The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

(On motion of Senator Martin, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable colleagues, my question is for the Government Leader in the Senate. Senator Gold, although your government has been obfuscating when it comes to implementing a foreign agent registry, the Prime Minister recently tried to appear to support the idea, although at the same time cautioned that it would not be a silver bullet. It’s a pattern of this Prime Minister to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

Now, there is a member of your government tabling a petition in the House of Commons calling for the even near idea of a foreign agent registry to be scrapped altogether. The Prime Minister himself is now citing the internment of thousands of Japanese and Italian Canadians during World War II as an example of why the government is taking its time on this issue.

Senator Gold, we have heard those talking points before. We have heard those talking points from none other than Beijing, and its mouthpiece is right here in Canada. Not only does one thing not have anything to do with the other, but why is the Prime Minister resorting to tactics employed by the Communist thugs in Beijing to scare the very people he should be doing more to protect right here in Canada? Why is he doing their dirty work and their heavy lifting?

Hon. Brian Francis, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, presented the following report:

Thursday, April 20, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples has the honour to present its

TENTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Thursday, March 3, 2022, to examine the federal government’s constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples and any other subject concerning Indigenous Peoples, respectfully requests funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 2(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN FRANCIS

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, Appendix B, p. 1411.)

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

The Charter has been a fundamental transformative element in our Constitution since its enactment in 1982, and in that regard, it has had impacts that even surpassed the expectations of those who lobbied for it and worked hard to see it come to light.

It has transformed the work that we do here in the Senate. It has been an increasingly present part of our discussions and our role as we see it as senators to make sure that the Charter rights of Canadians are taken properly into account and respected in the laws that we are called upon to study and ultimately pass.

It is true that the pre-emptive use of the “notwithstanding” clause is something that is a preoccupation to many of us and, indeed, this government, as the Prime Minister has announced on many occasions.

The “notwithstanding” clause is — we have to remind ourselves — part of the Charter and was part of the bargain that allowed the patriation of the Constitution to happen. It is the government’s position that it should be used appropriately, and not irresponsibly, and in that regard, this issue is currently before the courts, as you know.

I have confidence, though, that the Charter has transformed the way we Canadians see ourselves in many different ways, and I believe it is secure in that regard. It is certainly secure in this chamber.

An Hon. Senator: That’s right.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question and for raising the number of challenges that farmers in this country are facing.

I’m glad you mentioned climate change amongst them because, in fact, farmers are on the front lines in dealing with climate change, whether the issue is flooding or droughts or storms. In my own region of the province where I live, my friends who are maple syrup producers did not have the easiest time this year with the tapping of their trees as a result of climate change.

The government is focused on taking environmental action throughout the country while supporting the competitiveness of farmers, who feed Canadians and, indeed, the world. That’s why the government has done a number of things. They have already exempted gas and diesel for farm use from pollution pricing. They have created a rural top-up for rebates, directly returning proceeds collected in proportion to the amount collected via the price on pollution, which translates to $100 million returned to farmers in 2021-22 and $120 million in 2022-23. Over the last two years, the government has invested $1.5 billion in programs to support farmers to reduce their emissions on farms and grow their operations. This includes a $0.5-billion program to purchase cleaner equipment, such as more energy efficient grain dryers and barn heating systems.

I could go on, but I think this demonstrates this government’s commitment.

Again, as I said on many occasions in this chamber, we are doing the right thing by our planet, by our environment and, indeed, by our farmers — who are the victims of climate change as much as any of us — while at the same time, the government is doing its best to offset the impact of these necessary measures on those, like farmers, who are paying a price.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: My question is for the government leader in the Senate and it concerns the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This week was the forty-first anniversary of the Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms. This document, which is embedded in our Constitution, is one of the key statements about who we are as Canadians, our society and our values, and includes gender equality, Indigenous rights that date back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and freedom from discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion. Yet, we run the risk of this foundational declaration being frayed at the edges with the use of the “notwithstanding” clause and the attacks on minority rights, whether in the courts, in slogans or online campaigns.

Senator Gold, what is your reading about how secure our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is, and what do you think needs to be done to defend its sanctity?

