Hon. Andrew Cardozo: I want to return to the question of immigration, and my question is for the Government Representative in the Senate. You talked about the cost of immigration, but we have a situation where we have lots of jobs without people, and people without jobs. A certain amount of that occurs in the provincial jurisdiction, where colleges of various professions are not allowing the employment of people who don’t have Canadian education and certification. When is the federal government going to ease the entry of immigrants and professionals to be able to work here? One has to think of the medical field where there are lots of people who can’t find family doctors and nurses — yet, in fact, there are a number of immigrants who are doctors and nurses who can’t become employed.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Gold, the default setting of the members of your cabinet, including the Prime Minister, is always to claim that they weren’t briefed, they didn’t receive an email or they just weren’t told. Are these familiar lines? Mr. Trudeau said it about MP Han Dong when he claimed ignorance — we now know that’s not true. Mr. Blair said it about the threats against MP Chong’s family. Ms. Joly said it about her staffers going to a garden party at the Russian embassy. Mr. Sajjan said it about the fall of Kabul, claiming he had too many emails, and he couldn’t possibly read all of those emails. Of course, that isn’t fitting on the part of that minister; that is complete incompetence.

Mr. Mendicino has said it on numerous occasions — most recently about the non-existent closure of illegal police stations being operated in Canada by Beijing, and now about the transfer of Paul Bernardo out of a maximum-security prison.

We have two options in front of us, government leader, and there is not a third option. Either the minister knew that the information he was giving to the House and the Canadian public was wrong, and he was intentionally misleading everyone, or he has absolutely no handle on his office, and his staff is running completely amok because of zero leadership on behalf of the minister.

Either way, this is my question for you: Where is the ministerial responsibility? If he won’t do the right thing and resign, why won’t the Prime Minister — your leader and the leader of this country — do the right thing and hold the minister to account?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. It’s a complex one, and I’ll try to be brief in my response.

You’re right to point out that in many areas, the issue is not the need for people or jobs, but the fact that the credentials that allow them to practise their chosen professions are regulated either by the provinces or by agencies under the authority of the provinces.

Consider health care, for example: The government does not have the jurisdiction to legislate with regard to health care, but it has an important role to play, as we all know. In this regard, through the Foreign Credential Recognition Program, Budget 2022 provided funding of $150 million over five years, with $30 million ongoing, to help up to 11,000 internationally trained health care professionals per year find work in their field. That is one small, important example, though it’s modest.

In other respects, the government and relevant ministers are in contact with their representatives in the provinces and territories in order to encourage them to adapt their particular rules to facilitate the accreditation of workers — in any field — in their provinces and territories. We’ve seen some very promising results of provincial initiatives in the Atlantic regions — I don’t have the list in front of me — but those conversations continue.

Again, the government will do its part, and will work with the provinces and territories, in the hope that we can have a more seamless, robust and generous approach to welcoming the professionals, who are trained elsewhere, to make their contribution here in Canada.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Let me begin more broadly: We know that there is a problem with information flow from various sources, such as the intelligence sources, into the government and to ministers. This was underlined and made clear in the report of the Special Rapporteur, the Honourable David Johnston. Indeed, this is also a problem that Minister Mendicino has acknowledged with regard to the Paul Bernardo affair. It was an error made in the Office of the Minister of Public Safety. As the minister said yesterday, he has taken steps to address this mistake internally.

With regard to your statement about Minister Blair, he has said clearly that he was not aware of the information regarding Member of Parliament Chong, and that he found out about it for the first time in The Globe and Mail. The minister has stated that clearly and unequivocally.

Witnesses have pointed out the shortcomings that exist in the structure of how we share intelligence — it’s clear that this needs to be reviewed. I fully expect that this will be one of the items that the next step of the public process will address once all parties agree on both a mandate and a way forward. This is important and is being taken seriously — I hope — by all members of Parliament, as it should. Canadians deserve to be kept safe, and we deserve to fix the problems that may exist in the way information is transmitted.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: I note that some professions, such as engineering — due to the enormous lack of people — are beginning to make their standards more flexible in terms of newcomers.

I want to ask you about francophone immigrants.

[Translation]

As you may know, our Official Languages Committee proposed a bold policy for listening to francophone immigrants.

[English]

What is the federal government doing in terms of attracting francophone immigrants, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada?

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, senator.

As for the federal government’s approach for all of Canada, as I mentioned, the program I referred to includes a measure aimed at promoting francophone immigration outside Quebec.

