They’re not gathering news. They’re publishing opinion only.

In an apology that she was forced to issue over that comment, MP Hepfner couldn’t help herself and, again, denigrated online news by implying that most of them are not trusted sources of news but, rather, sources of fake news.

Colleagues, you scoff at our suggestions that all of these pieces of legislation — this bill and its predecessor, Bill C-11 — are attempts by the Trudeau government to control what Canadians see online, but the truth is the call is coming from inside the House — literally.

While we’re on the topic of misinformation and disinformation, let’s talk about the complete misrepresentation of how news is being shared on Facebook and Google, and what this legislation will supposedly do.

Liberal MP Hepfner, again, described it in the following way in a tweet after Bill C-18’s passage in the House of Commons. She tweeted that Bill C-18:

. . . makes it harder for big digital platforms like Facebook and Google to steal local journalists’ articles and repost them without credit . . . .

That is such an appalling distortion of facts and reality from a member of a government that talks ad nauseam about combatting misinformation and disinformation online, and then they go ahead and perpetuate it.

These platforms don’t “steal” content. If anything, they’re actually showcasing the work of journalists, and driving traffic to legacy media’s own websites — just like they showcase our work when we post our own content as politicians.

Ms. Hepfner makes it sound as though Facebook and Google are out there copying and pasting content and trying to pass it off as their own. Colleagues, that’s ludicrous.

In the case of Facebook, its users — people like you and all of us — are providing links to news items that take you to their originating website, whether it be CTV News or CBC or the Western Standard or any one of these outlets.

It’s the same with Google, whether you’re looking at Google News, which is an aggregator that clearly identifies the source of the story and links directly to that site, or when you’re using Google as a search engine, where it again brings you directly to the originating source site of the journalist’s story.

There’s no stealing of content nor failure to properly credit anyone or any outlet for their work. Accusing the platforms of theft would be like a restaurant accusing a cab driver of stealing their customers when they drop them off at the door. It’s ludicrous.

Yes, these online platforms have found a way to financially benefit from the work of others; and, in turn, with only so much ad revenue to go around, it cuts into the profits of the media outlets. Of that there is no doubt.

But let’s stick with the analogy of the cab driver and the restaurant. A couple is dining out and they know they want to have a few drinks at dinner and don’t want to drive, so they take a cab to and from the restaurant. They only have so much budgeted for their evening out, so they know that they have to deduct the cab fare from the amount they had set aside at the restaurant. That’s logical.

Is the restaurant owner now going to say to the cab driver, “Okay, you owe me a portion of the fare”? No, he or she is thankful for the business; especially in today’s world where food delivery services are draining a lot of business from in-house dining.

Those same restaurants, by the way, have had to adapt, as a result of those food delivery services, to new technology and how we order from restaurants. It is the same way that the news media will have to adapt to the digital world — and some have adapted.

By the way, nobody is forcing news media to make their content available online to be shared on platforms like Facebook or Google. They choose to post the content themselves and encourage others to share by putting those little icons for sharing available on every item. They know the benefit they derive from having their content shared — it’s magnified. In the case of Google, media outlets proactively make their content available to show up in a Google search by enabling their RSS feed. They could simply not enable that feed, and, in the case of sharing on other platforms, they could put their content behind a paywall. A digital subscription is no different from a paid subscription. It’s difficult to accuse someone of stealing something that’s on offer for free.

Recently, Google carried out what they called a test in Canada in which they stopped providing links to Canadian news for what they say was less than 4% of the population in Canada. Government officials went off accusing them of “stealing” content and of “blocking” content.

I’ll return to my restaurant analogy. It would be like the cab driver saying, “Okay, I don’t want to be accused of stealing your customers, so I won’t bring people to your restaurant anymore.” And then the restaurant manager accuses him of stopping customers from going to the restaurant.

Colleagues, do we not see the ridiculousness of it all?

Furthermore, it’s just not true. During Google’s test, not one Canadian was prevented from accessing whatever news site they wanted to access — not one. That’s not how the internet works.

It’s not about defending big tech, as I’m sure I will be accused of doing. It’s about being factual and speaking plainly about the reality of the situation.

We have a government engaging in the very misinformation they claim to want to combat, just as they are engaging in the very bullying and intimidation that they’re accusing Alphabet and Meta of, the parent companies of Google and Facebook.

That was the reaction of the Trudeau government to Google’s recent test and to Meta making it clear that if they are forced to pay every time one of its members shares a link to a news article in Canada, they will halt the practice altogether. They will simply say, “Don’t use our platform. Use another search engine.” Nobody forces a journalist to use Google or any other platform. It is free. It is called freedom. You have a choice.

These two companies are engaging in a good old-fashioned game of chicken. They are calling the government’s bluff, and it’s no surprise that the government is reacting negatively to it.

However, that does not justify what the government did in retribution. For those who may not be aware, Google was called on the carpet to explain their decision to carry out their recent test. Not only was the witness from Google intimidated by MP Chris Bittle — he seems to be turning that into an art form — he went so far as to state that perhaps they would have to consult with the law clerk to determine what further could be done because Mr. Bittle simply wasn’t satisfied with the responses he received.

The government used that parliamentary committee to compel the production of third-party correspondence from these two companies, as it relates to a bill that is no longer in that chamber for consideration.

We are talking about correspondence between these entities and private citizens voicing opposition to this government’s legislation, and this government is demanding that it be turned over.

Talk about witch hunts. Talk about inadvertently browbeating and arm-twisting witnesses. To what end? What purpose does this serve? Never mind how rich it is for this government to demand a level of transparency from others that it has gone to great lengths to avoid providing itself.

