Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would Senator Gold agree to take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think legislation certainly needs to be as clear as possible, but it also needs to send a clear message. What came out in our hearings and, as you know, was very telling, is the fear that content creators have, those who create user-generated content. They are afraid that they are going to be covered under Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, the amendment as it’s currently drafted leaves a huge amount of uncertainty, particularly in terms of who will be covered. Is it anyone who makes money? Everyone knows that user-generated content allows small creators to earn an income.

How do you plan on reassuring those creators, considering they have been very clear about their fears? We’re talking about people who want to make a living. Just like the musicians who are opposed to this amendment, content creators exist and they feel that this amendment is unclear. Personally, I have to tell you that in reading it, I don’t find it particularly clear either.

Senator Housakos: Senator Gold, I’ve been now in this place for 15 years, and excuse me if I am a little skeptical of taking any government at face value. I as a legislator would like to see things in the law in black and white.

You pointed out as well that we should just have faith that this is going to be done and that we are here to make sure that we overlook and carry out our responsibilities, as you said in your speech, as legislators to make sure the government does what they say. Don’t you also agree that we are passing a law here that has not been supported by a regulatory framework? We’re leaving it to the CRTC, as you said in your speech. They will be carrying out public consultations in order to set the regulatory framework. What happens in case this regulatory framework isn’t consistent with the commitments you highlighted in your speech? What are our options as parliamentarians at that point with this bill to do a follow-up in a thorough way?

Senator Gold: You having been here for 15 years and I for 6 and a half years, we know that following Royal Assent there is a regulatory process. Following Royal Assent, there will be a process around the policy direction. I outlined that process to you and I will remind you it involves public consultation, public input, both at the front end and at the back end when the CRTC receives the public consultation. I will also remind colleagues — and as chair of the committee that studied the bill at length, Senator Housakos, you will also know — that the bill provides for reports to Parliament and parliamentary oversight and was improved in that regard by Senator Quinn’s amendment.

We have many tools in our arsenal, but the arsenal that we carry with us is a sense of what our role and responsibility are here in the Senate. Ninety-nine per cent of this bill was approved by this place and the other place. Of the 26 amendments, 20 were approved by three parties in the other place. This bill has been studied in this place and the other place extensively. The time has come now to recognize this is an important and good bill. The government has made firm, solid public commitments, and the text of the law is also clear with regard to what it applies to and what it does not apply to. If that is not enough for those in this chamber who in good faith want to see this bill succeed and pass, then I have run out of things to say.

If you want to kill the bill, there are lots of ways to do it. We have seen it in the past. We know how to do that. We can delay it. We can hope for another election. We can get it buried, and it will die on the Order Paper. But for those of us who believe that this is a good bill, a bill that has been improved by our amendments, and who believe that the elected members of the House of Commons have done their responsible duty and taken us seriously and have approved 20 out of 26 amendments, the time now is to give it Royal Assent.

Senator Wallin: The reason we are all asking you questions that seem similar is because it is not clear in the bill. Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons presented language — a compromise — inside our own committee. They presented language that would have given the government the right and the opportunity to be clear about what you promised and what they promised publicly, on television shows and in front of the committee.

If you really believe it, then put it in the bill. That’s why we keep asking the same question. A promise in a response to questions and in appearances on television is not law, and we would like to see it written in the bill.

Senator Gold: Senator Wallin, I appreciate your question very much. I answered it as best I could in the speech. I’m not going to reread it. The amendment, according to the government and according to the majority of the members of the House of Commons, did not achieve its objectives and poses a risk of undermining the central objectives of the act.

This was much debated in the committee and debated in the Senate. The Senate passed the amendment. The House respectfully disagrees. I’ve tried to provide the reasons why the House disagrees.

I’ve also tried to provide reasons which I know you will take seriously. Whether you agree with me or not, that’s your prerogative. Notwithstanding this disagreement, notwithstanding your disappointment or the fact that you do not necessarily find my answers compelling, we will agree to disagree and to pass this important bill for the benefit of the Canadian cultural community and Canadians in general.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do you have a question?

Senator Quinn: Senator Gold, really the focus of my comment is that all of the inputs received, et cetera, from people across the country — people who have appeared before the committee, people who have not appeared before the committee but have communicated with senators, across the spectrum — deserve to hear more directly than the normal process. You’re right: There are all kinds of things that are published and put on websites and whatnot, but the people who have been communicating with us may not be the people who deal with these issues in that format, if you can understand what I’m saying. They’re not used to the legislative process.

Should the government not have a proactive strategy to communicate with those people who have made their views on proposed section 4.2 explicitly known?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Not to belabour the point, but user-generated content is definitely scoped into this bill. That was the opinion of the chairman of the CRTC when he testified before our committee. That was the opinion of the legal expert of Heritage Canada who, on numerous occasions, was asked directly about the language that Senator Cardozo referred to. It is clear that the government is refusing to tighten that language and accept reasonable amendments that state, in black and white in law, that user-generated content will be excluded. Nonetheless, I also want to correct a couple of things.

