Hon. Leo Housakos: It’s not we who are impugning the Prime Minister’s integrity, government leader; it’s his lack of action on a very serious subject that is calling into question his integrity and judgment.

Senator Gold, news broke yesterday that the FBI arrested two people who were operating a secret police station in New York City on behalf of the communist regime in Beijing. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the two individuals conspired to work as agents of the Chinese Communist Party and took orders from the regime in order to track down and silence Chinese dissidents living in the United States.

Senator Gold, we know that we have several of those clandestine police stations also operating right here in Canada in violation of Canadian sovereignty and Canadian law. As a matter of fact, one of the individuals arrested by the FBI yesterday had photos on his phone of one of those illegal stations operating right here in Canada.

Senator Gold, do we know if this individual was here in Canada? Has the RCMP taken steps to question this individual in connection to the stations in Canada? Also, can you tell me why no charges have been laid yet in any of these Canadian cases? Was anyone expelled from Canada as a result of our investigation? Have there been any consequences against the communist operatives who are undertaking similar efforts right here in Canada?

Senator Housakos: You are right, government leader: There were many questions in my question. The reason for that is because the questions keep piling up because we’re not getting any concrete answers, just like I didn’t get any in that answer just now.

Senator Gold, part of the allegations against the two individuals is that they targeted Falun Gong, for instance, by rounding up members of the Chinese diaspora and busing them to various locations to counter-protests for Falun Gong demonstrations, with the Chinese consulate paying each of those individuals $60.

That sounds eerily familiar to what is alleged to have taken place at a certain Liberal nomination meeting, doesn’t it?

Other allegations are the previously mentioned two operatives would track down Chinese dissidents living in the U.S. and threaten them and their families in order to force them to return to China to be arrested by communist authorities there. Again, that is exactly in line with what we’ve heard from Canadians of Chinese descent.

So why, Senator Gold, is your government not moving to do more to protect such people here in Canada? You say you don’t want the diaspora communities to feel afraid. The Prime Minister has said that on many occasions. They are already afraid, and your government is doing nothing about it. You’re more concerned about protecting the very people that Canadians of Chinese descent are afraid of.

When will this Prime Minister stop vacillating on the question of foreign influence from Beijing?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Senator Gold, as you know, today is a very sad anniversary for all Canadians. Three years ago today, Canada’s worst mass shooting occurred in my home province of Nova Scotia, senselessly ending the lives of 22 innocent people, including a highly competent and valued member of the RCMP, Heidi Stevenson, from my hometown of Antigonish.

You will recall that not long after the initial shock of that tragedy, several of us representing our province in this chamber called upon the provincial and federal governments to launch a full inquiry. The recommendations of that inquiry, recently published in the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, call for substantive and systematic reform of the RCMP in order to prevent more of the kind of devastating tragedies that we witnessed in Nova Scotia in April 2020.

Of the commission’s 130 recommendations, over 60 were directed at the RCMP. The message from the commissioner says:

The future of the RCMP and of provincial policing requires focused re-evaluation. We need to rethink the role of the police in a wider ecosystem of public safety. . . .

The message goes on to say:

Most important, the RCMP must finally undergo the fundamental change called for in so many previous reports. . . .

In recognition of that imperative, Senator Harder has introduced his Senate inquiry on the role and mandate of the RCMP.

Senator Gold, could you tell us how and when the government plans to respond to the calls to action of the Mass Casualty Commission for major reforms of the RCMP? Concern has been raised that it’s unrealistic to expect the RCMP themselves to lead that reform.

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

First and foremost, I think I speak for all of us that our hearts go out to and that we continue to grieve with the families and the communities of Portapique and Truro.

As you pointed out, senator, the Mass Casualty Commission’s final report lays out a road map for reforming the RCMP. As you would know, the government has established an implementation body that will prioritize and support the implementation of those recommendations. They include strengthening the oversight of the RCMP, strengthening our laws banning assault-style firearms and addressing the root causes of gun crime through supports for mental health services for Canadians.

To your last point, the government is working very closely with the RCMP to reform the institution so that we can prevent, to the fullest extent of our ability, another mass shooting of this kind from ever occurring again.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The former finance minister, Bill Morneau, has criticized Prime Minister Trudeau’s decisions regarding the assistance programs brought in during the pandemic. The Auditor General of Canada has also said that, of the $100 billion allocated to these programs, $27 billion was likely overpaid to individuals and businesses during the pandemic and remains unaudited.

More recently, despite warnings from politicians and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Prime Minister went ahead with his dental program that will provide $630 to families even if their child hasn’t been to the dentist.

Prime Minister Trudeau is failing in his financial responsibilities, probably to please the NDP, which is keeping him in power. However, instead of listening to serious advice from people like Bill Morneau, Karen Hogan and Yves Giroux, the Prime Minister continues to waste our tax dollars.

Can you explain why?

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

With all due respect, honourable senator, this is not a matter of wastefulness, far from it.

As I’ve already explained several times, when faced with the COVID-19 crisis, the government, with the support of this chamber and the members of the other place, made the decision to act quickly to ensure that Canadians had the support they needed. That was the right decision because we got through the pandemic in a good socio-economic position.

That being said, it is true that some problems could have been foreseen, and the government and the departments are now working to recover, if possible, amounts that were unfortunately paid out in circumstances that weren’t anticipated by the spirit of the programs.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, this week marks National Soil Conservation Week. Soil sustains our woods and grasslands and their plants and animals. It is a vital resource for Canadian livelihoods, including construction, forestry and, of course, agricultural and food security.

Unfortunately, this precious resource doesn’t always receive the recognition it deserves. That’s why I’m proud that our Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is conducting a study on soil health — the first study in the Parliament specifically on soil in 39 years.

Senator Gold, as we study this important issue, can you update the chamber on what steps the federal government is taking to collaborate and support stakeholders across the country to protect soil health in Canada?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, last week, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation’s entire board of directors, along with its president and CEO, resigned in the aftermath of a $200,000 gift from the Communist Party in Beijing. When asked about the resignations last Tuesday, Senator Gold, the Prime Minister said, “It’s a foundation in my father’s name that I have no direct or indirect connection with.”

This is a ludicrous statement from Prime Minister Trudeau. His government can appoint members to the foundation, as can his family. The National Post reported that the foundation used his name in marketing materials as late as September 2014 — a year and a half after he became the leader of the Liberals. His brother is directly involved in the foundation and the $200,000 gift.

Leader, why does the Prime Minister continue to claim that there is no connection when this is absolutely not the case?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question.

Words do matter. They matter in public discourse, and they matter in this place. The degradation of the language being used to impugn our institutions — institutions upon which this country depends — is deeply disturbing and should be deeply disturbing to all Canadians.

I repeat that the Prime Minister has not had involvement with the foundation since he became leader. Attempts to impugn its integrity or his integrity are unfortunate and, respectfully, ill‑advised.

The Special Rapporteur, the Honourable David Johnston, has been mandated to advise the government with regard to the steps that might be required, and the government has pledged to honour or accept his recommendations. We’ll know those forthwith.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I rise today to give thanks to Mesut Kacmaz, Meral Kacmaz, Murat Acar and Candan Acar, four Turkish-Canadian victims of torture who were brave enough to share their stories with me last month here in Ottawa.