As far as Quebec is concerned, it gets a say — quite a bit of say, actually — in who settles there. It’s a well-known fact that the Quebec government emphasizes the ability to speak French, or to learn French quickly, to ensure that immigrants to Quebec integrate fully into Quebec society.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. This report summarizes our committee’s study of and amendments to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, or in short, the online news act.

This bill was referred to committee for study on April 18, 2023. We held nine meetings in total, heard from 58 witnesses, including departmental officials who were on hand during our clause-by-clause consideration. There were also 27 written briefs submitted.

During clause by clause, which was completed in one meeting this past Tuesday, June 13, 2023, there were 18 amendments proposed by Senators Carignan, Clement, Cormier, Dasko, Miville-Dechêne, Simons, Wallin and the government itself. Of those proposed, 12 amendments were adopted. I have to say, like its predecessor Bill C-11, perhaps what I found most interesting about the bill was that even its most ardent supporters came to committee drawing attention to flaws in the legislation and seeking amendment.

While I do believe that some small changes of improvement have been made to the bill through some of the amendments we adopted at committee, I believe others run the risk of further complicating an already convoluted bill and making it even more unworkable.

While other reasonable amendments that were proposed and defeated were missed opportunities to vastly improve this flawed legislation, perhaps the most egregious of those missed opportunities was an amendment put forward by Senator Carignan that would have safeguarded against forcing platforms to pay for hyperlinks, including links that the news outlets themselves proactively post on those platforms.

This isn’t a practice where a news item is reproduced. The item appears on Facebook, for example, as a link that goes directly to the website of the news outlet. Facebook is actually providing the news outlet the vehicle with which to drive more traffic to their own sites. That’s why it’s the news outlets themselves who post these links on these platforms and encourage others to do so as well. Had this amendment been adopted, it would have removed perhaps one of the main criticisms of this legislation. A failure to fix this not only cripples the legislation, but may very well result in platforms not allowing that practice and thus crippling the very industry this bill is supposed to protect.

Another opportunity gravely missed was one that would have removed the eligibility of CBC to take part in the scheme. As Senator Carignan pointed out in moving this amendment — and I wholeheartedly concur in my comments — the CBC can hardly be described as a struggling news outlet. Yet this whole bill is predicated supposedly on the government’s desire to throw a lifeline to struggling media.

Smaller, independent and ethnic media outlets in this country already have to compete against the behemoth that is the publicly funded CBC for ad dollars. That’s already an unfair advantage to CBC. Now they are getting a significantly larger piece of the pie from this funding scheme. It boggles the mind that they would be included, and even more so that Senator Carignan’s amendment was defeated.

As for the 12 amendments that were adopted at committee, they include amending language in clause 2 that will expand the definition to specifically include official language minority community news outlets; amending clause 2 to limit the definition of Indigenous news outlets to one whose primary purpose is to produce news content. This was an amendment by Senator Simons that I would be surprised if it is supported by Indigenous media, and certainly seems to be at odds with the emphasis typically placed, in theory, by the Trudeau-appointed senators on listening and taking into consideration Indigenous input.

There were several others from Senators Clement, Cormier and Miville-Dechêne that were adopted, including, as previously mentioned, some that further complicate an already convoluted bill.

One of the most meaningful amendments, as far as improving this deeply flawed bill, came from Senator Dasko in clause 27, page 11, thus limiting the CRTC’s discretionary power as it relates to designating an eligible news business. This will leave it to news outlets themselves to determine if they wish to apply to be part of this program rather than having it forced on them.

Another important amendment came from the government, and it struck me that the bill made it as far as it did without this much-needed correction. That correction was in clause 36, page 15, line 11, which was amended to address a major gap to properly protect confidential information from being exposed during arbitration. This amendment adds further requirements and sanctions related to the improper disclosure of information by the arbitration panel or each individual arbitrator.

In fact, I was surprised that the government supported as many of the committee’s amendments as they did. Despite all time they had to draft this bill and all the months it has been in the House of Commons, it’s like they realized that it is really a bad bill, but they made promises to certain stakeholders to have this done so here it is.

Here we are, both chambers, in quite the spot at the end of the session, with only days left on the calendar. We will be rushing through third reading, with limited debate, in order to send an amended bill back to the other place so they have time to reply and we have time to accept their message before we all go home for the summer.

This is not the way Parliament should be conducting itself, but has become a hallmark of how it has been conducting itself. They make grand promises and either fail to deliver them altogether or throw together a piece of legislation at the last minute, resulting in poor drafting. Then it’s up to Parliament to fix it, but doing so in a rush to meet the government’s self-imposed deadline.