In his exchange with you, Senator Gold, Senator Cardozo highlighted really what the problem is between those who are fine with the bill and those who are against the bill. I know that the CRTC has the authority to make regulations because the law that we’re about to pass and the government wants to pass is giving that authority. In the old Broadcasting Act and the current Broadcasting Act, our colleague Senator Cardozo is right: The government and Canadian Heritage can not only influence the regulatory framework; they can give directives and overrule the CRTC. That’s precisely why when you have laws like the Broadcasting Act that leave this Parliament and become law, there have to be safeguards to make sure whoever is in government has parameters that they have to work within that we parliamentarians give them. And if we’re negligent in our responsibility in making laws that are clear, that’s when, of course, problems can occur.

Now, in terms of the regulatory framework, it is so customary on bills that are technical — like Bill C-11 — for governments to attach regulatory frameworks in advance. With Bill C-10, the precursor bill of Bill C-11, if you remember, at the final stages of that bill, under a lot of pressure from work in this chamber, the government came out with a framework at that particular point in time. It wasn’t a very good one, but they came up with a framework. It doesn’t require tossing it to the CRTC for two years.

But I don’t want to digress. I want to get to my follow-up question because there are a lot more problems with this bill than just user-generated content.

When we’re reforming the Broadcasting Act, one of the main pillars that needs to be reformed, which was not even looked at in this bill, is CanCon. My question to you, government leader, is the following: How could a story written by Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale, with Canadian actors, filmed in Canada, with a Canadian director and so on and so forth — how could something like that, in the eyes of this current bill as we want to pass it, not qualify as Canadian content?

Senator Housakos: We tried to move amendments at committee dealing with Canadian content, and they were rejected. They were rejected and, by the same token, it’s part of the parliamentary process. Now, again, if you don’t want to answer the question, it speaks volumes, government leader, how the government is negligent in doing an in-depth dive on dealing with Canadian broadcasting.

Senator Gold: Thank you, Senator Wallin. We know this. The Charter itself, in section 1, provides that rights and freedoms that are set out, and otherwise given an expansive interpretation at first blush, are subject to “such reasonable limits . . . as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” For the Attorney General to remind senators and legislators, all of whom have an obligation to understand and apply the Charter in our own work, is simply — if I can paraphrase the late, great Alan Borovoy, the former general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and a mentor and friend to me — “a penetrating glimpse into the obvious.”

Yes, rights are not absolute. They’re balanced against other rights, and they’re subject to reasonable limits. Our statute books are full of examples of this kind.

Senator Gold: This was language that our office here in the Senate developed. You will know now for the last three years that when I am asked questions in Question Period, I answer on behalf of the government. It’s not my role to answer in my personal capacity. You can fairly assume that the language that we developed here represents a position that is acceptable to the government. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have put it in a motion.

As the Senate, we have the power to amend motions, to vote for them or reject them. I have no comment on your question. There have been no — and even if there were, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to share this.

I am saying that I believe that this motion, the heart of which is to propose that we accept the message from the House — the addition that we included was to give the Senate the ability to be on record in this motion for the motion to be read in the House of Commons so that the members of the House understand what the position of the Senate is and that we take note.

We think that this will strengthen the assurances and, back to Senator Quinn’s point, we hope that it will provide some additional assurances to those who are still skeptical of governments. That is a feature of our modern politics.

It will also figure into interpretations. As one of our former colleagues reminded us regularly, courts and others take legislative history, and especially Senate pronouncements, into account when they are interpreting legislation. I think this adds one more element into the point that I have been trying to make that the government is seriously not involved and has no intention of scoping in user-generated content.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, that this bill be read the second time.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the following Members of Parliament: Anju Dhillion, Pam Damoff and Ya’ara Saks. With them are representatives of women’s shelters in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Dalphond.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Boisvenu: Yes. Quebec passed Bill 24. At the federal level, a Liberal member was able to get the House to pass Bill C-233, which deals with domestic violence. In his speech, Senator Dalphond pointed out that not one of the 800 women in Spain wearing an electronic bracelet was murdered.

Had this bill been passed five or ten years ago, had it saved one, two, five or ten women from a violent death by an intimate partner, would this bill have been worthwhile?

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: I have another question.

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pate, at this time the Criminal Code only provides for the use of an electronic bracelet in two circumstances: cases of terrorism and cases where an individual has committed a fairly serious crime and there’s a concern that they will flee the country. The Criminal Code doesn’t authorize the use of an electronic bracelet in any other case.

Wouldn’t you agree that we must expand the Criminal Code to include violent men if we know they would commit murder or endanger the life of their spouse or former spouse? Should the Criminal Code be amended to include another case in addition to the two types of cases I mentioned?

