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. Frances Lankin: Honourable senators, I’ve listened very carefully to the discussion tonight. It has ranged from a clear discussion of the merits of using time allocation at this point in time into discussions about reform of the Senate, where we’re headed or where we should be headed. There is no doubt there is a lot of disagreement in this chamber still. I live in hope that we will continue to have these discussions and perhaps come to a point where we can see a road forward together.

One of the things I would like to say about the speeches I’ve heard tonight is that there isn’t one of them with which I didn’t agree with some elements of what people said. I also disagreed with some elements of what people said.

One of the things that makes it difficult for me with my particular temperament and not being able to keep quiet when Senator Plett says certain things — of course, he can’t keep quiet when I say certain things either; it’s good across the floor — is when a position of the meritorious behaviour of the opposition is put forward as only speaking on behalf of Canadians. We all speak on behalf of Canadians. There are Canadians who have polarized views on this particular piece of legislation before us, as there is on others.

This is on both sides; I include this for the GRO — the Government Representative Office — as well as for the opposition: There isn’t a monopoly on representing what Canadians think. There are tons of scorn heaped upon us from people opposite who say that we’re not independent and put a partisan label on us. That would suit their purposes in terms of their concerns about a loss of official opposition status in a reformed Senate. We understand that those are the things at stake, but all of the people here represent voices of Canadians.

Your job, as has been said, is to bring forward and highlight the voices of Canadians who are not heard through other processes. That does not mean that we will necessarily all agree with what all of those voices have to say. It’s like just a couple of hours ago, maybe it was, when Senator Plett took a shot at me and said that I said that the Rules Committee worked on consensus and that should never happen. Well, no, but I don’t think the Rules Committee works on consensus; I think the Rules Committee puts forward a position of working on a consensus and certain people say, “No, no, no. We don’t have a consensus.” For me, that is exercising a veto, essentially.

We have these tensions, and I think they come primarily from a different understanding and desire for the direction of the Senate.

When it comes to what that means at this moment with the time allocation motion in front of us, I have a history in partisan politics and I hate time allocation motions. I think people should be responsible enough to take the debate as far as it needs to go to hear the variety of voices and to ensure that we have a deliberative discourse that allows us to hear each other.

There is nothing about how this chamber operates that actually supports that.

When I got here, I was appalled when I saw this practice where one person would speak and another person would stand and take the adjournment. It would sometimes be two or three weeks before we got back to that person. How do you listen to each other and ensure you have a coherent debate going forward? I was told that senators needed time to prepare after what they heard.

Maybe it’s not a good example — maybe it’s just the example that I lived in the Ontario legislature — but when we had debates and discussions when a bill came forward, we worked at it and didn’t skip around and adjourn and not come back to it. We talked things through. We got to a point where, responsibly — most of the time — the points had been made. They’d been heard in committee; they made sure there was a full range of witnesses. In fact, every group was able to put forward names, so you could tell there was a full range of views coming forward. Then we debated it out in the legislature, and we came to the point where we voted.

The problem here — and the reason it sticks in my craw that I’m going to support time allocation — is because I have seen with this bill that we have had fulsome debate. In fact, nobody has really talked about the fact that there was a bill in the prior Parliament — Bill C-10 — that was the same as this. It has been around a few times here. We’ve had fulsome debate in this chamber. We had fulsome committee hearings. If that makes up for something that was lacking in the other chamber, as Senator Wallin pointed out, then we have done that; we have made up for that.

I think the characterization that I heard earlier tonight from the leader of the opposition, namely that the government was ramming this through, was unfortunate. I don’t think that is an accurate description. We are at the message stage. For those who are listening and wondering what this is all about, we don’t have the bill before us right now. We are debating putting a time limit on how long we can debate about the message that came from the other place, and the question, fundamentally, is do we accept the message or send it back? And yet, a number of people there would propose that the six hours that have been set aside, one, is not enough; two, is the representative ramming it through; and, three, is not respectful of the voices. None of that, in my view, is true.

I wish we would have an opportunity to have a real debate about the vision of reform in the Senate. If the opposition is tired of feeling like they’re not respected in the things they say, I would say that I respect them in the things they say. I don’t often respect them in the things they do in terms of how they conduct themselves in this place, but I have to say that sometimes I descend to the same level. I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker. You’re the one who has to worry about that the most.

But I would love to have that discussion. I’m not opposed to seeing opposition voices and the Conservative values brought forward. I believe in cognitive diversity. I believe in having all these views on the table. I do oppose you trying to label who I am in my politics, like the colleague directly across from me who tonight said, “You’re a Liberal.” That’s interesting. I voted Conservative, and I’ve voted New Democrat. Sorry, Prime Minister, I’ve never voted for your party.

Don’t tell me who I am. I have my own values and politics, and I bring them to bear in the best way I can in the spirit and respect of what I think this chamber is about. The basic problem is that I don’t think we have an agreement about what this chamber is about.

Thank you very much, Your Honour.

[Translation]