Hon. Robert Black: My question is for Senator Gold, the Government Representative here in our chamber.

Senator Gold, as we all know, Canadian farmers are the backbone of this country. As an advocate for farmers, processors and rural Canadians, I am particularly concerned about the many ongoing issues that continue to create undue hardship on the agriculture sector. Labour shortages, climate change, ever‑changing regulations and supply chain management are just a few.

These issues share one common value, though: increased financial burdens for farmers and their families. Farmers are price-takers, not price-makers. They must continue to compete at market value and often are forced to swallow the costs of decisions beyond their control, and that is why I rise today.

Senator Gold, competition in the market for our farmers is made more difficult by your government because they are charged a tax on a tax. Recently, I received a copy of an invoice from a local farmer in Guelph, Ontario. Trish and Dean Scott reached out to me about the rising costs they are facing on their farm due to being forced to pay taxes on a tax.

Colleagues, not only are they paying the federal excise tax on their diesel and the carbon tax on fuel oil, but they are also paying Harmonized Sales Tax, or HST, on both of these taxes. Let me be clear, this is a tax on a tax — or should I say, a tax on a tax on a tax.

Senator Gold, can you please update the chamber as to why farmers — and, indeed, all Canadians — are being taxed on tax by your government? Will you share with this chamber what the Canadian government is doing to remove their tax on a tax?

Thank you.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Gold, this scandal-plagued Prime Minister continues to appoint his close family friends and Trudeau Foundation connections to get him out of hot water. Prime Minister Trudeau repeatedly puts Special Rapporteur David Johnston in a terrible spot, and now the Prime Minister has structured Johnston’s mandate so that he appears financially incentivized to find there should not be a public inquiry on Beijing election interference.

Mr. Johnston will be compensated $1,600 a day for his efforts, in addition to the lifetime annual $150,000 Governor General pension he collects. If he determined in May that there should be a public inquiry, his special rapporteur services would no longer be required, and his per diems would stop.

Senator Gold, it seems contrived to paper over the truth: Why won’t the Prime Minister come clean with Canadians and just call a public inquiry?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and for underlying the tragedy happening in Yemen. I wish that were the only place such things were happening.

Since 2020, the government has put into place a process whereby permits for exports of arms are not granted automatically but need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Canada continues to do that. It is the position of the government that it will continue to do that to ensure that this industry is carried on in a responsible way.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Wow, Senator Batters, to suggest that the Honourable David Johnston, the former Governor General, would be influenced by a per diem — and you were a lawyer, perhaps not on Bay Street — that is the equivalent of a few hours of work for professionals — but for any amount.

To suggest, imply or assert that somehow the Honourable David Johnston would be influenced by his per diem and that it would change the advice he would give the Prime Minister is really something that — I cannot find the parliamentary language to express how it makes me feel to hear this being treated with seriousness and that you are asking me to respond to a question like this. With all due respect, it does not dignify a response.

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the Government Representative.

Government Representative, I asked you a fairly straightforward question on Tuesday. You said that you would get back to me with an answer. It’s a simple question. I’m sure that if I asked any senators who are staying in hotels whether they paid for their hotel rooms after checking out this morning, they would all be able to answer yes or no fairly quickly.

I used to serve as Government Representative, and I know that a government representative has easy access to the Prime Minister. In my case, I met with him at least twice a week. It would be easy to ask the Prime Minister, “Did you pay for your hotel room?” Do you have an answer? Can you confirm that the Prime Minister paid for his hotel room? I’m still talking about Prospect Estate and Villas, in Ocho Rios, Jamaica.

Hon. Marilou McPhedran: Senator Gold, After more than eight years of armed conflict in Yemen, damning evidence reveals human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian law by all warring parties, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which has led a military intervention in Yemen since March 2015 and has conducted widespread attacks against civilian targets.

Since the beginning of the war, Canada has exported more than $8 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia, including the types of arms deployed in battle. Since I previously questioned the government through you, multiple reports by expert international monitors have specifically denounced Canada’s continued arms exports as perpetuating the crisis.

