Senator Gold: Thank you for your questions. If my ears were as delicate as you pretend, I’m not sure that I would even be able to hear, much less answer, your questions.

With regard to the many statements you’ve made, I’ve answered them on so many occasions — and I know that others are waiting to ask their questions — so I will refer you all to those previous answers.

Let us be clear: First of all, speaking as the son of an English teacher, there is a difference between a statement that is correct, for which corrections were then made, and the allegations of one being misleading or lying.

Second, with regard to the questions surrounding the transfer of Paul Bernardo, once again, our thoughts are with the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. As you will now know, and as I will state now — here in this chamber — the minister has issued a ministerial direction to Correctional Service Canada to ensure the following: First, victims’ rights must guide the decision-making process. Second, victims of inmates who are being transferred between maximum-security and medium-security institutions must be informed. Third, the Minister of Public Safety must be formally and directly notified by Correctional Service Canada in advance of the transfer of any high-profile or dangerous offenders.

The minister will also be working with the Privacy Commissioner to ensure the public interest demands are met with regard to the legitimate expectations of privacy, as well as the protection of those who hold such rights. It is imperative that victims’ rights be at the centre of the correctional system, and that is what the minister has instructed his staff and Correctional Service Canada to do.

[Translation]

Hon. Marie-Françoise Mégie: Dear colleagues, I was honoured to see so many of you this morning at the parliamentary sickle cell breakfast. Thank you.

This event, which is put on in collaboration with Senator Gerba and sponsored by the African Canadian Senate Group, gave us a chance to watch a preview of a documentary entitled Silent Suffering, which explores the grim reality facing people with sickle cell disease and their loved ones.

About one in 20 people on this planet carry the sickle cell gene. In some parts of the world, it is one in four. The disease is most common among people with ancestors from Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, India, the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

In Canada, about one in 2,500 children is born with the disease. Unfortunately, health care providers tend to have a poor understanding of the disease.

The shape of a healthy red blood cell is a biconcave disc. In people with sickle cell disease, red blood cells become rigid and stretch into a sickle shape, hence the name. A pin shaped like a hot pepper serves as a teaching tool for patients and an apt illustration: it burns, it hurts, and it causes suffering.

The most common symptoms of this disease are attacks of acute and chronic pain, or even a stroke, all at an early age. These painful attacks are so intense that they can only be relieved with narcotics, and they recur throughout the child’s life. In such cases, when these young people are admitted to a hospital where medical staff are not familiar with this disease, they often don’t get proper care because they’re labelled as drug addicts.

In the 1970s, people with this disease rarely lived beyond the age of 10. These days, many patients live into their sixties.

That’s why it’s so important to increase awareness of sickle cell disease, and of the importance of neonatal screening and the search for better treatments.

Gene therapy research in Canada is yielding very promising results for the treatment of this rare, hereditary disease. Hopefully the potential cure will be accessible to all sickle cell carriers worldwide.

Happy National Sickle Cell Awareness Day.

Thank you.

[English]

Senator Gold: The answer is no. The minister was asked that question, and he said no. Also, to respond to the preamble of your question, it is not true that the minister issued a directive to ensure that the information is communicated to him and the victims.

Senator Gold: The answer is no. The minister was asked that question, and he said no. Also, to respond to the preamble of your question, it is not true that the minister issued a directive to ensure that the information is communicated to him and the victims.

That doesn’t mean that the government issued a directive not to respect victims, as you suggested, if I understood correctly. That is not true, and there is no logical or necessary connection between the fact that the directive was issued at that time and what the government did or did not do in the past.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that answer, Senator Gold. The report by Desjardins also points to a solution, and that is the dispersion of immigrants to all parts of our country, not just the hot spots of B.C. and Ontario, in particular, to the Prairie provinces. They note that this would decrease the pressure on housing prices and housing affordability in certain parts of Canada and provide a substantive offset to the impact of higher immigration on home prices.

Can you help us understand the government’s current plan with the current immigration numbers for better distribution of immigrants across the country? Thank you, Senator Gold.

