Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, before I move the adoption of the report, it has come to my attention that there was a technical problem during the preparation of the report, which resulted in the report as presented not accurately reflecting the decisions taken by the committee.

I have been informed that the technical issue has been resolved and that internal quality controls are being reviewed to minimize the risk of similar errors occurring again and to ensure that the Senate has before it a document that accurately reflects the committee’s decision.

Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate, I move:

That the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be amended in amendment no. 1 by deleting subsection (1.12) and by renumbering subsection (1.13) as subsection (1.12).

Hon. Pamela Wallin: For the record, Senator Gold, the constitutional design does allow for the Senate to challenge the House of Commons and not just once. You cited the cases yourself. I would also add that declaring “mission accomplished” is also a bit of a risky move when we heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses speaking on behalf of literally thousands of content creators about their concerns. We also heard from former CRTC chairs, from federal judges that this bill would have and could have unintended consequences on a free and open internet.

If I could focus again on what my colleagues have said, if you believe — yes, we have heard the minister say it repeatedly and we’ve heard you say it repeatedly — this bill does not apply to user-generated digital content, why would you not put it in the law itself for clarity? This just continues to raise questions and doubts and it’s just what we do with legislation here. There are, as you know, many questions in the public about the intent of this bill. You have gone so far as to say that you want this to apply to content and generators, other forms of media that have not even been imagined yet into the future. You’re asking us to give you a blank cheque on that. Could you just start and answer the question of why you have not put this in the bill in black and white, in clear language, which is what thousands of people asked you to do?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. With respect to our constitutional role, no one is denying what the Constitution Act, 1867 says. But in my speech — and I’m sure you were listening — the Supreme Court made it clear that because of the understanding from 1867 onward of our complementary role, it was not necessary to specify the circumstances under which senators would exercise restraint as a matter of principle, a self-imposed principle of restraint, because it came with the understanding, which all of us share and should share, of what our role here in this chamber is vis-à-vis the role of other institutions in our government, including the elected officials.

It is a question of what the appropriate and responsible thing for the Senate to do is. This is not a case where, in my humble opinion, the message is about the disagreement with 6 of the 26 amendments — and again, colleagues, the motion focuses on and our practice in the Senate focuses at the message stage on talking only about the message. There are Speaker’s rulings on these points.

Again, I am not invoking procedural arguments to stifle this discussion. I’m just trying to appeal to your experience as a legislator and to those of us with perhaps less experience to remind us what this debate is about and what it’s not about.

(1650)

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the question is as follows: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Harder, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Bellemare:

That Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time on the following division:

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

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.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Pate, what we did hear from a lot of the witnesses, particularly those who were victims of very tragic, violent offences, is that they are not able to exist, they are not able to leave their homes in a sense of comfort. They would like to see this bill passed for that opportunity to have a little bit of a normal life and leave their home.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree. But sometimes it is said that one should not let perfection get in the way of progress.

I would like to see us solve all of the world’s issues on things. But I would also like us to attack some of the root cause issues. At the same time, I do not see why some of these women should suffer and have to be held captive in their own homes and afraid to leave. If that gives them some sense of comfort that, while it is not a deterrent, it is certainly a preventative measure to keep the individuals who are threatening them and cut out the — I am just wondering if you think that the two could not exist in a parallel process.

I totally understand and agree with what you are saying, but I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): First of all, I’m quite surprised that you would quote from an article from the CBC, which your leader claims is the Trudeau government’s propaganda arm. However, one of the things I like about being a senator is that I’m always learning new things. It’s to your credit, colleague, that you have quoted this propaganda arm.

Let’s be serious. The Prime Minister has the right to take a vacation with his family, and he also needs security to protect them. This applies to any prime minister, regardless of the party he or she represents.

The need to use a government aircraft is a long-standing practice for prime ministers in order to ensure their safety.

Finally, I’m pleased to follow your lead and also quote the CBC. A former colleague of Prime Minister Harper’s, Dimitri Soudas, once said that the Prime Minister is a father, he has a family, and it’s okay to take a vacation with his family.

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for your speech, Senator Dalphond. My question has to do with the preamble of this bill, which refers to the fact that the sterilization of persons without their consent is a legacy of systemic discrimination. Can you invite the members of the committee who are going to study the bill to look at the practical ways in which the systemic aspect of this discrimination will be dealt with since we are talking about individual procedures being carried out by doctors—

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Pate, you will take another question?

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I’m sorry. You said “no,” Senator Martin?

[Translation]

Senator Martin: No.

Senator Pate: Thank you for the question. It’s the same thing that I have been saying here. In fact, I have spoken to those women. That was the most they felt they could get. They saw it as a way that the government could posit some support and appear to be dealing with violence against women. Some of them are from the same group who have now come forward in the CBC report that I mentioned in my comments. Those same groups are saying that this money could have been devoted to more bed spaces and might have had more effective use, because those in remote and rural communities were not being served by this.

So it goes back to the very point that I hope I have made clearly — but perhaps I haven’t, and thank you for the opportunity to rearticulate it — which is that it is not that women do not say they want this, but they say they want it when it is the only thing offered. That is the issue that I think we have to grapple with as a Senate.