This is the kind of strong-arming we’d expect from Beijing or Tehran or Havana, or even from the mob. It is not supposed to be how we conduct ourselves in a free and democratic society.

It’s the kind of witness intimidation we saw from the same member of government during their and our study of Bill C-11.

I know it’s easy to demonize online platforms, in particular Alphabet and Meta, who are the parent companies of Google and Facebook. There has certainly been a lot of it in this chamber and committee over the past several months, but this is beyond the pale.

Colleagues, I understand the reflex to help struggling newsrooms, especially the smaller, independent and local ones. The government has certainly played on that sentiment.

But the truth is that this bill will not breathe new life into struggling newspapers or upstart or ethnic venture newspapers. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the money collected through this scheme will actually go to big broadcasters, including none other than my beloved funded CBC.

That’s not me saying that; it’s the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of Parliament. According to an analysis carried out by the PBO, newspapers and online news outlet media would get less than a quarter of the funding collected from Facebook and Google.

It is CBC, Bell, Shaw and Rogers, our beloved telecommunications giants, who would stand to make $248 million from this scheme, while newspapers and smaller, independent and ethnic online outlets would be left scrapping it out for the remaining $81 million. It’s not me saying it; it is the PBO.

Why is CBC even eligible for this funding? They already have an advantage over all others by allowing them to compete for ad revenue, while also receiving government funding to the tune of $1.4 billion per year. Are we now going to give them another leg up by allowing them to cut into this funding?

If we want to help the smaller, independent outlets, stop making them compete against CBC. If this legislation is passed, CBC should not be eligible for funding it generates, or every dollar they do receive should be deducted from their government funding.

In closing, I want to go back to something Senator Harder said about the newsrooms that do the heavy lifting and how their work must be supported and that they must be fairly compensated.

Few outlets, if any, in this town have done more heavy lifting in exposing the waste and ethical corruption of the current government than the online outlet Blacklock’s. They are one of the outlets I spoke about earlier that employs a business model of putting their content behind a paywall and charging a subscription fee.

Yet, this Trudeau government has been embroiled in a years‑long legal battle with Blacklock’s because government departments and offices keep sharing their content without paying the subscription fee. That’s why they’ve been before the court for years.

Think about that: This government is out there telling you that we must support free and open journalism and that these journalists must be fairly compensated for their work — noble. All the while, they’re openly circumventing Blacklock’s paywall and outright infringing on their copyright. That is actually stealing content — and that is parliamentary language. If somebody takes something that doesn’t belong to them, free and unwarranted, it is called stealing.

So the government’s talking points on this legislation are beyond rich. No doubt, they justify it by telling themselves that Blacklock’s isn’t what they consider a “professional” outlet providing “quality” news. That’s because they criticize. So anybody who criticizes is not professional — they’re fake and they’re not quality. Do you see the parallels here? They would say that about any outlet, I think, that’s highly critical of them. Even The Globe and Mail — sometimes they’re legitimate, sometimes they’re not, depending on the news story.

And that, colleagues, is precisely why the government and politicians have absolutely no business in the business of news.

Senator Plett: Hear, hear.

Senator Housakos: My speech, as you know, Senator Lankin, is a critique of this bill. It’s not incumbent on me to find all the solutions. But I do believe vehemently — and that’s why I oppose this piece of legislation — that the objective is honourable. We are trying to help failing — and particularly print — news platforms across this country. We all grew up with them. They are learning tools. They are so fundamental to our democracy. You are absolutely right — some are more left, some are more right, and that’s normal. I don’t have any issue with that. I encourage that as part of the democratic process.

But even in today’s digital world, some of them are very successful. They might not like it, but I’ll use The Globe and Mail as an example. They have adapted quickly to the new realities of the digital world. The digital world has offered a unique opportunity. It’s a megaphone to promote our work, and it has offered it to journalists, artists and politicians. It is something I believe we should embrace and learn how to use it effectively. The Globe and Mail has a subscription-type system that they have been using now for a number of years. They are as successful today as they have ever been in the past.

Another outlet, the National Post — and again, they might not like this — has not adapted to the digital reality as quickly, and we have seen their newsrooms across the country suffering. I’m not picking one or the other, but they are two prime examples of important national newspapers. One is really thriving in the digital world, and the other one isn’t.

It’s the same with local weekly newspapers. In my neighbourhood, once upon a time, there were six. Now there are three that are suffering, two are doing really well and one, unfortunately, went bust.

We have seen now with this government’s noble attempt to spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to prop them up — to suspend them — that it hasn’t worked. The ones that are doing well are still doing well because they’ve adapted. For the ones that are not, all the money in the world won’t help them.

From my 20 years of business experience, I have learned something. If your business model is not adaptable to the economic realities of the time, the government can give you all the money in the world and you won’t succeed.

I don’t have the solution at my fingertips. I hope we have that robust, intense discussion at our committees — thank God, in Senate committees we do have those types of robust discussions — and, hopefully, we can come up with some decent, thoughtful amendments that would help this industry that we all agree and recognize has to flourish.

Unfortunately, for me, this is a shakedown of certain digital platforms that are not content providers. They are just platforms for content to be exported. We are shaking them down in order to help an industry that hasn’t adapted to that particular reality. There have been winners and losers. I think the marketplace should let them work it out.

By the way, Google has been negotiating with news outlets now for years. They have made arrangements with newspapers and different organizations. The Globe and Mail is an example, right? They have made a deal.

All I am simply saying, again, is let the marketplace figure it out amongst themselves in a conducive fashion.

[Translation]