[English]

Senator Pate: I am not sure if this was your question, but I agree with you.

Too often, when women come forward and talk about the violence that is a very real threat for them, they know, because they live it — it is a very real threat — it is not believed. That is the crux, in my humble opinion, as to why you and all of us are continuing to try and move on these issues. It is not the fact that it is not a violent offence. It is the fact that it is brought down to a he-said-she-said situation. The violence is minimized. The woman isn’t believed. There are racial reasons why. There are gendered reasons why. There are economic reasons why. I do not think that that is fair. I do not agree with that, but that is fundamentally why these tools are not used, because they are violent offences, and who knows better than the person who is experiencing the violence, as we both know from the many, many people — too many people — whom we have walked with and too many of whom are no longer with us.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, as a friendly critic of this legislation, not only am I rising to express my unreserved support for this bill, but, in so doing, I also promise not to take up the full 45 minutes of my allotted time.

I’ll start by thanking the sponsor, Senator Jane Cordy, for bringing this legislation forward, and for all of her hard work, and that of her team, in getting it to this point.

The vast majority of Lebanese immigrants came to Canada between the years of 1975 and 1990. They were fleeing the Lebanese Civil War, which drives home the point that so many immigrants have come to this country fleeing desperate situations in their homeland. They’ve come here seeking freedom, peace, opportunity and prosperity.

Like every single Canadian — arriving directly or indirectly — who has been here for years, we’ve come here fleeing either civil war or economic hardship, looking for freedom and opportunity. Of course, that is what this great country has offered to immigrants for decades and decades.

But Canada’s Lebanese communities date back much further than that. There are some who can trace their roots all the way back to the first influx of Lebanese immigrants who came through Halifax’s Pier 21 in 1880.

My own parents came through Halifax in the late 1950s, seeking refuge from a beautiful homeland but, nonetheless, one that was ravaged by civil war, economic hardship and the devastations of World War II. They came here with the dream of a better future for themselves and their children. They achieved that through hard work and perseverance.

I remember saying to my parents — and my mother, in particular, who is no longer with us; God rest her soul — “You left your country at the age of 17, and travelled halfway around the world. Many years later, what are your thoughts about your decision?” My mother said, “I’ll never trade that decision for anything in the world, and I’ll never trade this country. As a young woman in my country, I worked extremely hard; and the harder I worked, the more I remained standing in the same place. The future seemed bleak. I came to Canada with one dream: following the rules and laws and working hard. The harder I worked, the further I got.”

That is what Canada is all about to all the immigrants whom we have embraced. Of course, the Lebanese community is just one of the sums of all the parts of this great country. Like many immigrant groups, they came to this country, worked hard and contributed to the fibre of our country — they have done so culturally in terms of the wonderful Mediterranean cuisine that we all enjoy, and that has emulsified into Canadian cuisine. It doesn’t matter whether you’re Asian, South Asian, Greek, Italian, Irish or French; you put it all together, and that’s what Canada represents — the best of all that the world has to offer.

The Lebanese community has excelled as entrepreneurs. We’ve seen this from coast to coast to coast. They have added to the cultural fabric of this country. Many who fled Lebanon came to this country already being officially bilingual — they didn’t need to enrol in the French immersion program — and they blended into that fibre in terms of our bilingualism. The Lebanese community is vibrant in Halifax — in English.

[Translation]

The Lebanese community is also vibrant in Montreal — in French. It is a minority community, but one that is well integrated into Quebec, in French.

[English]

In Canada, we have many examples of members of the Lebanese community who have excelled in all walks of life. In athletics, Nazem Kadri is an NHL hockey player and Stanley Cup champion; and Marwan Hage is a Grey Cup champion who played for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. There have been many politicians of Lebanese descent. The former premier of Prince Edward Island, Joe Ghiz, was such a good premier that, years later, they elected his son as premier.

In the Parliament of Canada, in our own chamber, Senator Pierre De Bané was one of those giants from whom I learned about how to do my job in the upper chamber. Ziad Aboultaif is a Conservative member of Parliament from Alberta. Lena Metlege Diab is a Liberal member of Parliament from Nova Scotia. Fayçal El-Khoury is the Liberal Member of Parliament for Laval—Les Îles. There are so many others, including Kevin O’Leary — we can go on and on. We all recognize their great contributions.

I thank Senator Cordy for moving this bill — it is important. Some will make the argument that we already have too many heritage months and too many days, and pretty soon we’re going to run out of days. Senator Plett and I have had a couple of debates on this in private. I am of the view that our institution has to represent all the sums of our country, and we have to celebrate the contributions of every single group. If we have a multiple number of celebrations on a multiple number of days, so be it. At the end of the day, we, as parliamentarians, have to recognize and celebrate our diversity. That’s what being Canadian is all about. That is why I wholeheartedly support this initiative by Senator Cordy, and I hope that we provide it with unanimous support. Thank you, colleagues.