Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Thank you, Your Honour. Colleagues, even though I’ve been in this chamber for a bit more than six years, I rise for the first time to speak to a debate on a time allocation motion. This, a priori, leads me to make two important observations. The first is that time allocation is an exceptional process, a powerful and draconian tool with definitive consequences. My second observation is that this measure was treated with the restraint that is required of the government’s representatives, Senators Harder and Gold successively. It should be noted that this is the first time this exceptional practice has been used since this government came into power in 2015 and since the commencement of the Senate reform.

[English]

I will begin my intervention on this first time allocation motion in the Senate from this government by stating that I concur with many points brought forward by Senator Marc Gold in his speech today as well as in the one he gave last Tuesday when the message from the other place on Bill C-11, the online streaming act, was introduced in this chamber. I will not repeat every argument from Senator Gold, but I will insist on one point: how our role and actions as senators are bound by the Salisbury Convention and our complementary nature to the elected House of Commons.

Bill C-11, it can’t be denied, was part of the electoral platform of the Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, it had already been introduced before the last election, then known as Bill C-10, and was widely debated in the other place. As such, we can only conclude that Canadians elected this government with full knowledge of the intent of the bill and the fact that it would be introduced again in a new Parliament. Consequently, as senators, we can closely review the bill, propose changes and amendments, hear from experts and witnesses and we can express our concerns, as we have been doing. However, we can’t act in a way that would cause this bill to be defeated or die again on the Order Paper by way of dilatory tactics.

The Salisbury Convention is a guide, a reminder to show restraint in front of the will of an elected house in our bicameral Westminster system of Parliament.

I’m surprised when I hear senators who are usually so keen to defend the virtues of the classic Westminster system suddenly ignore one of its guiding conventions because it suits the partisan interests of the day.

Colleagues, it is with regret that I have to say that this time allocation motion is justified and even forced upon us under the circumstances. It is proposed today not by the choice of the government but because of the abuse of delaying tactics coming up to this point.

While time allocation is used to limit debate, no one can seriously argue that Bill C-11 and Bill C-10, for that matter, were not debated enough. In the previous Parliament, Bill C-10 was debated on eight different days at the other place from November 2020 to June 2021. In committee, it was studied for 62 hours and a total of 142 witnesses were heard. Its successor, Bill C-11, had even more scrutiny as it was debated on the other side of the Hill for 10 days from February 2022 to June 2022, 80 witnesses were heard and over 100 amendments were discussed and considered.

In the Senate, our Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications had 31 meetings for 67 hours and 30 minutes; 64 amendments were discussed and 26 were adopted.

In the chamber, we debated this bill at six different sittings between June 2022 and February 2023.

What else is there to say? The following: The notion that Bill C-11 is unpopular or unwanted by the Canadian public is false. It is, in fact, quite the contrary. Polls have shown that a majority of Canadians support Bill C-11 and its objective to regulate broadcasting on the internet. One of the polls, commissioned by The Globe and Mail last year, found that 63% of Canadians supported this push to regulate internet content, while only 37% were opposed to it. And by that I don’t mean that 37% of Canadians do not need to be heard, but I do believe they have been heard. This is particularly true in my home province of Quebec, where an overwhelming majority of stakeholders and artists are eagerly awaiting Royal Assent for Bill C-11.

Now let me take a moment to talk to you about our group and the rigorous work we did at the Independent Senators Group with this piece of legislation. I would like to thank particularly our members who have worked tirelessly to improve the bill at the Transport Committee: Senators Clement; Cormier; Dasko; Miville-Dechêne, the deputy chair; Simons; Sorensen and the others from all groups who have studied it and expressed themselves in the chamber. You have done so well maintaining an independent and critical mindset and voting according to your conscience and own personal opinions. I can say proudly that you have fulfilled the work expected of us as senators. Throughout this study, we at the ISG have always shown willingness to scrutinize the contents of the bill, resulting in what I believe to be a comprehensive study.

Not one witness wishing to testify before the committee was turned down. None of the debate was cut short, numerous amendments were presented and a good number of them were included in the final form of this bill. This resulted in better legislation for the benefit of Canadians: A total of 64 amendments were proposed, and 20 out of 26 amendments were adopted at the House of Commons.

On a less positive note, colleagues, while many senators were working to improve Bill C-11, some colleagues had different objectives. What exactly is at play here? Let me be clear: I have no doubt they are acting in good faith, truly believing that this bill is bad and that it should be defeated by any means. However, colleagues, although we would have liked all our amendments to be adopted by the other place and the government, it is time to move forward. The forced time allocation motion being debated today is the only way to break the deadlock and move on the adoption of the message we received beyond the pace of a turtle slowly going from one one-hour bell to another.