In September 2017, teachers Mesut and Meral Kacmaz, along with their two children, were illegally abducted from Pakistan and taken to Turkey, where they were arbitrarily detained and tortured. Murat Acar was a radiologist and his wife, Candan, was a teacher. They, along with their two children, were illegally abducted from Bahrain and sent to Turkey in October 2016, where they, too, were arbitrarily detained and tortured. These two families sought refuge in Canada after escaping persecution in Turkey, and are now proud to call Canada home.

When we met last month, we spoke about the targeted sanctions submission they filed with Global Affairs, asking the Government of Canada to implement targeted sanctions against the 12 Turkish officials they have identified as responsible for the gross violations of human rights committed against them and against their friend Gökhan Açıkkollu, who was tortured to death in Turkish prison around the same time.

Colleagues, the human rights situation in Turkey is appalling. What happened to these Canadians are examples of a serious and worrying escalation of human rights abuses in Turkey. Since 2016, the Turkish government has detained over 300,000 people, including thousands of prosecutors and judges, and shut down more than 2,000 institutions and 131 media outlets. Turkey detained so many journalists that, for a time, they were the worst jailer of journalists in the world.

There is evidence that detainees are tortured and raped, and hundreds have died in prison. United Nations mechanisms, including the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Human Rights Committee, have found repeatedly that Turkish officials are responsible for serious human rights violations in this context.

Impunity is pervasive in Turkey, and as Turkish law enforcement is demonstrably unwilling to penalize those responsible, it is up to the international community, including Canada, to hold to account those officials that are responsible for gross human rights violations — especially, colleagues, now that we have Canadian victims of the Erdoğan regime. We owe it to them to do what we can to help them seek justice for the crimes committed against them.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Chantal Petitclerc: Honourable senators, I’m very pleased to rise to speak to you today about Défi sportif AlterGo, an incredible event that begins next week.

This important event, which will take place from April 21 to 30 in the greater Montreal area, is celebrating its fortieth anniversary. I’ve had the pleasure of being the event spokesperson for over 20 years now and before that I participated as an athlete.

The world-class Défi sportif AlterGo, which began in 1984, is the only event that brings together elite and up-and-coming athletes with all types of functional limitations. This event fosters the transfer of knowledge, the consolidation of skills and the enhancement of expertise in hosting adaptive sporting events. Every year, Défi sportif AlterGo raises awareness of the importance of including people with disabilities.

Today, honourable senators, I’d like to first pay tribute to the founder of Défi sportif AlterGo, Monique Lefebvre, who created an event 40 years ago to showcase the talent of athletes with all types of limitations. Inclusion and accessibility have always been priorities for her.

I would also like to recognize our guests Maxime Gagnon, president and CEO, Émilie Bouchard Labonté, director of communications, and Saoud Messaoudi, who will participate in Défi sportif AlterGo next week and who is here as an athlete ambassador. Thank you for all of your hard work and, most importantly, for your passion.

I wish good luck to the 6,000 athletes from 28 countries who will be competing next week. Let’s not forget the participants who will represent Canada at the Montreal 2023 World Boccia Cup and who are trying to earn a spot in the 2024 Paralympic Games in Paris.

As we celebrate National Volunteer Week, I want to say a big thank you to the 1,000 dedicated volunteers who make this unique and exceptional sporting event possible. Without them, Défi sportif AlterGo wouldn’t exist and certainly wouldn’t be the huge success that it is today. Finally, to the entire Défi sportif team, to the inspiring leaders, and I’d even say to my beautiful Défi sportif family, thank you, merci, meegwetch.

Hon. Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu: Honourable senators, three years ago, on April 18 and 19, 2020, the community of Portapique, Nova Scotia, was forever marked by the brutal murder of 23 people, including an unborn child, by an individual disguised as an on-duty police officer. During a murderous rampage that continued over two long days, he targeted some of the victims, while others were chosen at random as they crossed his path.

This mass murder is the worst in Canadian history, and still today, all the families of the victims are left wondering what motivated this terrible tragedy and what should have been done to prevent it.

On March 30, 2023, in Truro, Nova Scotia, along with my colleague Stephen Ellis, the Member of Parliament for the riding where the tragedy occurred, as well as the families of the victims, Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and two of his ministers, I attended the tabling of the report of the Mass Casualty Commission, which was created to shed light on this terrible tragedy.

I had the privilege of talking to several of the victims’ loved ones; their pain and suffering, their anger, are still palpable. The victims’ families needed to be heard and comforted and I thought it was unacceptable that Prime Minister Trudeau barged into the room where the event was being held without saying a single word to the families, after having publicly declared three years ago that he would be there for them.

Three years after all these lives were taken so tragically, the victims’ families are still waiting for the federal government to be there for them. The only comment the Prime Minister made quickly to the media, following the tabling of the report, was, “We will take the time now to properly digest and understand the recommendations, and the conclusions.” To me and my colleague, meeting the families was our priority, and it is for them that I proudly wear this pin today to commemorate the memory of their murdered loved ones.

I’m still shocked to have learned from the victims’ families that, following the shooting, they had to cover their own costs for treatment and for grieving their loved ones or, for some, the costs related to moving because the murder occurred in their home. The families didn’t receive any help from the government, effectively victimizing them all over again.

Why was the federal government in such a hurry to quickly compensate people affected by Hurricane Fiona, which hit the Atlantic region, while abandoning the families of the victims of this mass shooting? It makes no sense; it’s unacceptable.

The victims’ families have shown great resilience, but they’re also realistic and pessimistic about what comes next. Although the families hold out some hope concerning the many recommendations in the report, especially those concerning domestic violence and the work of the RCMP, they have nevertheless raised several questions. Who will be responsible for following up on the recommendations? Who will evaluate the results stemming from the report?

Today, I want to thank the families for the poignant testimony they gave in the hope that their pain would be heard and understood. Unfortunately, for the past three years, the voices of the families have been stifled by the profound feeling that they’ve been abandoned by the government and that they haven’t been listened to, even here in Ottawa. It is my duty to have their voices heard in this place and all the way to the Prime Minister’s office.

Honourable senators, thank you for joining me in honouring the memory of the Portapique victims and ensuring that the voices of their families grow even louder, because they deserve to be heard. Thank you.

Hon. Michèle Audette: [Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

Once again, I want to thank the Anishinaabe people for welcoming me on their territory.

Colleagues, I rise today to honour a great person, a great woman, someone I love very much. She is a strong woman, a woman who fears no one and who does not mince words. She is incredible.

She stays true to herself despite having met numerous celebrities and luminaries around the world. She remains uncomplicated — an elegant, generous woman who also has an unconditional love for children, including her Kisos.

She stood up just moments ago, and you may recognize her as a great director. She is also an artist, a poet, a musician, an activist. She has dedicated her entire life to Indigenous people here in Canada, and certainly around the world, to speak out against injustice.

She has received numerous awards as a result of her 50-plus documentaries, major awards like the Glenn Gould Prize. Soon, in July, she will receive another award from our neighbours in the United States, the MacDowell Medal. She has been celebrated by several organizations, including the Order of Canada, as Grand Officer, and of course the National Order of Quebec. She holds several honorary degrees.

