On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, 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 public assurance 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 Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the motion, as amended, be further amended:

1. by replacing sub-paragraph (b) by the following:

“(b) insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”;

2.by adding, before the final paragraph, the following new paragraph:

“That, pursuant to rule 16-3, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be charged with drawing up the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendments; and”; and

3.by replacing, in the final paragraph, the words “That a message be sent” by the words “That, once the reasons for the insistence have been agreed to by the Senate, a message be sent”.

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the motion in amendment be amended:

1. in the proposed new wording for sub-paragraph (b), by replacing the words “amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;” by the following:

“amendment 3 to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

(c)do not insist on its other amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”; and

2.in the proposed new paragraph empowering the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to develop the Senate’s reasons for its insistence, by replacing the word “amendments” by the word “amendment”.

Senator Plett: Would Senator Quinn take a question?

Senator MacDonald: Just once. Just once.

Senator MacDonald: No, she’s a big Tory.

Senator Gold: Senator Carignan, I must admit I was rather puzzled to see you proudly brag about never having used the closure motion on messages from the House of Commons during your term as leader of the government in the Senate. However, I understand that your term, which ran from 2013 to 2015, coincided with that of a majority Conservative government in both houses of Parliament.

Am I also to understand — and please correct me if I am wrong — that only one of the 61 government bills passed during that time was amended by the Senate? In comparison, one third of bills were amended during Prime Minister Trudeau’s majority government. Can you confirm how many messages the Senate received during your term on government bills that were introduced in the House of Commons and then amended by the Senate, against the will of the government?

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, I’m quoting the definition that the Speaker quoted in his ruling, the definition that is in the Senate Rules.

We know that in the Liberal Party of Canada membership has its privileges, so does the Trudeau Foundation. Senator Gold, in 2017, you proclaimed that you were “not affiliated with any political party,” not a member of a political caucus, and you defined yourself as “non-partisan.” You, Senator Gagné and Senator LaBoucane-Benson were all appointed to the Government Representative Office from the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, and I know that it is ISG policy that you must declare your party memberships.

Senator Gold, because of this ruling put out last night and the definition that is contained in the Senate Rules that you must belong to a government party, I guess you’ve become a member of the governing Liberal Party some time since 2017. When was that? Did all three of you declare your party memberships in the Liberal Party of Canada when you were in the ISG, or have you just become members of the governing Liberal Party since Justin Trudeau named you to his Senate leadership team?

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, 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 public assurance 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 Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the motion, as amended, be further amended:

1. by replacing sub-paragraph (b) by the following:

“(b) insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”;

2.by adding, before the final paragraph, the following new paragraph:

“That, pursuant to rule 16-3, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be charged with drawing up the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendments; and”; and

3.by replacing, in the final paragraph, the words “That a message be sent” by the words “That, once the reasons for the insistence have been agreed to by the Senate, a message be sent”.

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the motion in amendment be amended:

1. in the proposed new wording for sub-paragraph (b), by replacing the words “amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;” by the following:

“amendment 3 to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

(c)do not insist on its other amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”; and

2.in the proposed new paragraph empowering the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to develop the Senate’s reasons for its insistence, by replacing the word “amendments” by the word “amendment”.

Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Quinn. Thank you for your speech. I’m glad that at least a part of what I said had an impact on you, whether negatively or positively. I hope it was positively.

Nevertheless, I found your comments intriguing. Are you suggesting that because I said that when we form government — not if, when we form government — we will kill this bill, you are saying that is somehow a good reason for voting for bad legislation, thinking, “Well, the next government will take care of this, so we can go ahead and vote for bad legislation”?

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, today is World Intellectual Property Day, established by the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization to build awareness of how patents, copyrights, trademarks and designs impact daily life and to celebrate the economic and social contributions of creators and innovators.

I want to focus on that second point: the contribution of IP to the Canadian economy.

Intangible assets such as IP, data and software now make up over 90% of the S&P’s market value. In the 1970s and 1980s, physical assets — things like natural resources and land — were overwhelmingly valued. That world is no longer. Today, investors look for companies that control valuable IP and data. They use those assets to control markets and capture superior economic rents from the work of others all around the globe. Think of the global efforts to control natural resources and land and you will have some sense of the battle that is currently raging to control intangible assets like IP. Those who control crucial IP can control access to markets and information.

But, globally, Canada has not yet adjusted to this highly technical, highly strategic global transformation.

Consider that about half of the patents that protect Canada’s publicly funded IP are transferred to foreign-owned entities once issued. As a result, that research output creates opportunities and wealth elsewhere in the world. The annual gross income earned from the IP licensed by Canadian universities produces a paltry 1.3% return on the $7 billion invested annually through university-based research in Canada.

We are investing in research without a modern strategy to protect and grow its economic value for the benefit of Canadians.

Some believe in the strategy of incentivizing foreign-owned tech giants to build IP branch plants or research facilities in Canada. But, yet again, the resulting IP leaves our country and creates wealth elsewhere.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt thanked Canada for the talent and IP that now underpins its business model. Some celebrated; I did not.

Canada’s IP problem results from a policy belief system that assumes that investments in research automatically convert into opportunity and wealth. This misconception has been sustained through both the Conservative government and the Liberal government who’ve each led our country for similar periods — over the last 40 years — where Canada’s living standards have declined steadily in relative terms. This trend is projected to continue — unless we change. We can quickly turn this around; we have the talent. But I fear that our investments in research will continue to diminish unless we finally implement a coordinated strategy that converts our best IP into, yes, Canadian jobs but also, even more importantly, into Canadian opportunities and Canadian prosperity.

Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Michèle Audette: Your Honour, Senator Cordy and Anishinaabe people, I am speaking to you.

[Editor’s Note: Senator Audette spoke in an Indigenous language.]

Esteemed colleagues, I would like to share with you some information and an important message about the resolve and dedication of families and individuals in Quebec communities who have worked hard for years to find out what happened to their children when they were hospitalized. We are talking about missing or deceased babies who never came home.

The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, in Quebec, was able to hear from families from Atikamekw, Innu, Anishinabek and other nations in the course of its inquiries. They talked about losing a baby following hospitalization between 1950 and 1980.

Imagine if it were your child, in 2023. It would be a scandal. What is even more upsetting is that these families were asked if they knew where their child was buried. They do not know. Grief contends with doubt. Again, if it were my child, I would want to know why they died and where they are.

Call for Justice 20 gave the Government of Quebec an important mandate to introduce a bill, which has since become law. The families know how their babies died and where they are buried, and that is important. We’re talking about 120 little beings of light who never returned home after the hospitalizations. My colleagues can appreciate why I care so deeply about commissions of inquiry, regardless of the subject.

I want to say thank you to the Atikamekw, Anishinaabekg and Innu families, as well as all other First Nations families, for their courage and for their word, which has become part of Canada’s truth. I also thank the people from Quebec and Canada who work to share information with everyone who is looking for answers.

Most importantly, colleagues, I want to tell you that this is just the beginning of a truth that has been hidden for too long. Tshinashkumitin.

[English]

Senator Carignan: Of course.

Senator Quinn: Yes.

Senator Gold: It is serious, and I told you the truth. I do not have that information.

[English]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I don’t know what the status is of the considerations around these issues. The sanctions regime that has been put in place has been used effectively by this government in a number of settings, as you know and as I’ve reported in previous Question Periods. It is a process that is informed by input from various instances, security agencies and others. I’ll make inquiries, senator, and try to get an answer as quickly as I can.

Senator Plett: I will do as the government leader did yesterday and say I will answer one question and then I will pass it on.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Please, her position is clear on it, and so is the position of many others. I guess everybody else who thinks there’s potential for censorship — haven’t they read this bill either? The truth of the matter, colleagues, is that a compelling case has been made that this bill has left out many important voices in this country. We are the last vestige of hope for these people to be defended.

Again, we had unanimous consent that this bill needed to be fixed by all groups. A concerted effort was made to fix it. The most important elements and amendments in this bill were ignored by the government. I’m pleading and asking this chamber to send it back one more time, to do our due diligence and to tell the government and insist that these are worth reconsideration.

Senator Quinn: Senator Plett, I hope that when you have the chance, you can reflect on what I said. What I said was that the blue wave was coming. I didn’t reflect on what you just said; I reflected upon the fact that there is a democratic process that lies ahead; it’s called an election. That election will take place in due course. I believe that’s what I said.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will nevertheless ask my question. Why are you so pessimistic about the future of Bill S-210? Do you have any information suggesting that this bill will not pass and that the amendment to Bill C-11 is the only way forward?

[English]

Senator Plett: Again, your question is not on Bill C-11, it’s on Bill S-210. My speech was on Bill C-11. I have no information that it will not pass. Again, as Senator Dalphond said yesterday, when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Our government has shown that they do not particularly care about the exploitation of children; they have shown it on Bill C-11. I have no optimism that they will show it on Bill S-210. I certainly support the bill.

[Translation]