Let’s now speak about democracy. First and foremost, we are here to protect democracy. We are not elected representatives. Every one of us is well aware of this fact. We are, however, members of an institution of sober second thought — a thoughtful, reflective partner to the elected chamber. We are still very much a part of the parliamentary system of Canadian democracy.

At the base of every democratic system is the concept of a vote. This is what we are being asked to do by the other place — vote.

Good evening, Senator Plett.

Now, some colleagues know that they will lose a free and democratic vote in this chamber. We have already adopted a version of this bill at third reading, and the odds are that if we were to take a vote on this message, Bill C-11 would most probably be heading toward Royal Assent. These senators are doing everything in their power to prevent a vote. Is it really democracy to promote disinformation and demagogy with incendiary remarks while refusing to proceed to a vote? I know my language will shock some of my esteemed colleagues, but I must say it clearly for the record and for Canadians watching this debate. Bill C-11 is not an attack on free speech or freedom of opinion. Let’s not fall prey to demagogic attacks.

At third reading in this chamber, it was said that Bill C-11 would bring us back to the age of Cicero — a dangerous time where free thinkers would pay for their dissidence to a regime with the loss of limbs. I, rather, see Bill C-11 as a step into the 21st century and a new age of communication and broadcasting. I see it as a way for our Canadian artists and creators to shine and to be promoted fairly. I see it as long overdue.

So if dilatory tactics and demagogic fear mongering can impede a vote on a message from an elected house, are we as senators fulfilling our democratic role? Do we really believe that this is the way to restore the credibility of the Senate? Is this what is expected of us as non-elected parliamentarians, to delay legislation adopted by the representatives of the people?

[Translation]

As we say in French, to ask the question is to answer it.

[English]

The answer is obvious: Of course not.

Colleagues, if we don’t limit debate today to ensure that a vote is held, I’m afraid we might never get the chance to fulfill our duty as parliamentarians and vote on this message. This would be a great disservice to democracy.

[Translation]

In conclusion, today we’re asking that a vote be held. We’re asking that there be respect for parliamentary democracy, that a vote be held completely free of limits on debate, and also that there be a vote on the message from the House of Commons so that a decision is made about the future of Bill C-11.

I began my speech by highlighting the exceptional nature of this motion and its forced nature. In my view, limiting parliamentary debate must remain an exception.

However, I reiterate that the circumstances forced the representative of the government, a democratically elected government, to use this draconian option that is found in our parliamentary rules. Now the time has come to conclude the debate on the response of the government and of the chamber of elected members to the amendments to Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, that we proposed to them, and to continue our work on other legislation while looking to the future.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

[English]

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I do want to say a few words about closure, or time allocation in this case, in part because we gathered as a group, and we have a lot of new members in our group and in the Senate. I think if we even set the legislation aside for a moment, it is important that we understand the principles on which this place operates.

I believe that time allocation should be deployed with caution and restraint, and only when all other options have been exhausted; so too should challenges to the Speaker of this chamber when he offers his considered opinions and rules.

We in this place are here tonight because some of us feel very strongly about a particular piece of legislation. It is, in my mind, not a partisan issue. Bill C-11 touches us in a very personal and particular way. I’ve spent most of my adult life in the business of journalism and media. I have strongly held views. They are not partisan views. You may believe, as the government claims, that this is simply an update of the Broadcasting Act. For me and others, it is a threat to free expression. That does not make me a demagogue. I worked in the business; I understand this bill.

Free expression is not just a slogan. It’s not just free speech on a banner. Free expression is very much a two-way street: the right to speak freely, but the right to hear a wide range of views, to inform ourselves and to share our ideas that may differ. That is at the core of a democracy.

So whether it is the bill or the use of time allocation, the issue is pretty fundamental to how this place operates. What we are seeing is a clash of two fundamental principles of our parliamentary tradition. Governments are, indeed, elected and should expect to pass their legislation in a reasonable amount of time. But when governments run roughshod, they can expect resistance. That is what happened in the other place with the committee process.

Time allocation is a bit of an offshoot of closure, I guess. It is a tool that the government has every right to use, but so too does the opposition have a right to use the tools available to them to delay votes and to have hour-long bells before we vote, as annoying and as frustrating as that may be. It comes back to the age-old debate about the role of the Senate. It is our job to offer — or even impose from time to time — sober second thought, whether the government likes it or not. We are not obliged to defer to the other place. That is a choice we will make in this chamber.