Senator Gold: The ministers in this government are responsible, and they have taken responsibility. With all due respect, Senator Housakos, I do not tell you what questions to ask, and I don’t need you to feed me the answers. Thank you.

Senator Greenwood: — since I have been appointed to this honourable chamber.

I begin by acknowledging the ancestors and unceded territories of the Anishinaabe Algonquin peoples. I express my gratitude for the privilege of working and living on their lands.

I also acknowledge the many people who have supported me on my journey to the Red Chamber. It was only with the love of my family, my community, my friends and colleagues that I am here today.

I rise today to address Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts. I recognize the committee and all those who worked so hard to shape this bill.

I also want to personally thank Senator Audette and Senator Clement for their championing of the rights of Indigenous peoples in this bill.

With much of what I’m going to say tonight, I am probably repeating what you have already heard, but so be it.

Esteemed colleagues here have spoken about the importance of language to their culture and their way of life.

During an earlier debate on this bill, Senator Cormier shared a quote from the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on Ford v. Quebec:

Language is not merely a means or medium of expression; it colours the content and meaning of expression. . . . It is also the means by which one expresses one’s personal identity and sense of individuality.

These words from the ruling are quite moving. The ruling goes on to state:

. . . there cannot be true freedom of expression by means of language if one is prohibited from using the language of one’s choice.

Honourable senators, I am here to add to this discussion. There is a richness of linguistic diversity across the lands now known as Canada. Yet not all languages hold the same privileges and protections. This hierarchy lays bare an injustice. Parliament and, by extension, the Senate created many injustices in our nation’s history. The Senate has also fought to address these injustices.

I believe our job in the Senate is to address injustice whenever possible. It is one of the reasons that I am here. Addressing the injustice of privileging some languages over others affords us such an opportunity.

I want to take a moment to reflect on the nature of language. Language is a manifestation of how we think and how we are in the world. Language shapes our realities. Language is culture. Language transmits our ways of knowing and being across the generations. Language creates profoundly different worldviews.

Many Indigenous languages are rooted in ever-evolving verb-based relationships. These are relationships between humans and the natural world. These relationships are sacred. They are relationships characterized by specific sounds, by silence and by mindful words reflective of the land in which Indigenous languages have always been rooted.

Imagine the sound of the great blue heron as she rises from the water. Imagine the sound of the high-pitched whistle of the eagle soaring overhead, the rustle of icy cattails in a spring wind and the sharp yip of the coyote.

These sounds are embedded in Indigenous languages. Our sounds embody the relationship between humans and the land. These specific sounds are unique to specific places and spaces. These are the places and spaces of Turtle Island.

Our languages are the first languages of this land of Turtle Island. But these first languages are in crisis. We are in a moment of losing many Indigenous languages across Turtle Island. When a language is lost, so too is a way of knowing and being in the world lost.

Colonization is responsible for this loss. This bleak history is shared by everyone across Turtle Island. Even before Confederation, generations of Indigenous children and families were exposed to the eradication of their languages in residential and day schools. Often, children were beaten for speaking their language.

Indigenous peoples do not have the privilege of having their languages recognized as official languages in their own lands. Recently, Canada has taken important steps toward reconciliation. There have been apologies for residential schools. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission released its Calls to Action, which called upon the federal government “. . . to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.”

In 2019, the Indigenous Languages Act received Royal Assent and recognized Indigenous languages as the first languages of the land. That same year — and Senator Audette will know this — the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls released its final report and Calls for Justice. Call for Justice 2.2 states:

We call upon all governments to recognize Indigenous languages as official languages, with the same status, recognition, and protection provided to French and English. . . .

In 2021, Canada adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. UNDRIP has many articles regarding Indigenous languages.

This brings us to today. This brings us to the efforts of fellow parliamentarians to further the cause of reconciliation. Bill C-13 acknowledges the richness of linguistic diversity. But not all languages hold the same privileges as official languages. The Official Languages Act does not exist unto itself.