Through an access-to-information request, there was recently a report, internal to Global Affairs, that further documented that Canada discusses internally the economic value of continuing with this practice with Saudi Arabia. These arms transfers violate Canada’s obligation under the Arms Trade Treaty to which this government acceded in 2019. Under Article 11, Canada is obligated to take measures to prevent diversion of its arms exports to third countries. While other countries have ceased their arms exports, Saudi Arabia is now the top non-U.S. destination for Canadian weapons.

Senator Gold, why won’t Canada comply with its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty by ending its arms exports to Saudi Arabia?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): The short answer is no, I don’t have an answer.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Well, I don’t have an answer to your questions, and I’m not the CBC representative in this place. I know it has become rather common in some quarters — notably in your party — to assert that the CBC is an organ of Liberal government propaganda, despite all evidence to the contrary. Despite the facts, despite the protestations, I guess in this new world — that some live in — the facts don’t seem to matter.

I have made inquiries. I don’t have a response.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I think the amendment is adjourned in my name, Your Honour, but I will withdraw that. I will defer to Senator Housakos, who I think has a few words to say on the amendment before we’re ready for the question.

Hon. Leo Housakos: On debate on the amendment as proposed by Senator Tannas — again, I thank Senator Tannas for always gracefully trying to find compromises in this place. There also comes a point in time when we, as legislators, have heard such an outcry from so many Canadians regarding particular government legislation — like Bill C-11 — that I think we have an obligation, both constitutional and moral, to ensure those voices are heard.

I want to remind members of this chamber that our committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, did a very robust study. We did a deep dive into Bill C-11, despite pushback, as many of us know, both from the government and, on many occasions, from the other side. There was an unwillingness to hear from all witnesses.

Throughout the process of the study, we saw how digital-first creators in this country were cajoled, intimidated at times and threatened, both at committee in the other place and in the media. You can’t deny that, Senator Gold; you can’t. It’s all on the record. Witnesses came before the committee, and they have corroborated this. I’m not making it up. Read the report, colleagues, because we had 140 witnesses come before our committee. We heard close to 70 hours of testimony. In addition to the 140 witnesses, we had 67 additional written briefs. This was an unprecedented, in-depth study where we heard from many people. The outcome, as we all understand, is far from unanimous when it comes to Bill C-11.

Digital-first creators are a growing industry. It’s millions of Canadians — individuals from all walks of life — who find the digital platforms that they are currently propelling their work, art and communication from as an essential part of their lives. It is an essential part of our lives. They have concerns that need to be addressed in this bill and in the law.

I have now been in this place long enough to know that when successive governments are not keen on proposals being put forward by this chamber, they send us off to put observations in bills. They give us vague letters, commitments and promises in this place about how they are committed to looking at something and ensuring that the voices in the Senate will be heard.

I remember a few years ago when we passed an important bill — by MP Todd Doherty on PTSD — that I had the privilege to sponsor in this place. We all supported that bill unanimously, if you remember — great intentions. I learned a lot. What I learned is that, from now on, when you put forward private members’ bills asking for a framework or particular initiatives from government, you’d better have a timeline.

Guess what has happened since we unanimously passed the call for a framework on PTSD? Absolutely nothing. Three years later, first responders are still suffering. Of course, the argument will be that you can call in the minister or the deputy minister. Senators, we can cry after the fact. The truth of the matter is we did some goodwill legislative work on that bill. We have first responders in this country who are still calling me — their parents, wives, husbands and children — and they are in pain.

Let’s learn from our previous experiences. Let’s not keep doing the same thing over and over again. When you do the same thing over and over again, that is the definition of insanity. That is when things don’t get fixed in this town, and then all we do is go back to these stakeholders and we give excuses for why things haven’t been fixed.

This is our time. This is our moment to stand up for the millions of people who came to our committee. The government claims it rejected the amendment that would have scoped out user-generated content because they want to afford the CRTC flexibility through the consultative process on the regulatory framework. They’re sacrificing clarity in the law itself to supposedly ensure clarity in the consultative process. Does that make any sense to anybody here?