I must say that what has particularly struck me in this debate is about the behaviour of the House of Commons committees. The process was nothing short of appalling. Debates were summarily shut down and motions were passed in secret. Debate was suspended and witnesses were sent home. It makes the obligation for us in this chamber all the more powerful and important. To give voice to those who were denied a voice — that is our job. That is what the very definition of the Senate is. It is very core to our role as parliamentarians. We are not a secondary house. We’re not something that is just an add-on to the process that goes on in the other place. We have a role as parliamentarians.

For many of us, this bill is a problem. Some of us find it truly offensive. But in the end, we also realize that the government will have its way. It will be a little messy. It is certainly not efficient, but democracy is messy. We must consider the consequences of our actions on both sides of the two that are debating here. If the government wants its bills passed, it should engage in discussion and negotiation. I don’t like the fact that tomorrow our committees will probably be cancelled so that we will carry on debate. If you want your legislation passed, you should create the circumstances where our committees can sit. The opposition needs to consider the implications of that as well.

A mind greater than mine once said, “The first act of all persuasion is clarity of purpose.”

This will not be our last controversial debate over legislation, but we owe all of those whom we represent that clarity of purpose, to have an honest debate. But more importantly, to respect the fundamentally different views that Canadians and senators can hold about this bill or about the right of government to limit debate because if you cannot offer people a vision of what they should do, you won’t be able to persuade them about the things they shouldn’t do. That is a challenge to our leaders in this place, and it’s a challenge to each and every one of us. Thank you.

Hon. Peter M. Boehm: Honourable senators, I rise tonight at this late hour not to offer any new groundbreaking analysis on this well-debated topic of time allocation, but simply to join other colleagues in offering my opinion.

This has been a contentious and at times heated debate, as has been the case with Bill C-11, generally. While there is much disagreement about the use of time allocation, it is clear that all senators in this chamber are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of Canadians.

I support the motion. I do not agree with the argument that the government is stifling debate, because the facts simply do not support that assertion. Colleagues, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has done extraordinary work in studying Bill C-11, both in comprehensiveness and length. In the Senate alone, along with a pre-study of Bill C-11 that began on May 31 of last year, Transport and Communications held 31 meetings on the bill from the time it began its study on October 25, 2022. It heard from 138 witnesses over the course of 67.5 hours of meeting time. Beyond this incredible number of witnesses who appeared before the committee, it received another 67 written submissions. Of the 31 meetings held, 9 were just for clause-by-clause consideration, which began on November 23 of last year.

During clause-by-clause consideration, 73 amendments were proposed, 26 of these 73 proposals were adopted to a total of 11 different clauses. There were 13 subamendments proposed, of which 2 were adopted, along with 8 recorded votes.

Let us all spare a thought for the fortitude of the procedural clerks and other committee staff who handled all of that. Colleagues, those statistics do not even take into account the eight days overall during which debate occurred on the messages between the Senate and the House of Commons between February 2 and April 19 of this year.

There is also, of course, the work of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. That committee heard from 80 witnesses in 32 hours over 12 meetings from the time it began its study on May 24, 2022, and debated approximately 100 amendments in its three clause-by-clause sessions, which began on June 14 of last year. It also received 52 written submissions. That, colleagues, is just Bill C-11.

Of course, there was also a full study done on Bill C-11’s predecessor in the last Parliament, then Bill C-10, at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and the Senate began second-reading debate before the dissolution of the Forty-third Parliament.

The Senate has spent more time on Bill C-11 — everyone has said this — than it has on any other piece of legislation in its 156-year history.

Honestly, colleagues, what more is there to say? The Senate, especially the members of the Committee on Transport and Communications, has more than done its work. The committee listened and debated, and so has the Senate. To argue that the government is crushing debate is simply not true.

This is the first time this government has invoked time allocation in the Senate since the start of the Forty-second Parliament in December 2015, nearly seven and a half years ago. In the Forty-first Parliament, however, under the previous government, time allocation was invoked 21 times in less than four years. It seems that support for time allocation depends on where you sit in the chamber.

I will close by reiterating again, colleagues, that time allocation is appropriate in this situation, where the bill in question has been so thoroughly and exhaustively debated, with its principle being debated over two different Parliaments. There is nothing left to say on this bill that has not already been said many times. I thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]