So now, despite all of the concerns raised by witnesses, committee members and many senators, the government wishes to move this bill into law as quickly as possible with the content of the bill itself becoming almost secondary.

That brings us to the last amendment adopted by our committee in clause 93, page 39, after line 26, that changes the coming-into-force provision. It now requires that the entire bill come into force within six months of receiving Royal Assent, which I have no doubt will happen in the next few days. When it does, the government will then have to show exactly how it will support small businesses, possibly without the involvement of large platforms and possibly in the face of significant trade implications.

With all of that said, I would like to thank all witnesses and senators, including Mr. Owen Ripley who has been a steadfast presence in our deliberations for a number of months. I would also like to thank Marc-André Roy and David Groves from our Law Clerk office for their diligent work; Jed Chong and Khamla Heminthavong from the Library of Parliament; our committee’s administrative assistant, Natassia Ephrem; and our unflappable committee clerk, who did tremendous work both on Bill C-11 and now on Bill C-18, Mr. Vincent Labrosse.

Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the committee and our excellent staff who work to support us and provide the wonderful results that we see in the work we do. Thank you very much, colleagues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, this week, we will be paying tribute to the Senate pages who will be leaving us this summer. Sofiya Sapeha will be entering her final year of studies at the University of Ottawa in the fall in public administration with a minor in economics. This summer, she will continue working in the public service.

Upon graduation, she hopes to pursue graduate studies in security and diplomacy. Sofiya is thankful to have had the opportunity to represent the province of Ontario and the Ukrainian-Canadian community in the Senate Page Program for the past two years, and would like to thank all of those who made it a memorable experience.

Skylar Johnson is very thankful to have had the chance to participate in the Senate Page Program this year and for all the learning opportunities and support she received along the way. Next year, Skylar will be completing her final year of study in communications and sociology at the University of Ottawa.

[Translation]

Hon. Patti LaBoucane-Benson (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 4-13(3), I would like to inform the Senate that as we proceed with Government Business, the Senate will address the items in the following order: consideration of Motion No. 111, followed by consideration of the sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, followed by second reading of Bill C-41, followed by third reading of Bill C-13, followed by all remaining items in the order that they appear on the Order Paper.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that a message has been received from the House of Commons which reads as follows:

Wednesday, June 14, 2023

EXTRACT, —

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 4 and 5 made by the Senate;

agrees with the Senate proposal to make any necessary consequential changes to the numbering of provisions and cross-references resulting from the amendments to the bill;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because it raises significant constitutional concerns by seeking to regulate the insurance industry specifically or contracting generally, both of which fall within provincial jurisdiction;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

“New clause 10.1, page 4: Add the following after line 5:

“Appeals

10.1 Subject to regulations, a person, or any other person acting on their behalf, may appeal to a body identified in regulations made under paragraph 11(1)(i) in respect of any decision

(a) relating to the person’s ineligibility for a Canada disability benefit;

(b) relating to the amount of a Canada disability benefit that the person has received or will receive; or

(c) prescribed by the regulations.””.

ATTEST

Eric Janse

Acting Clerk of the House of Commons

Honourable senators, when shall this message be taken into consideration?

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that a message has been received from the House of Commons which reads as follows:

Wednesday, June 14, 2023

EXTRACT, —

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill C-22, An Act to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of persons with disabilities by establishing the Canada disability benefit and making a consequential amendment to the Income Tax Act, the House:

agrees with amendments 1, 4 and 5 made by the Senate;

agrees with the Senate proposal to make any necessary consequential changes to the numbering of provisions and cross-references resulting from the amendments to the bill;

respectfully disagrees with amendment 2 because it raises significant constitutional concerns by seeking to regulate the insurance industry specifically or contracting generally, both of which fall within provincial jurisdiction;

proposes that amendment 3 be amended to read as follows:

“New clause 10.1, page 4: Add the following after line 5:

“Appeals

10.1 Subject to regulations, a person, or any other person acting on their behalf, may appeal to a body identified in regulations made under paragraph 11(1)(i) in respect of any decision

(a) relating to the person’s ineligibility for a Canada disability benefit;

(b) relating to the amount of a Canada disability benefit that the person has received or will receive; or

(c) prescribed by the regulations.””.

ATTEST

Eric Janse

Acting Clerk of the House of Commons

Honourable senators, when shall this message be taken into consideration?

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

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

Hon. Peter Harder: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that the bill, as amended, be read the third time now.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to, on division, and report adopted.)

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

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