Senator Gold: As you know, honourable senators, in 2017, the government published its strategy to address gender-based violence. It’s outlined in a document that’s entitled, It’s Time: Canada’s Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence.

This strategy builds on several federal initiatives, coordinating existing programs. It lays the foundation for greater action to combat gender-based violence, including initiatives to support survivors and their families, and to promote a responsive legal and justice system.

There are other ways that the government is also taking action, notably through the introduction of Bill C-21 which proposes to implement Canada’s most significant action against gun violence in at least a generation and which will — as we know, because of the impact that gun violence has on women and the degree to which firearms, tragically, are used in cases of violence against women — benefit women.

I do not know the answer to your specific question about the status of that recommendation. I’ll certainly make inquiries and report back.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: I’d like to ask a brief question of Senator LaBoucane-Benson.

Thank you for your speech.

Would you have any comment on the significance of the respected organization that represents the Inuit of Canada — ITK — which has rejected this bill as being prejudicial to Inuit in Canada?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question. As I stated in my speech, significant improvements were made to the bill by the Senate which were accepted by the government: These include strengthening the protection of privacy, as well as strengthening the presence and role, of Black Canadians, racialized Canadians and Indigenous voices; making it clear that innovation is an important objective of the regulatory framework and of our Canadian Broadcasting Act; ensuring that audiences figure into the calculations and ensuring the diversity of audiences; and so on and so forth. These were improvements to a bill that was already a good bill.

The bill came to us with massive support in the cultural sectors — supported by large numbers of stakeholders, and supported by three political parties who ran on its modernization as part of their electoral platforms.

This is a good bill; we agreed to and the House agrees to 99% of the bill. We’re talking about a handful of clauses where there is disagreement. I think that’s important for senators to understand at this message stage — when we have received a message from a minority Parliament, supported by a majority of members of the House of Commons who have carefully and responsibly studied our amendments. They’ve read the transcripts and listened to the debates. They have come to different policy choices than the ones the Senate preferred. That is not a reason to ignore the benefits that this bill will bring to Canadians, and the importance of passing it and having it receive Royal Assent as soon as possible.

Senator Gold: The Prime Minister is not vacillating. Although you have many talents, Senator Housakos, you’re hardly a mind reader, so you don’t actually know and should not presume to know what goes on in other people’s minds.

The government is taking this seriously. Investigations are under way. Institutions that are in place, such as the Committee of Parliamentarians and others, have looked and are continuing to look at the issue, as is the Special Rapporteur. Canadians should be secure in the notion that this government is taking their and our interests to heart.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. This past budget, as I’ve stated in this chamber, is designed to provide a road map for the future for Canadians while helping Canadians get through these difficult times. Indeed, despite the obsession of some with debt as the only measure of a country’s economic strength, viability and prospects, the facts remain, apart from the rhetoric, that Canada is well positioned — indeed, positioned better than G7 countries going forward — in terms of having the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and triple-A credit ratings. It is a testament to the practical, real-world, responsible management of this government.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-214, An Act to establish International Mother Language Day, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

Senator Gold: I understand because I attended the meetings as well. First, the bill is clear. It doesn’t apply to digital creators. This bill targets the platforms, not those who create the content.

Second, the minister repeated this several times very recently during a televised public program.

Third, the text makes it clear that this doesn’t apply. The fact that people create something and put it online doesn’t make them broadcasters. Far from it. The definitions are very clear.

Finally, as I mentioned in my speech and in the motion itself, the government has committed to spelling out in the policy direction that this won’t apply. I understand the fears, but they are not based on the text of the bill or the government’s position.

It is a clear and public commitment. If we approve the motion, the will of the Senate will be to ensure that the government is held to the commitments it made.

[English]

Senator Cardozo: I want to make one point that I think is lost sometimes. The CRTC has the ability to make its own regulations within the framework of the act — I use the word “framework” generally, Senator Gold — and it doesn’t have to wait for a directive from cabinet. The point being, over the next few years, the CRTC has the ability to change regulations. If you think of the word “TikTok,” five years ago, “tick-tock” only referred to the sound of your grandfather’s clock — today, it has a different meaning, and, five years from now, it will have a different meaning again. A lot of technology will change.

My question is this: For viewers who are watching us today, our debate so far, over the last hour, has been on a couple of issues that were turned back by the House of Commons. Senator, could you remind us of a couple of highlights where the House did, in fact, agree with the good work we have done, particularly regarding what we advised them on? You outlined them briefly in your opening comments, but I think the viewing public — outside this room — might want to be reminded that the House did agree with a whole lot of things. Although I’m a new senator, 20 out of 26 strikes me as quite high; you can correct me if I’m wrong.

Senator Tannas: We’re arguing over how equivocal the government wants to be here. I wondered if the word “intent” in that paragraph is an equivocation.

Again, would it be possible and acceptable, if this house decided — and maybe you don’t want to answer an “if” question — that that stated intent become something like a public assurance or a public commitment?