The government also cited that they considered a loophole that, should the amendment pass in it, it would allow platforms like YouTube and TikTok to profit from carrying events like the World Cup or the Eurovision Song Contest without then investing in Canada’s cultural landscape. That is the government’s example.

When these platforms carry these events, or carry something like Major League Baseball, they do so under rights agreements with rightsholders. It is not user content but content uploaded by the provider themselves under licence, and is covered by section 4.1(2)(a). In other words, the use is already subject to the law and not impacted one iota by this Senate amendment.

Senator Gold also contradicts himself in his assurance that user-generated content isn’t scoped in by stating any content that is uploaded by users that contains music isn’t in the scope of the regulation. He said that in his speech.

The Weeknd is an artist that I just discovered during this study, which my kids are very much into — he, The Weeknd. I always thought the weekend was Saturday and Sunday, and for us senators Friday, Saturday, Sunday as well, but that is another story.

When kids do dance challenges to a song by The Weeknd, the government explicitly wants that to be in scope, which is precisely what the music label said they did not want to be in scope.

Even in explaining their reasons for rejecting the most consequential and meaningful Senate amendments — which, again, thousands of digital-first providers requested us to put in — this government is once again contradicting itself.

Furthermore, all of this is nonsense, because amending section 4 as the Senate has done has no bearing on the government’s ability to collect money from platforms. Section 4 isn’t about financial obligations; it’s about programming obligations.

It is actually section 11 that establishes the regulatory power to mandate financial obligations on companies like YouTube and TikTok, and is separate from the content regulation provisions found in section 4.

For the government to state that amending section 4, as Senator Gold said yesterday, in the manner that we have in any way prevents them from establishing financial obligations is completely hogwash, or I should say wrong, and nowhere near a justification for rejecting the Senate amendments to protect user-generated content and protect Canadian creators and their livelihoods.

Colleagues, streamers, bloggers and the new digital world is creating billions of dollars of revenue for the government, billions of dollars of investment for arts and culture in Canada. Again, our committee heard unprecedented testimony about how arts and culture in Canada in 2023 is at an unprecedented level — robust growth. If anything, there are not enough artists, actors, producers and Canadian capital to keep all our artists in this country busy making films and documentaries.

We’ve never seen more choice before than we now have on platforms when it comes to independent journalism and bloggers because they no longer need permission from the CRTC. They no longer need permission from Canadian Heritage. They no longer need to get money from the Canada Media Fund or the National Film Board of Canada. They get it from different sources because there is unlimited potential and possibility when it comes to these platforms.

Colleagues, again, I want to wrap up by saying, as much as I appreciate the intent from Senator Tannas — I think there is goodwill there, as this institution and this body has always shown in my years of being here with two successive governments now — at the end of the day, please forgive me — and this is not a partisan comment — I just do not trust when government says, “Trust us, we’re going to take care of it,” or, “No, no. You don’t need to put it in the bill.” I’ve been had many times before, Senator Tannas. We both have been here for a long time. I have seen this movie before.

Colleagues, we have a constitutional right — an obligation — to stand up and to tell the government to please reconsider this. We’ve heard this before. We have millions of Canadians that want it in black and white in this law.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, at the same time that the CBC was covering the 2019 federal election campaign, it also chose to launch a lawsuit against the Conservative Party of Canada over video clips and ads. On May 13, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed this lawsuit with costs.

During Senate Question Period on June 1, 2021, I asked:

How much has the CBC cost taxpayers for this? How much will the CBC pay the Conservative Party? Has anyone who was responsible for bringing forward this ridiculous lawsuit been fired from the CBC?

I have yet to receive an answer. A similar written question that I put on the Order Paper on May 25, 2021, remains unanswered. These are events that happened two years ago, leader. The CBC knows the answers to my questions.

Over two months ago, on February 14, I asked you about this again, and you said you would make inquiries. What did you find out? How much did it cost the taxpayers?

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed, on division.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Jaffer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier, for the second reading of Bill S-235, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Ringuette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ravalia, for the second reading of Bill S-239, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal interest rate).

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boyer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marwah, for the second reading of Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures).