Senator Housakos: Jean Chrétien, a great prime minister who made a great appointment. I don’t want to leave out, of course, Prime Minister Chrétien and Prime Minister Martin. I’ve been here so long, Senator Cordy, my memory is starting to fog up.

To continue my train of thought, we all have an obligation to our constituents. When we give a mandate to our committee to go do the robust, in-depth study that we did and hear so many voices, literally millions of people, user-generated content producers — which means, again, in brackets, Canadians: your kids, your nephews, my children, artists, singers — when these individuals come to us as their last hope because they see a piece of legislation that is riddled with potential dangers — and there is a possibility the CRTC will do the honourable thing, and there is a possibility that politicians and Heritage Canada will be true to their word.

However, I see no obstacle here — no issue why particular amendments that were put forward by Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons that were so responsive to the outcry of citizens — this isn’t a political agenda; this isn’t a partisan issue. This is senators from all groups at committee who heard a large constituency of Canadians who said, “Please, take this issue outside of the pressure cooker of politics of the House of Commons and do the right thing, apply your sober second thought, make the amendments that give us a chance and give us a sense of confidence that the government will not get in our way and destroy our successes.”

Senator Plett: Hear, hear.

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.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Gagné, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tannas:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by replacing, in the second paragraph, the words “stated intent” by the words “public assurance”.

Senator Housakos: I’m standing with the digital-first producers in this country.

“User-generated content,” colleagues, is a digital term, and it’s Canadians. Every time you hear “user-generated content” or “digital-first providers,” just substitute the word “Canadians.”

I’m not standing up for Meta or Google. Unlike this government, I’m not standing up for CTV, Quebecor or Rogers either. If they have issues with their business model and they’re not feeling that they’re competitive enough, that is, philosophically speaking, for them to address. It’s not for legislation to address it or for me as a legislator or any government, Liberal or Conservative alike, to intervene in that particular marketplace to help a business model, because at the end of the day, I’m of the view, “Where does it end?” It has to end somewhere. We don’t have unlimited amounts of money. I know this current government thinks we have unlimited amounts of money, but we don’t.

The truth of the matter and why we’re so persistent, and why you see the subamendment from Senator MacDonald to insist on the amendments that we collectively all voted for — we voted for these amendments at committee; we voted for them here at this chamber. We did that not on a whim but because we are truly a chamber of sober second thought. We did all this because we heard so much testimony from so many witnesses about user‑generated content producers (Canadians) — millions of Canadians who came before our committee and pleaded with this institution.

We are their last hope. These are people who are creating on a daily basis. They’re generating income for the Treasury Board of this country. They’re generating content that is being spread around the world in a very successful way. We see now particularly young Canadians who have completely transformed themselves from the cable broadcasting industry; they’re all online.

As I have said this before in my speeches, I’m still of the old generation. At 9:00 or 10:00, I run to “CTV National News” to watch the news. My boys come walking by the family room laughing at me and spewing out all the news at me at miles an hour because they’re on all these platforms, and they feel they’re getting their news quicker, getting more options, getting more in‑depth news, and they call me a dinosaur.

The issue we have as an institution, Senator Cotter and Senator Dalphond — I listened to your speeches very attentively and I didn’t hear much being addressed in regard to Bill C-11. I did hear a lot of constitutional arguments about how this place is an unelected body. I heard arguments about how it is not our role to push back on government legislation from the other place because they have the elected mandate from the people and so on and so forth. But I just want to go back and remind everyone that it hasn’t been that long since Senator Serge Joyal — an eminent senator who, of course, has argued on behalf of the judiciary on this floor on many occasions what our rights and privileges are — has said many times, including on his way out of this place, that we have to be relevant, relevant to our constituency.

So to both Senator Cotter and Senator Dalphond, with all due respect for their arguments, I said to Senator Dalphond that probably what I do think will happen for years to come is the government leader of future governments will probably be quoting his speech on a number of occasions in the future. That is fine, because he put on his judiciary hat, as he was an eminent judge, and did a very good job at making a judicial argument on the floor, but I as a legislator have had the privilege of working at the feet and learning about Parliament from giants such as Serge Joyal and Lowell Murray and others who came before me.

More importantly, I also was privileged enough when I studied political science at McGill University — there was a professor named J.R. Mallory, who also taught me a thing or two, a renowned constitutional expert in this country. He told me that we live in a country where we have separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary bodies.

So with all due respect to judges who are now, of course, legislators, I want to point out that we have supreme constitutional authority on legislative issues, to step in and articulate and craft legislation to the best of our ability, listening to our constituents, even though we’re not elected. I know we’re all appointed by a prime minister — Prime Minister Trudeau or Prime Minister Harper; I don’t think there are any Prime Minister Martin appointees left — but, at the end of the day, we’re still accountable to our constituents, to our provinces.

Senator Housakos: That is an excellent question, Senator Dalphond.

First of all, as you know, our small group of Conservatives speaks for the majority of Canadians, since we won the majority of votes in the last election. This is an important vote, and we still won more votes than the party that was in power. We won more votes than the current government in two consecutive elections.

It goes without saying that even a democratic parliamentary system is perfectly imperfect. I would also point out that the government is of course elected based on its electoral platform. However, we must not forget that in any election platform, like the Liberal Party platform, it is one thing to say that the Broadcasting Act will be reformed. But the details of the reform process aren’t included in the election platform. The details come later, in a bill, and if there’s any time for the upper house to do its job, it’s to study all the details. An election platform is very general.

Furthermore, I would never argue that we should support a bill simply because reviewing it was part of a political party’s platform, since that is entirely contrary to the idea of the independence of this great parliamentary institution.

[English]

Senator Housakos: Now, at the end of the day, colleagues, let’s be clear: Senator Dalphond and Senator Cotter, we get our legitimacy when we speak for voices from those who feel they haven’t been heard in the House and other places. That’s where we get our judgment day.

The risk we have — and I’ve seen it in my 15 years here many times, with all stripes of governments — very often we acquiesce to the will of those who brought us here. When we acquiesce to the will of the executive branch who brought us here, we silence those constituents who are always calling upon us to represent them and speak for them.

Senator Cotter, I thank Senator Downe, because he has been here longer than I have and he appropriately pointed out that the Senate has exercised its constitutional authority on a number of occasions when the Senate thought we were speaking for a large number of Canadians who felt the executive branch was imposing legislation upon them that they thought was so egregious that we were their last hope to stand up in their defence.

When we choose not to do that for a variety of reasons, I believe — and again, if we listened to Senator Joyal on his way out of this place — this place loses a notch of credibility in the eyes of the public. All of the new senators who came here after me, you all know the biggest challenge we face is our legitimacy, because we’re an appointed body. Too often, I’ve seen a large number of voices in this country — it doesn’t matter if it’s Indigenous people, underprivileged people — whatever the issue may be at whatever time — we agree or disagree — whatever side of the fence you stand on — but a lot of those groups feel that we always acquiesce more often than not to the executive branch. We have heard the argument, both in the media and from the public: “You guys are a rubber stamp.”

So, this is the one occasion where I disagree with Senator Dalphond and where we can exercise our constitutional rights when there is such an outcry. As Chair of the Transport and Communications Committee — I was there on the front line with my colleagues — there is a clear lack of consensus.

There is a particular divide between generations in this country. I think we will also be sending a strong message to a younger generation of Canadians who are asking themselves, “What does that unelected upper chamber really do?” I’ve seen it among witnesses — vloggers and streamers — who came before our committee, both francophone and anglophone. They were like, “Senator, for the first time, we see there is actually a value for this upper chamber. Please exercise your authority.”

That’s why I am speaking in support of the amendment from Senator MacDonald. I don’t think we will be overstepping or overreaching our authority by sending this message back to the government and saying to them, “We strongly recommend you listen to our sage advice and take note of the amendments that are put forward” — by senators appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau.

Again, I reiterate that this is not strictly a partisan issue, and this is not an issue of us defending — as many are trying to turn this into an issue — the multinational digital companies. It is defending average Canadians who are looking at this institution as their last hope.

I’ve been pleading and begging, both in public, outside of this place, and in this place, for us to do the right thing. We want to send a message of independence. We want to send a message that we will stand with people and not stand on the side of government. This is the issue.

Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Plett: What is the purpose of this Senate?

If after four months of hearing from witnesses on this issue, the Senate immediately throws in the towel as soon as the government says “no,” then we have, very simply, failed in our legislative duty, and we have failed as Canadians.

Don’t call ourselves “independent” if we are just going to roll over at the first available opportunity. That is not independence, colleagues. That is not independence.

I believe that is why we must insist on our entire amendment package.

The people whom I am most concerned about are the smaller players who will be impacted by this bill, people like Oorbee Roy, Vanessa Brousseau, Darcy Michael, Justin Tomchuk, J.J. McCullough, Frédéric Bastien Forrest, Scott Benzie and others, all of whom appeared before our committee. These people do not represent big corporations or big media concerns. I submit, colleagues, that at minimum we have an obligation to insist that this tone-deaf government listen to these individuals. Beyond that, we all know — or at least suspect — that this bill is deeply flawed and has serious freedom of speech and freedom of the press ramifications.

Given those ramifications, colleagues, we cannot now back down at the first sign that the government is not willing to take our amendments seriously.

Senator Cotter: I got the question. I’m a bit troubled that someone from your province didn’t at least celebrate my metaphor in the question. Having said that, I’m hardly an expert — may I complete the answer?

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Cotter. I want to highlight that in our Constitution — in black and white — when the forefathers created this chamber, it was created with the same rights, privileges and authority of the House of Commons — the Westminster system.

The second thing we have to keep in mind, colleagues, is that when this house was created, the “Father of Confederation,” John A. Macdonald, also made it clear that this place would be an independent body from the other place. It was also made clear that this body would speak for the voices that it was felt were not being adequately spoken for in the other place.

Prime minister after prime minister — I can give umpteen examples, including former Prime Minister Chrétien and even former Prime Minister Harper, who had a hard time swallowing the legitimacy of this institution — have always said that when an elected government does something that is found to be egregious by a large number of Canadians, that is when the Senate should legitimately step in to ensure that those voices are heard.

My question is the following: When I hear your speech, I’m very concerned. If the Senate has lost a great deal of legitimacy in the eyes of the public over the last couple of decades, it is because they asked the following question: Is this institution nothing more than a glorified debating society and echo chamber?

Senator Housakos: Oh, so Senator Cordy and Senator Massicotte.

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Cotter take a question?

Senator Housakos: I will question him in private over a cup of coffee later.

Senator Cotter: Yes, I would.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, one of Canada’s greatest achievements has been our ability to create a common sense of purpose in a country that is so vast and where the north-south connections are often stronger than the pull east or west. While the phrase “land of the free” is associated with America, we too are the land of the free because of the brave, in world wars, in Korea, in Afghanistan. We mark Remembrance Day to honour those whose sacrifice gave us the freedoms we enjoy and which are envied by millions.

For new Canadians, the public swearing of the oath and citizenship ceremonies themselves are an act of commitment, of signing up to serve their new home. It is a choice often hard come by, but they show a willingness to embrace change and cold winters and new languages and some other strange rituals, many of them on ice. Try explaining curling.

Now, after 76 years, citizenship ceremonies and the public swearing of the oath will be cancelled — ironically, on July 1 — and new Canadians will simply go online and check a box. It’s a travesty. They have waited years and worked hard for the opportunity, and they are being robbed of the opportunity to affirm proudly and publicly their new-found citizenship alongside others who chose the same path. It is perhaps why they are the ones most annoyed with those who illegally jump the queue.

The oath is a meaningful step toward belonging. A meaningless online checkmark diminishes the very concept of citizenship, and it is our obligation as a country to be honest and clear about who we are.

We still think we’re the world’s peacekeepers, but lack the equipment. We’re generous with other people’s money. We don’t pay our bills at NATO. We are rule followers, even standing still at a red light at 2 a.m. on an empty street. We apologize almost as a reflex, but often that is a good thing as we reflect on the past and try hard to change today to make it better tomorrow. But tearing down statues or cancelling history or cancelling ceremonies of citizenship does a disservice to us all, including new Canadians. We owe them our truth. We are all a product of our past, for better or worse: the constant denigration of the hard work of thousands who carved out sod huts and livelihoods and survived the cruelty of winter and gave birth and raised families and grew food — people of all colours and creeds that built lives and communities and shaped this place.

Do we learn from our past? Of course, and so do newcomers. That is often why they are here: to escape tyranny, to be granted freedom of speech and thought and to embrace the comfort of safety and plenty. In the end it is about our commitment to each other as people who share common space, whether we are of a farm or of a fishing village or of a city apartment or of a First Nation.

So keep the oath and the ceremony, and perhaps we should all think about renewing our commitment to citizenship. Let’s commit to this country because Canada is a testament that change is possible.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, on April 24, I will have the distinguished pleasure of hosting a group of young leaders from Quebec for the second edition of the NextGEN Assembly of Leaders, organized by the Sir Wilfrid Laurier School Board and the English Montreal School Board.

It will be an exciting all-day event for 60 students who will gather in person in Ottawa to discuss legislative initiatives currently before Parliament and public policy priorities. Students from King’s-Edgehill School in Nova Scotia will also be joining us virtually.

[Translation]

These young people will have the opportunity to chat virtually with members of the Quebec National Assembly and the Nova Scotia Legislature. The organizing committee hopes to expand the scope of the third edition by inviting other school boards from across the country to participate in this important initiative.

[English]

Students will be divided into breakout groups and have a parliamentarian assigned to them. They will then be asked to research and analyze an issue of national concern currently before Parliament and tasked with coming up with solutions to some of our country’s biggest challenges.

[Translation]

I was delighted to participate in last year’s edition, which took place virtually, and I was impressed by the arguments our young people put forward and the commitment and intelligence they displayed.

[English]

This year, it will be wonderful for some of our colleagues and me to interact with these future leaders in person. I look forward to connecting with them, but, most importantly, I am mostly looking forward to hearing what these bright young minds have to say about some of the most pressing issues facing our country. I hope this immersive experience in the halls of Parliament will give them all an opportunity to further develop and expand their critical thinking and acquire some of the core skills needed to succeed in life, such as active communication, problem solving, meaningful collaboration and a commitment to global citizenship and community building.

It is so refreshing, revitalizing and inspiring to witness firsthand our nation’s youth advocate for change and share their views on the issues that matter to them. As legislators, I feel we can learn so much from them. It is important that we listen and engage with Canada’s future leaders as we legislate, deliberate and represent them in Parliament.

Honourable senators, it’ll be an honour for me to host the second edition of the NextGEN Assembly of Leaders in the Senate next week. Please join me in wishing the 60 youth leaders a most successful and enriching assembly.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable colleagues, May 1 to 7 is Mental Health Week in Canada, a time to reflect on the impact of mental health on our lives, our families, our communities and our country. Mental health is an essential component of our overall well-being, and it affects everyone in some way.

This year’s theme, “My Story,” emphasizes the importance of acknowledging and expressing our emotions, individually and collectively, and embracing our stories which mould who we are. It is a reminder that every individual has a story and caring for mental health should be treated as equally as caring for physical health.

As we recognize Mental Health Week, let us also take a moment to appreciate the efforts of mental health advocates, professionals and organizations who work tirelessly to promote mental health awareness, provide support and reduce the stigma around mental illness.

Honourable colleagues, let us continue to raise our voices to create awareness and work together to destigmatize mental health. Now more than ever, Canadians need support.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

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

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, I know you’re waiting for me to ask this in French.

My question, government leader, is a follow up to a question posed yesterday by my colleague Senator Batters regarding the appointment of Minister LeBlanc’s sister-in-law as the Interim Ethics Commissioner.

In Question Period yesterday, leader, you defended this appointment. You chastised Senator Batters for undermining the important role the Ethics Commissioner plays in our system. Not long afterwards, we learned that Minister LeBlanc’s sister-in-law had, in fact, resigned as the Interim Ethics Commissioner, effective immediately.

Stepping down was the right thing for her to do, but the Trudeau government should never have put her in this situation in the first place. The blame for undermining the role of the Ethics Commissioner falls solely on the Trudeau government.

Now that the minister’s sister-in-law has resigned, Senator Gold, do you agree there was indeed a conflict of interest?

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.)