This evening, between two votes, I invite you to join Senators Cardozo, Francis, Greenwood, McPhedran and Klyne to celebrate a moment with our sister, Alanis Obomsawin. She will be accompanied by Suzanne Guèvremont from the National Film Board of Canada. We will present you the documentary by the Honourable Murray Sinclair.

It is with considerable emotion, dear friend, that I say to you with admiration, because you cradled me as a child, you cradled my Amun as well, and you opened the door for many Indigenous women: thank you from the bottom of my heart, dear, unique Alanis.

She is from Odanak, the Abenaki Nation.

Tshinashkumitin for raising our profile around the world. I hope you will be honoured for all that you do and will continue to do for us.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

[English]

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, Brian Twerdin was born in LaSalle, Quebec, where he lived until he was 18 when he departed for what was then Frobisher Bay for a weekend to visit his brother. A weekend turned into a lifetime of great memories and activities that supported the community.

Brian met the love of his life, Elisapee, in Iqaluit in 1998. Not one to count the years together, Brian would tell Elisapee that every day was their anniversary. Together, they ran one of Iqaluit’s most famous, iconic coffee shops, the Grind & Brew, and raised two sons — Iola and Jimmy — as a blended family.

Brian was as much a fixture at the Grind & Brew as the pizza and coffee were. He was quick with a smile and a greeting to customers, as the Brew was also a safe place for people to warm up on cold days. Boston Bruins fans were particularly welcome.

The only thing Brian loved as much as his family was sports; he played hockey, baseball and football, and set records in many of them. He coached and was a pillar of Iqaluit amateur hockey, and many of Iqaluit’s hockey players were guided by Brian from the ice and then later in the stands. The Iqaluit Blizzard hockey team went on to win the Bell Capital Cup under Brian’s leadership. The Outlaws were sponsored by the Grind & Brew for many years.

Brian had friends everywhere he went — everyone knew Brian. In Iqaluit, in particular, he would often be found with Ed Picco, Hunter Tootoo, Kolola and his brother, Mike. Brian received much community recognition, including the Honourary Toonik, the Commissioner’s Award for Bravery and the lifetime achievement awards from Iqaluit Baseball.

In addition to the formal recognition, there are countless Iqalummiut who leaned on Brian for support, guidance and kind words. Several kids depended on Brian for a snack and advice. After his passing, the untold stories of how Brian impacted people’s lives started to be shared and are still being told. Brian passed away — after a brief illness — on his birthday this past December. His loss has been felt by many, including the community organizations that he supported not only with money, but also with constant advice and guidance.

I know that Brian is smiling down on us all today, and that he is celebrating the multiple-record-breaking regular season that the Bruins wrapped up this year. It may be the one time I root for a non-Canadian team to win the Stanley Cup. Qujannamiik. Thank you.

Senator Coyle: Senator Gold, we know that the tragedy in Nova Scotia began with the murderer violently assaulting and threatening his partner.

Several of the recommendations in the Mass Casualty Commission’s report focused on the flawed RCMP and governmental response to widespread intimate partner violence in Canada. Funding related to preventing and effectively intervening in gender-based violence has been inadequate for many years, and, for that reason, endangers women’s lives.

The report calls for the Government of Canada to declare gender-based violence an epidemic in Canada and provide long-term funding for services that have been long demonstrated to be effective in meeting the needs of women survivors of gender-based violence and that contribute to preventing gender-based violence.

Senator Gold, we know that the government has said that it’s very committed to ending gender-based violence and supporting its victims. Will the government accept the findings of the commission and move to declare gender-based violence an epidemic in Canada, and commit to providing long-term and, most importantly, sustained funding for effective services?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for underlining the importance of museums, the artists who are exhibited and those who curate and manage our institutions.

In Ottawa — I won’t compete with Toronto, being a Montrealer — with the wonderful art museums we have here — and, indeed, around this country — we have a jewel and that is the National Gallery of Canada.

With regard to your question and the turmoil surrounding this, I have every confidence in the process that has been put in place and those who are going to be leading the process. I look forward to learning who will take on the important role at the gallery to serve both the artistic community and all Canadians. The process is going to be an open, transparent and fair one with the aim of finding the best and most qualified person to serve our institution and the interests of the National Gallery, as I said, and the communities that it serves.

With regard to the specific criteria, I leave that in the good hands of the search committee and that process in which I have the utmost confidence.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for the vital work the Senate committee is doing on this important subject. This has been a priority for governments and for this government, and it builds upon a history of world-class research in this country on this important issue. Indeed, Canadian scientists are bringing to the table innovative approaches and practices to help us build resilience in soils, reduce erosion and increase soil carbon capture, helping the agricultural community to do its important and necessary part in our efforts to offset greenhouse gas effects.

Since 2021, the government has announced $1.5 billion worth of initiatives for the agricultural sector. It has provided incentives to producers to adopt practices and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sequester carbon in soils and improve soil health. The new Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership — which is a $3.5-billion five-year agreement between federal, provincial and territorial governments — includes funding to support farmers in adapting practices to improve soil health. This includes a new $250-million cost-shared Resilient Agricultural Landscape Program to help farmers implement such practices and help enhance the natural ability of agricultural lands to sequester carbon, protecting biodiversity and, of course, soil health.

The government is also developing a sustainable agricultural strategy in collaboration with sector partners and stakeholders. It will focus on five themes, including soil health, and help set a shared direction for our actions together to improve environmental performance over the long term to enhance the sustainability, competitiveness and vitality of this sector.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s stated intent that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

He said: Honourable colleagues, I rise today to speak to the motion proposing that the Senate accept the other place’s message in response to the Senate’s amendments to Bill C-11 and bring the online streaming act to Royal Assent.

Before I begin my remarks, there is one person that I would very much like to mention. Unfortunately, Senator Dennis Dawson’s retirement date did not coincide with the passage of the bill, but I want to thank him again for the important work he did and his leadership in getting us here today. Having worked behind the scenes with Senator Dawson on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11 for what now seems like a very long time, I can attest to the fact that he has not only vigorously defended this bill in this place, but he has also defended the Senate’s views with the government both on policy and on process.

The other place’s response to Senate amendments would simply not be what it is today without his consistent outreach and advocacy. I cannot thank him enough, and I very much look forward to inviting him here for Royal Assent.

Honourable senators, the Senate has three possible practical responses to this message. It can concur, insist on its amendments or make a new proposal within the scope of the disagreement. Today I am asking this chamber to concur with the decision of our fellow parliamentarians in the other place, a decision that is clear, informed and carefully considered and which comes to us following a robust and vigorous debate in a minority Parliament — and a decision, I would add, to accept in part or in full close to 80% of the amendments the Senate made to the bill. Indeed, the other place has accepted amendments proposed by senators representing all recognized parties and parliamentary groups in this place.

In addition, given the importance of the issue of user-generated content, the motion before us also proposes that we as a Senate collectively underscore to members of Parliament that we have taken note of the Government of Canada’s commitment that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content as well as the government’s commitment to issue policy direction to the CRTC accordingly.