Every piece of legislation that passes through this chamber is an opportunity for truth, reconciliation and action. Every piece of legislation that passes through this chamber is an opportunity for a departure from harmful colonial policies of the past. Bill C-13 offers us an opportunity to address some of these policies. Bill C-13 recognizes the existence of Indigenous languages but, unlike the Indigenous Languages Act, does not acknowledge them as first languages. Senators tried to amend Bill C-13 to mirror this acknowledgement. This would have been an important step to advance reconciliation. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated.

There were also proposed amendments to recognize Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, or UNDRIP Act, provides a road map for the Government of Canada and Indigenous peoples to work together to implement the declaration. The UNDRIP Act has numerous articles detailing the importance of Indigenous languages, like Article 13, which states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.

This UNDRIP Act was designed to ensure that all federal laws are consistent with the declaration. Unfortunately, this proposed amendment was also defeated.

There have been many arguments that instead of amending the Official Languages Act, we should amend the Indigenous Languages Act. The Official Languages Act must not be siloed from goals of reconciliation. Amending the Official Languages Act could strengthen the use of Indigenous languages here in Parliament. Amending the act could strengthen the use of Indigenous languages in public service. As well, amending the act would let Canadians know that the government takes seriously the advancement of reconciliation.

Implementing Call for Justice 2.2 — recognizing Indigenous languages as official languages with the same status and protection provided to French and English — is a fundamental step toward reconciliation. I hope you do see it, Michèle, in your tenure here and mine. By elevating Indigenous languages, we are not removing French or English. That is not the point as official languages. But by elevating Indigenous languages, we are removing some of those barriers to reconciliation.

It is my responsibility as a senator to further the cause of reconciliation whenever possible, including today and every day.

Where do we go from here? I extend to you an invitation. If senators truly believe that Bill C-13 is not the appropriate bill to amend, and should it be passed, then I invite you as parliamentarians to expedite legislation with me that will create true equality for Indigenous languages of these lands.

Honourable senators, I thank you for giving me this time and I would like to leave you with a final quote from the commissioners of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples:

Canada is a test case for a grand notion – the notion that dissimilar peoples can share lands, resources, power and dreams while respecting and sustaining their differences. The story of Canada is the story of many such peoples, trying and failing and trying again, to live together in peace and harmony.

I look forward to continuing to work with you, my fellow senators, on achieving that justice.

Hiy hiy.

Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is on debate.

I do not intend to block something that could become a financial lifeline for some of the country’s traditional media outlets, even though I don’t think they’ll all be saved.

The most recent report on the federal government’s annual advertising spending clearly shows that the government gave 55% of its budget to the digital media targeted by Bill C-18. That represents $64 million, versus $53 million for our Canadian newspapers and radio and television stations.

It made me wonder: How do we reconcile the fact that the government wants to pass a bill to tax web giants like GAFA for the benefit of traditional media, when the government and its advertising choices are largely to blame for making them so poor? That’s my contribution to the debate.

[English]

Senator Housakos: Government leader, thank you for highlighting the problem with your government. You just highlighted — in your talking points — exactly what I’m complaining about. It’s never the fault of the minister or the Prime Minister — it’s the employees in their office, it’s the bureaucrats who didn’t brief them or it’s their email that is too blocked up. That is the problem with your government. This government always has its homework being eaten by the dog before it arrives at school, and it has to stop. Do you know what the concept of ministerial responsibility means? I think, in this Trudeau government, there isn’t anyone left who understands how Parliament works.

I will ask you two simple questions: Can you define for this chamber what ministerial responsibility means as it applies to Parliament? And is the Prime Minister unwilling to apply ministerial responsibility to Minister Mendicino because no one has applied ministerial responsibility to him?

Senator McPhedran: Thank you so much for your work on this bill.

In the event that this bill is not passed rapidly, before we rise, what will be the most obvious consequence of it not passing this chamber?