For Canada’s cultural sector, it has been a long road and a long wait, but the finish line is in sight. For many in the industry, an important source of their income is inextricably linked to the passage of this bill. By concurring with the message received from the other place, we will finally usher into law a modernized Broadcasting Act that is built for today’s world, an act that is forward-looking and one that is sufficiently flexible to adapt to an unpredictable digital landscape that has real-life impacts on the lives of Canadian artists.

And in so doing, colleagues, at long last, we would make good on the government’s electoral commitment to reform the Broadcasting Act to ensure that web giants contribute to the creation and promotion of Canadian stories and music, a commitment that also formed part of the written platforms of the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party during the most recent federal election.

In my remarks today, I will first turn to the context that has led us to receive this message, because that perspective is important to situate our debate and to understand why the response of the other place is worthy of our support.

Second, I will address each Senate amendment, beginning with the many that have been accepted by our elected counterparts and ending with those that our colleagues considered but ultimately decided to support an alternative policy choice.

Finally, I will contribute a few observations about the role of the Senate at this stage of the parliamentary process.

Colleagues, it is with immense pride that I speak today, because I genuinely think that the Senate did really good work on this bill and that this work was acknowledged and acted on by the other place.

As I see it, the message before us is yet another example of the meaningful contribution that the Senate can make, and indeed is making, to the legislative process. It’s a respectful response from the other place, and one which — once again — shows the government’s preparedness to propose that the other place accept recommendations of the Senate on any range of its signature legislative measures.

Bill C-11 is a better bill today because of our work, and I commend all of you for the work you did on this.

Now I have a few words on the context. To my mind, understanding how we got here is critically important to understanding the stakes. At this message stage, it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees, so part of my argument today is that we must not lose sight of the proverbial forest that is Bill C-11 — a good bill, a bill desperately needed and long overdue.

It is important to acknowledge that the two chambers of Parliament have agreed to approximately 99% of the content of Bill C-11 with the narrow issue before us being a disagreement on a few clauses. But it’s equally the case that at this stage of the process, and until the bill reaches Royal Assent, the totality of Bill C-11 — the forest as a whole — is hanging in the balance.

Let me remind colleagues of what the primary objectives are of Bill C-11. Above all, it clarifies the scope of the Broadcasting Act to include online broadcasting. It updates broadcasting and regulatory policies to better reflect Canada’s diversity, it ensures equitable treatment of players through regulation and, finally, it provides modernized tools for effective oversight and enforcement.

Modernizing the Broadcasting Act is a long-standing ask from the creative and cultural sectors in Canada, and it responds to the issues that are top of mind for so many Canadians such as affordability, economic competitiveness, cultural sovereignty, accessibility, consumer rights and privacy.

Artistic and cultural communities across the country as diverse as the Screen Composers Guild of Canada, the Fédération culturelle canadienne-française and Indigenous news organizations are eagerly awaiting its adoption into law.

The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized was in 1991. To put this in perspective, Google went live in 1998, and Facebook in 2004; YouTube launched in 2005; in 2007, Netflix began streaming directly to TVs and computers; and in 2008, Spotify began streaming music internationally and expanded to Canada in 2014. Colleagues, changes to the Broadcasting Act are long overdue.

The genesis of Bill C-11 lies in the report prepared by the Broadcasting & Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel, chaired by Janet Yale, one of Canada’s most respected telecommunications experts. The panel, established by the government in June 2018, was mandated to undertake an independent and exhaustive review of Canada’s communications laws, including the Broadcasting Act, to determine how the legislative framework could not only be updated but be able to adapt to emergent communications technologies.

The single most important message the report sought to convey was that there was an urgent need to adapt our legislative framework and regulatory tools so that Canada can be in a position for success in today’s dynamic digital environment.

In January 2020, the panel presented its findings and recommendations to both the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In November of that year, the Honourable Steven Guilbeault, who was Minister of Canadian Heritage at the time, included several recommendations from the Yale report in the tabling of Bill C-10, the predecessor to Bill C-11, during the Forty-third Parliament. Along with calling for a renewal of the institutional framework, the recommendations focused on reducing barriers to advanced telecommunications networks; supporting the creation, production and discoverability of Canadian content; improving the digital rights of Canadians and enhancing trust in the digital environment.

As part of the Liberal Party of Canada’s electoral platform during the 2021 federal election and its 2021 Speech from the Throne, the government again committed to modernizing the Broadcasting Act. An improved bill, the bill currently before us, was tabled in the Forty-fourth Parliament in February of 2022.

In the other place, the bill underwent an extensive study that led to more than 40 amendments receiving the support and endorsement of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois.

Meanwhile, senators started their work on this key piece of legislation even before it arrived in the Senate. The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications began its examination of the bill as part of a pre-study last June. Over the course of 31 meetings, 9 of which were devoted to clause-by-clause consideration, it heard from 138 witnesses and received 67 written submissions. In meeting time alone, the committee clocked over 67 hours, and we can only imagine the long hours that senators devoted to meeting with stakeholders and in corresponding with Canadians over the course of the same period.

I now turn to the amendments at issue. Colleagues, our labour bore fruit. As mentioned, the Senate proposed 26 amendments to the bill, 20 of which were accepted by the other place and 2 of which were accepted with minor modifications. With your indulgence, I wish to highlight the amendments the other place agrees with and has accepted.

One area where the committee made important improvements is in the broadcasting policy objectives by making the bill more inclusive and more responsive to the needs of minority communities. In amendments 2(a)(ii), 2(a)(iv), 2(b)(ii), and 2(c)(i), Senator Clement put forward proposals to standardize references to Black and racialized communities throughout the bill. These amendments will strengthen the presence of Black and racialized communities in Canada’s broadcasting system.

Senator Clement also brought forward amendments to better recognize the place of Indigenous people, cultures and languages in our broadcasting system.

In amending subsection 2(a)(iii), the bill now recognizes both Indigenous peoples and the importance of emphasizing Indigenous languages in our efforts to revitalize them.

In modifying amendment 2(c)(ii), Senator Clement’s changes support the production and broadcasting of Indigenous language programming in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action.

The committee also ensured in amendment subsection 2(d)(i) that the lived experience of Indigenous peoples who live on- and off-reserve, in urban areas and in a variety of geographic spaces across this country are more adequately served by our broadcasting system.

These amendments will not only ensure the realities of Indigenous peoples are better reflected in our broadcasting system, but they also further our commitment to advancing reconciliation, and they are being supported by the government.

[Translation]

In addition to paying attention to the needs and realities of Indigenous Canadians, Black Canadians, and Canadians from other racialized groups, the committee also made improvements to French programming that will benefit French-language minority populations. The changes proposed by Senator Cormier in amendment 8(b) clarify what constitutes “original French language programs” produced in French compared to programs produced in other languages and dubbed in French. This amendment will ensure that original programs that are dubbed in French aren’t taken into account in the associated requirements. The government supports this amendment.

The government also agreed to another amendment proposed by Senator Cormier to ensure the financial viability of public interest broadcasters, such as APTN, CPAC, ICI TOU.TV, AMI‑télé and TV5, and to help these broadcasters meet their strategic objectives, which are consistent with the inclusion objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

Amendment 8(a) will give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission the power to allocate funds to initiatives such as the development of accessible technologies for people with disabilities, the improvement of the discoverability of Canadian content and the creation of online broadcasting and monetization tools for content creators.

Finally, Senator Dasko added the words “reflect and be responsive to the preferences and interests of various audiences” to section 3 of the act so that it is recognized that Canada’s broadcasting objectives must take into account the diversity of the Canadian public. The government supports that objective and agreed to the amendment.

[English]

Looking out for the integrity of journalism in this country was another area where the Senate brought improvements to the bill. Senator Wallin’s proposal to ensure that the policy goals set out in section 3(1)(d) of the Broadcasting Act ensure “freedom of expression and journalistic independence” — thereby further entrenching freedom of expression in the act — was another amendment that was accepted by the other place and by the government.

In addition, the government has agreed to Senator Simons’ amendment to strike the language that called for community programming aimed at “countering disinformation” and replace it with the phrase to “support local journalism.” Senator Simons’ amendment clarifies the original intention of an amendment adopted in the other place, and it reinforces that Canada’s broadcasting policy goals must include the support of local journalism. This will be a notable benefit for journalism in this country.

Protecting the privacy of individuals is another area where the Senate brought some important improvements and needed clarification to the bill. The amendment proposed by Senator Miville-Dechêne in clause 2 aims to ensure that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, regulates in a manner that respects the privacy of individuals. This amendment complements another one put forward by the Senate’s sponsor and our former colleague Senator Dawson at amendment 4(b). Both amendments are in line with testimony provided by the Privacy Commissioner at our committee hearings, and the government has accepted both.

[Translation]

In closing, honourable colleagues, I’d like to talk about some of the amendments that made the bill clearer, others that are more technical in nature and others still that are more general in scope.

First, in amendments 2(a)(i), 2(b)(iv) and 4(a), Senator Dasko proposed wording confirming that Canada’s broadcasting system must encourage innovation.

The change proposed by Senator Cormier in amendment 2(c)(iii) restores the wording from a passage of the Broadcasting Act to which changes had been made. Only the mention of independent Canadian producers remains, in order to bring Canada closer to its objective of growing the independent production sector.

As far as the Status of the Artist Act is concerned, amendment 12 proposed by Senator Cormier makes a clarification to a change made at the other place by indicating that the Status of the Artist Act applies only to federally regulated organizations. This change gives more flexibility to the legislation and prevents interference in a provincial jurisdiction.

[English]

In amendment 1(b), Senator Plett put forth a proposal to broaden the interpretative clause on freedom of expression to include creators, which the government agreed to. The government also accepted an amendment tabled by Senator Batters which will harmonize the definition of “decision” with the one existing in the Telecommunications Act.

Senator Simons’ initiative to delete subsection 7(7) brings clarity and removes ambiguity from the bill, an important amendment, to be sure. Finally, in amendment 10, Senator Quinn’s amendment will require that the CRTC’s consultation reports be tabled in both houses of Parliament. This ensures that parliamentarians — and senators alike — will stay apprised of the CRTC’s consultation process. Both of these amendments have been accepted by the other place.

Colleagues, up to this point, I have detailed 18 amendments that the other place accepted, including amendments proposed by all four recognized parties and parliamentary groups in the Senate. I would now like to focus our attention on an additional two amendments the Senate proposed which were supported with modifications.

The first can be found in section 18 of the Broadcasting Act, proposed by Senator Cormier, and this is item 9 in the message. With respect to this provision, the government has proposed to keep the requirement proposed by the Senate that public hearings be held and remove subsection 2.1. The proposed amendment to add subsection 2.1 to section 18 would have required that the public hearing be held after a proposed regulation or order is published. The reason that the government respectfully disagreed with this component of the proposed amendment is because the CRTC — a quasi-judicial tribunal — consults interested parties before a regulation is developed, not afterwards. The public hearing is used to gather the evidence record upon which a regulation or an order is based. From the government’s perspective, requiring a second public hearing after decisions are taken by the CRTC during regulatory proceedings will entail unnecessary delays in the administration of the act and will ultimately impede the CRTC’s regulatory efficiency.

With respect to the second amendment accepted with modifications, one proposed by Senator Cormier, the government proposes an amendment to item 7(a) of the message, which would amend clause 11 of the bill. The government’s amendment aims to underscore the importance of supporting creators and to sustain and build Canada’s creative sectors. It allows the CRTC to make sure that Canadians are benefiting in a significant manner from the exploitation of a given program by broadcasters.

[Translation]

In summary, esteemed colleagues, the Senate proposed significant improvements to the bill to strengthen privacy, promote innovation, maintain the crucial role of independent producers in our broadcasting system, increase production of original French-language programs, normalize the presence of Black and racialized communities, better reflect the realities of Indigenous peoples in the Canadian broadcasting system, and increase the accountability of the CRTC by requiring the commission to table its reports in Parliament.

[English]

I turn now to the few amendments that the other place has opted not to support. In doing so, it is important to understand, colleagues, that in debating the Senate’s message, the other place was asked to debate and pronounce itself specifically on the Senate’s amendments. I underscore this point because it is important to understand that what we are dealing with are informed decisions by members of Parliament on the areas of Bill C-11 that the Senate proposed be amended.

The government respectfully disagrees with amendment 1(a)(i) proposed by Senator Batters to modify the definition of “community element.” Currently, the community element would include both not-for-profit entities but also community channels that are operated by for-profit broadcasters, as is the case for Rogers, for example, where the corporation gives broadcasting space to community organizations to produce their own programming.

The government heard from a range of key stakeholders, including community-based stakeholders such as the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations — it is a great acronym, CACTUS — who have requested to keep the wording “broadcasting undertaking” in the definition of “community element,” as proposed in Bill C-11. Rejecting this amendment will ensure that the definition in the bill and the act properly refers to community elements in the broadcasting system.

The government also respectfully disagrees with the proposed amendment 2(d)(ii) put forward by Senator Miville-Dechêne to compel online undertakings to implement methods such as age verification to prevent children from accessing explicit sexual material. Colleagues, protecting children is a priority of this government, and it is looking forward to introducing legislation on online safety with the goal of keeping all Canadians safe online. In the government’s view, however, Bill C-11 is not the appropriate vehicle to advance this important issue.

The parliamentary committees that have studied Bill C-11, and its predecessor Bill C-10, heard from many witnesses on the issues addressed by the bill. The safety of minors was not the focus of those deliberations, and to be done right, we would have had to hear from the spectrum of voices of those directly engaged and impacted by this issue. We did not, nor did they in the other place. For these reasons, the government cannot support this amendment, which goes beyond the policy intent of this legislation.

It is, however, worth highlighting that Bill S-210, which seeks to achieve similar policy objectives, is currently at third-reading stage in the Senate and is advancing as part of the normal parliamentary process.

The government equally disagrees with the addition of subsection 46(1.1) to the act as proposed by Senator Downe, which seeks to prohibit the CBC/Radio-Canada from broadcasting an advertisement or announcement on behalf of an advertiser that is designed to resemble journalistic programming. Here again, the government’s respectful disagreement takes us back to the core objectives of the bill. Bill C-11 did not open up important questions around the CBC/Radio-Canada and its mandate. They’re important questions, and it remains a key priority for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to modernize CBC/Radio-Canada. However, the government believes this should be done in a holistic way and not in a piecemeal fashion.

Although branded advertisement is an important issue, the government is of the view that this amendment is not appropriate in the context of this bill. Moreover, colleagues, CBC/Radio-Canada needs to be able to fund operations through advertising and other initiatives, and, ultimately, this proposed amendment would likely increase its reliance on government funding.

Taken together, the amendments regarding age verification and CBC/Radio-Canada are, in the government’s view, a departure from the key policy intent of Bill C-11 and should be considered and debated elsewhere.

The government further respectfully disagrees with Senator Manning’s proposal to remove paragraph 9.1(1)(d) of the act because of concerns that it could be interpreted as limiting the CRTC’s ability to impose conditions respecting the proportion of programs to be broadcast that are devoted to specific genres of programming, including children’s programming or French language dramas. Some genres, such as documentaries, have been important entry points for emerging and diverse Canadian talent. We should also remember, colleagues, that several stakeholders, including the Documentary Organization of Canada and the Canadian Media Producers Association, raised concerns about this particular amendment.

Whether in stories or song, whether traditional or online broadcasting, limiting genres could have the impact of reducing the diversity of programming in Canada, and such an outcome would go against the primary policy objective of the Broadcasting Act.

The government also respectfully disagrees with Senator Manning’s proposal to add subsection 10(1.11) to the act, which proposes that no factor is determinative in establishing the definition of Canadian program. The bill sets out factors to be considered by the CRTC in its determination of a Canadian program. The amendment risks confusing matters and disrupting CRTC’s regulatory process for arriving at an evidence-based determination of what Canadian content is. It places restrictions that, frankly, could prevent the CRTC from arriving at the definition that best advances the broadcasting policy objectives. In brief, the government rejected this amendment, as it would unduly restrict the CRTC’s flexibility in determining the definition of Canadian program. The CRTC should be able to, following open and public processes, determine the most efficient, effective and equitable definition in light of the considerations set out in the bill.

Finally, we turn our attention to the social media services as part of section 4.2(2) of the act. Both in committee and at third reading, the issue of user-generated content on social media platforms generated much discussion and much interest. In response, an amendment was adopted at committee and by the Senate to clarify the issue. Colleagues, as many of you will know, numerous stakeholders representing Canadian artists have warned that the proposed amendment would create a major loophole in the act — a loophole that would enable social media platforms to avoid contributing to Canadian culture in an equitable fashion.

[Translation]

There is a long list of industry spokespersons who pointed out the risks of the amendment to section 4.2(2). This list includes the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, the Union des artistes, UDA, the Professional Music Publishers’ Association, APEM, the Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec, GMMQ, the Regroupement des artisans de la musique, RAM, the Collective Society for the Rights of Makers of Sound Recordings and Music Videos, SOPROQ, the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, SPACQ, and the Association québécoise de l’industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, ADISQ.

I would like to start by establishing the government’s position and reasoning in the context of this proposal.

[English]

I begin with the overarching legislative objectives of Bill C-11, which is to modernize the Broadcasting Act to ensure a fair, neutral and level playing field for all those who are engaged in broadcasting, whether traditional broadcasters or those new social media platforms who are acting as broadcasters. Otherwise put, Bill C-11 is designed to ensure that the modernized Broadcasting Act be agnostic as to what platform is being used to engage in broadcasting and neutral with respect to the technology being used to do that broadcasting.

Now, when Bill C-11 was tabled in February 2022, an important element in the proposed approach to platforms was to focus on the commercial programs uploaded to those services, thereby providing for equitable treatment of commercial programming consumed on different platforms, whether they’re transmitted by television stations, through radio waves or on digital platforms, like Spotify or YouTube. It is not the intent of the bill to regulate social media platforms in relation to the programs of social media creators. In all cases, broadcasting regulations or requirements imposed by the CRTC must reflect and respect the freedom of expression and the overarching policy objectives set out in section 3 of the legislation.

Bill C-11 provides that regulation would not apply in the following areas: programs that do not generate revenues; everyday uses of social media, including posting amateur programs to those services; social media users and individual creators who remain exempt from the act; and, lastly, social media services except in relation to certain commercial programs.

Section 4.2 of the act lists three factors that the CRTC must consider in identifying commercial programs. It will consider the revenues generated by commercial programs, whether the programs are available on other traditional broadcasters and whether the programs have been assigned an international standard code number. The purpose of these three factors is to ensure fairness across broadcasting platforms and to provide direction to the CRTC on how section 4.2 is to be applied in practice.

Bill C-11 provides that when social media platforms are being used to distribute commercial programs, they be required to contribute to the support of Canadian stories and Canadian music. Certain social media platforms substantially act as substitutes for other broadcasters, including streaming services. As such, the social media platform would have regulatory responsibilities, but only with respect to commercial content it distributes on its service.

The modernized Broadcasting Act will not apply to individual users of social media services. Bill C-11 does not and will not apply to user-generated content because, simply put, using a social media service does not make you a broadcaster. Rest assured, colleagues, that this legislation will not interfere with or stifle the expression of Canadian voices. The government has made this clear on several occasions, including at our committee hearings.

As we know, during the Senate’s study of Bill C-11, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications adopted an amendment to subsection 4.2(2) of the Broadcasting Act. When it was presented, it was stated that the intent of the amendment was to narrow the scope of programs that can be regulated on social media services with a particular focus on the regulation of music on social media. Although well-intentioned, the amendment, in the government’s view, is problematic for several reasons, and these reasons explain why it is opposed to by numerous stakeholders, by the government and by both the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québécois. The central problem is that the amendment creates loopholes for social media platforms to avoid contributing to Canadian culture in an equitable manner and, by so doing, would undermine a core policy objective of the online streaming act. Let me cite two examples of why and how this is so.

First, by focusing on the regulation of sound recordings on social media, the amendment is too narrow in scope. To be sure, social media platform services are frequently used as a substitute for other music streaming services. However, commercial content is not simply restricted to music produced by the large record labels. It also includes content such as full-length movies, TV shows, sports broadcasts, award shows and live concerts, all of which typically contain music as part of the broadcast. By narrowing the scope of the clause to capture only professional sound recordings uploaded in very specific circumstances, the proposed amendment sought to make the exclusion of user-generated content more explicit.

However, in its application it would introduce interpretive uncertainty into the act, it would undermine the platform-agnostic and technology-neutral nature of the Broadcasting Act, and that could result in web giants escaping their obligations under the act. In effect, the amendment would have the effect of excluding a range of commercial audio-visual content, such as livestreamed professional sports games, full-length movies, television shows and even professional music videos from the contributions that social media platforms will and should be required to make to support Canadian culture. The proposed amendment would not give the CRTC the ability to clearly scope in such audio-visual commercial content because it would be constrained and would only be able to do so based on the presence of soundtracks or audio elements.

Senators, please consider the following examples of when social media platforms broadcast commercial content, acting just like conventional broadcasters or online streaming platforms. For example, sports events are very valuable to broadcasters. Brands pay top dollar for advertising. For example, Facebook acquired exclusive broadcasting rights for several baseball games during the 2018, 2019 Major League Baseball seasons. Consider how millions of people watched the 2022 World Cup finals live on YouTube. There are other events, such as the upcoming finals of the popular Eurovision Song Contest, which will be broadcast on TikTok for a second year in a row. Last year, they attracted hundreds of millions of viewers. When they make money from these activities, social media companies must be obliged to reinvest in our creators and into local content creation.

The amendment could also fail to achieve its own stated purpose to capture commercial sound recordings broadcast by social media platforms. This follows from the amendment that removes the reference to monetization in the act and that allows content to be scoped in only if it is uploaded by exclusive rights holders. This effectively creates a loophole given that commercial content is often uploaded by third parties. YouTube and the rights holders often make money from content uploaded in this way thanks to their content ID system, which identifies and gives rights holders royalties and control over whether that content stays on the platform or not. The effect of this amendment would be to reduce YouTube’s obligations to contribute to Canadian content. It would benefit their specific business model and it would encourage the distribution of more content in a manner that frees them from the obligations that this bill was designed to establish.

Consider the popular song “Big Yellow Taxi” composed by the great Canadian artist Joni Mitchell. A quick survey of YouTube shows several official versions of Joni Mitchell singing her song. These would be clearly captured by the amendments in question. But among the song search results there are also “unofficial lyric videos” and slide show videos set to her music that come up as options. These videos are almost entirely uploaded by third parties with no relation to Joni Mitchell and no relation to any other rights holders. As previously mentioned, YouTube’s content ID system allows the platform to identify these videos as containing Mitchell’s music and therefore pays royalties to the respective rights holders. However, revenues from these videos, which many Canadians use every day to listen to their music, would be excluded under the proposed amendment. The original version of the bill provides more certainty to the CRTC while still excluding user-generated content from regulation.

Colleagues, the clause as drafted in Bill C-11 was designed in such a way to allow for a degree of flexibility in the system. For example, the government formulation provides factors under section 4.2(2) for the CRTC to consider when it prescribes programs to be regulated on online platforms as per paragraph 4.1(2)(b) of the bill. As mentioned earlier, the bill requires the CRTC to consider the revenues generated by commercial programs, whether the programs are available on other traditional broadcasters, such as CTV or Spotify, and whether the program had been assigned an international standard code number.

The proposed amendments to section 4.2 — by removing the monetization criteria and adding the criteria that only commercial music uploaded by the rights holder on social media services would count towards a platform’s obligations — would introduce a new set of factors. In so doing, the amendment poses a real risk that the central objectives of the act would be compromised by the loophole it introduces. Furthermore, the amendment also restricts the flexibility that the act intended to confer upon the CRTC to ensure that it applies its discretion in a manner consistent with the overall purposes and objectives of the act.

Colleagues, I acknowledge that for some critics of the CRTC, this is the point. They do not believe that the CRTC should have as much or, for some, any discretion on how it applies the act. Indeed, some do not believe that the CRTC or any government institution should have any role regulating social media platforms at all. That’s not the view of this government, nor is it the view of the majority of the members of the House of Commons.

Honourable senators, the effective modernization of our Broadcasting Act cannot be achieved simply by the passage of Bill C-11 alone, important and critical though it is. The legislation needs to be supplemented with policy directives and regulations to make it work and to allow it to adapt to a rapidly changing technological framework. This is necessary to ensure that the CRTC has both the tools and the policy guidance to give effect to the purposes of the act. Colleagues, the clause as drafted in Bill C-11 was designed in such a way to allow for this critical flexibility in the system.

The government has acknowledged from the outset that additional detail on the scope of commercial programs that could lead to regulation of online platforms would be provided to the CRTC by policy direction. Allow me to take a moment to outline what that means and what the process around this is.

Following Royal Assent, the Governor-in-Council will issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how the new legislative framework should be applied, and that is a standard legislative practice. At that point, the policy direction will be publicly available in its draft form. As required and as expected, there will be a consultation period of 30 days at a minimum. During this period, stakeholders and other interested persons may provide comments, raise concerns and make recommendations regarding the policy direction. Following that, the policy direction will be finalized and issued to the CRTC, at which point — let me remind you, colleagues — the CRTC will lead its own independent consultations and outreach. This provides yet another opportunity for engagement and an avenue for all interested parties including artists, producers, radio broadcasters, online streaming platforms, distributors, stakeholders and industry groups to provide input.

To summarize, the issue of a policy direction would follow an open public consultation on the proposed wording and content of that direction, but this important process would be undermined were section 4.2 of the bill to be amended as has been proposed. The choice to add the additional detail and clarification through a policy direction not only ensures the appropriate public consultations on the exact wording, but also ensures that the broadcasting system remains adaptable to technological changes over time. Ultimately, this is the very matter that Bill C-11 seeks to address.

Colleagues, the government’s approach regarding the factors in proposed section 4.2(2) will ensure that an equitable approach is maintained with respect to commercial content on those social media services when they behave like traditional broadcast undertakings. The original legislative language of this provision reflects a balanced approach that respects the work of online content creators, while ensuring that large corporations do not have a shortcut to avoid regulation or avoid contributing to the Canadian creative ecosystem.

That is why, colleagues, the House was not able to support this particular amendment.

Having said all of that, let me be clear for the record once again on behalf of the government: It is a commitment of the Government of Canada to appropriately scope out digital-first creators and user-generated content from Bill C-11 through the policy directive process. Indeed, Minister Pablo Rodriguez has insisted on this point on several occasions:

We will not regulate users or online creators through the bill or our policy, nor digital-first creators, nor influencers, nor users.

I know that we have all heard the minister clearly on that point on many occasions. I, for one, take him at his word, and I fully expect the government to follow through.

In that spirit, I am proposing that the Senate make clear that although it is now prepared to defer to the will of the other place, we have taken note of the government’s clear commitment to issue policy direction to the CRTC in order to ensure that Bill C-11 does not apply to user-generated digital content. The message we would send to the other place — with this motion — is that we, in the Senate, will be watching the government’s next steps very carefully with the expectation that they will be consistent with the promises they have made and that I have repeated to you in this chamber.

Colleagues, we can be proud of the work that the Senate has done on this bill. We’ve improved this bill. We should be pleased — and we can be pleased — that the House has taken the time to carefully consider our work, and has accepted so many of our amendments. We have done excellent legislative work, and it is a credit to the important role that the Senate plays in the Canadian public policy and legislative processes.

The vast majority of amendments proposed have been agreed to by the government and accepted by our colleagues in the other place. There are only six amendments with which the government respectfully disagrees. The fact that there are so few points of disagreement is a testament to the collaboration and hard work that we have done. We have worked collectively in the interests of all Canadians.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge that reaching this stage today is a great success for the Senate and for the Canadian legislative process. Again, I want to thank you all for your role in bringing us to this place.

Bill C-11 is a better bill today because of the work that the Senate has done. In my humble opinion, with all of the amendments that have been accepted, the Senate has now contributed significantly and tangibly to Bill C-11 — and that is consistent with our role as a complementary legislative body of sober second thought.

Furthermore, to my mind, the other place’s response to the Senate amendments to Bill C-11 is part and parcel of a broader story of successful reform toward a more independent and less partisan Senate. As we saw with the major changes accepted for legislation concerning medical assistance in dying, the legalization of cannabis, reforms to the Citizenship Act and legislation regarding impact assessments for development projects, to list just a few examples, the Senate has been making a positive mark on public policy in a way that is, if not unprecedented, certainly significant in the modern era — which has been seen and appreciated by the public.

In my view, the considered nature of the House’s response to Senate amendments is reason enough to declare “mission accomplished,” and to finally move this bill to Royal Assent.

I understand that some colleagues may remain unhappy with this outcome. I pass no judgment on those feelings; they’re entirely legitimate, and I understand them. I do feel that the government has done a good job at being an active listener, both publicly and behind the scenes, particularly on proposed section 4.2, where we now have firm and reliable commitments around regulatory policy direction.

But I can understand why some of us — who have a genuine conviction that the Senate changes were better — may still be struggling and unhappy. To those of you who don’t want to see this bill killed, but who are still dissatisfied with the response from the members of Parliament, I want to suggest to you that there are foundational principles that underpin the role of the Senate in our constitutional order that should tip the balance on the side of accepting the democratic verdict of the other place.

In making this pitch to you, colleagues, I choose not to rely upon one set rule or convention but, rather, on a principle that I have applied in my own decision making in this place long before I took on the role of Government Representative in the Senate. I don’t know why I get choked up when I speak about the role of the Senate — I guess that’s why I signed on for this gig; it’s true.

This is a principle that I have applied from day one since I’ve been here, and it’s a principle of senatorial self-restraint. It’s a principle that I believe lies at the core of our responsibilities as senators, and it’s at the core of the Senate’s intended design by the founders of Confederation. As Sir John A. Macdonald famously said in a frequently referenced dictum, the Senate:

. . . must be an independent House, having free action of its own, for it is only valuable as being a regulating body, calmly considering the legislation initiated by the popular branch and preventing any hasty or ill considered legislation which may come from that body, but it will never set itself in opposition against the deliberate and understood wishes of the people.

In other words, the Senate was meant to be neither a rival to the elected representatives of Canada, nor a rubber stamp for the government. It is intended not to compete, but rather to complete the work of the lower house.

The Supreme Court of Canada reaffirmed the nuances of the Senate’s intended function in 2014 when it decided that implementing consultative elections for the Senate would require a constitutional amendment. For context, colleagues, in a unanimous opinion, the court explained that under the constitutional architecture adopted at Confederation, the Senate was carefully designed with the expectation that it would exercise voluntary self-restraint in its relationship with the House of Commons:

. . . the choice of executive appointment for Senators was also intended to ensure that the Senate would be a complementary legislative body, rather than a perennial rival of the House of Commons in the legislative process. Appointed Senators would not have a popular mandate — they would not have the expectations and legitimacy that stem from popular election. This would ensure that they would confine themselves to their role as a body mainly conducting legislative review, rather than as a coequal of the House of Commons. . . .

The appointed status of Senators, with its attendant assumption that appointment would prevent Senators from overstepping their role as a complementary legislative body, shapes the architecture of the Constitution Act, 1867. It explains why the framers did not deem it necessary to textually specify how the powers of the Senate relate to those of the House of Commons or how to resolve a deadlock between the two chambers.

This, the court explained, was why consultative elections for senators would upset the architecture of the Constitution and, therefore, require a constitutional amendment with provincial buy-in. The court stated:

The proposed consultative elections would fundamentally modify the constitutional architecture we have just described and, by extension, would constitute an amendment to the Constitution. They would weaken the Senate’s role of sober second thought and would give it the democratic legitimacy to systematically block the House of Commons, contrary to its constitutional design.

It’s this principle of senatorial self-restraint — which, in my opinion, is a constitutional expectation designed into our architecture — that I firmly believe should guide our decision making here today. Unlike a rule, the principle of senatorial self‑restraint does not necessarily, or automatically, determine the decision one way or the other. Indeed, it must be weighed and balanced with all other relevant considerations.

Colleagues, allow me to put to you four factors that I believe are compelling — all of which, in my humble opinion, call for a high level of restraint in the context before us. The first factor is this is a message on a bill that comes with a significant democratic imprimatur. It is an explicit 2021 election platform commitment made not only by the governing party, but also by the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois.

The second factor is that the message from the other place in response to Senate amendments is respectful, carefully considered and, indeed, has actioned most of the Senate’s recommendations. As the Senate’s role is one of complementary review, that role is largely fulfilled with the other place’s initial response.

The third factor is, at the message stage, once the other place’s wishes have been made clear, it has been customary for the Senate to exercise deference and accept the will of the members of Parliament. As a matter of fact, since 1960, only seven bills involved a decision by the Senate to insist on some, or all, of its amendments once the House had rejected them.

The fourth factor is that level of deference ought to be even higher in a minority context, where the government cannot act unilaterally, and the message here is reflective of the wishes of multiple political parties representing a significant share of the popular vote. Legislation to achieve the commitment to modernize the Broadcasting Act has now received a positive vote in the other place three times in two separate minority parliaments, with the support of three parties: once at third reading of Bill C-10, once at third reading of Bill C-11 and once again at the message stage just a few short weeks ago.

Colleagues, I hope we can all agree that the other place’s message back to the Senate is carefully considered and respectful. Where the other place has expressed a difference of opinion, I have endeavoured — to the best of my ability — to provide the government’s perspective. While it is my hope that I can persuade all of you that the other place has made the right call, I am under no illusion. I know that some of you will continue to disagree on certain points, and, in the context of a healthy dialogue between the two chambers, that’s to be expected.

To you, I ask that you agree to disagree, but recognize that — at this stage of the process — the responsible choice, as senators, is to support this message. For all of these reasons, I ask you to support this motion and accept this message. To my mind, we have successfully fulfilled our constitutional mandate as a complementary chamber of sober second thought. We have thoroughly reviewed Bill C-11. We have considerably improved Bill C-11. We have asked the other place to think twice and reconsider certain aspects of Bill C-11, and the other place has pronounced itself clearly and specifically on these matters.

There comes a point where our responsibility is to defer to the democratic will. On Bill C-11, we have reached that point. The time has come to bring Bill C-11 to Royal Assent. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question, and, given your experience in public service and regulation, thank you also for underlining the regulatory science that requires a certain amount of flexibility.

The government’s reassurances will come in the policy directive upon which it has made a clear commitment in this place and elsewhere. That will give those folks — and all the folks we’ve heard from — an opportunity to also provide input, as they will when the CRTC carries out its consultations around those matters, to say nothing of the regulatory process.

The record of our debates, our Senate study, my speech and other speeches will also be part of the record. It will be part of the record that the courts and government will look at. We have the ability to both receive reports in this house thanks to the bill and to your amendment, Senator Quinn, and the ability, because we’re the masters of our own house, to hold the government to account. Committees can do follow-up studies. We have many tools in our arsenal to make sure that those voices receive a respectful hearing, which they have.

The government and the two opposition parties took a different view of the well-intentioned and creative amendment, but it did not find favour with the majority of members of the House.

But, yes, I think we have done our job. We’ve done our job well. The government has made a clear commitment to make sure it’s scoped out, and I have confidence that it will keep its word.