Senator Omidvar: I will state again — and thank you, Senator McPhedran, for your question — lives will be at risk. Babies will die. Women will be at risk. They will have no food, no shelter, no protection. It is a matter of lives saved today rather than not saved.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, Senator Omidvar, for the speech. Obviously, this is a pressing bill and a pressing situation. Given the fact it got such overwhelming support in the House and was sent to committee in the House for in-depth study, why isn’t there relief to pass the bill right away? Why does it need to go to committee in this chamber and not pass quickly with leave?

Senator Omidvar: That will be the will of the chamber.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Jon Reyes, Manitoba Minister of Labour and Immigration. He is the guest of the Honourable Senator Osler.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question, senator. As I have explained many times, I have immense respect for the Chief Justice and his late father as well.

The government is working to fill the vacancies in various provinces and there is a whole process in place to find interested, qualified candidates.

The department has spoken with members of the judiciary and bar to encourage more people to apply. The government continues to make appointments at a steady pace, and the number of vacancies continues to decline.

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Canadian officials and individuals working in the field of sickle cell anemia. They are the guests of the Honourable Senators Mégie and Gerba.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Seidman: Thank you very much, senator. My understanding of what this amendment does is that it takes four clauses — clause 2 on page 3, clause 3 on page 4 and clause 24 on page 21 — and merely replaces the language “Charte de la langue française” with this language that has been presented.

[Translation]

Senator Cardozo: I don’t make those budgets, but I don’t disagree with you at all. I think what we’re trying to do here is help this media.

One of the things that you and I asked a number of people — who appeared before us in committee — is what is going to happen to the small media, ethnic media and so forth. One of the things that gave me the most assurance was our witnesses from Australia, who said that, in fact, the small media got disproportionately more resources than the big media, and that gives me some assurance. It’s certainly an issue that we will follow, and I think it’s an important issue that was addressed extensively in our hearings. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: We have cell bills and internet bills or connectivity bills, right? See what those giants are charging Canadians compared to other nations around the world.

By the way, they’ve become as big as they are because they gouge consumers and taxpayers and because of the regulatory protection we have afforded them for decades through the CRTC and through governments — successive governments, by the way — Liberal, Conservative and other ones. At some particular point, we’ve got to stand up for the consumer and for Canadians and say, “Enough is enough; some competition is good.” And let’s stop saying every time we have a business model that is failing because somebody is more innovative, more cost-effective and is garnering more customer service that we’re going to step in and we’re going to make it an equal playing field. We’re going to help those with the bad ideas and bad fiscal results and we’re going to prop them up with taxpayers’ money. Let’s call this what it is: a shakedown in an effort to protect the status quo.

Big tech isn’t stealing content. They aren’t taking the work of journalists and profiting off it without journalists being fairly compensated. The passage of Bill C-18 won’t result in one journalist in this country getting a raise. More importantly, let’s also keep in mind that a lot of the content that we are talking about that’s being stolen by tech companies is being downloaded and placed there by journalists themselves.

As I have said many times before, these platforms are actually providing a service to news outlets to drive traffic to their products and to their content. We aren’t talking about the reproduction of content without fair attribution or compensation. We’re not talking about links taking consumers to the actual Global News or CTV News websites.

I consider Facebook to be the Uber or even the cab driver, and Global News is the restaurant. Would we expect the cabbie to give the restaurant a percentage of the fare that was collected? Of course not. Just because someone, in this case, has figured out a way to monetize someone else’s product, it does not mean they are stealing that product. It doesn’t mean the manufacturer of that product is being any less fairly compensated. As long as the copyright laws are being respected — and they are here — nothing is being stolen.

None of us are forced to post our work. Senators, local restaurants, every single business in the country, artists of all sorts — they’re posting their stuff. We’re all posting our stuff on these websites, and we’re posting it because we’re getting more reach. We’re getting more of our constituents in our home provinces to see the work we do here in the Senate, advocating on their behalf.

Journalists add their links to their stories on Facebook because it accentuates their work; it drives more people to their website. So if you’re writing articles for La Presse in Montreal and you post it on your Facebook account, it’s because that journalist is benefiting from people that are being driven to La Presse‘s website, and, of course, that’s a paywall. If more people are driven to the site because of a journalist promoting their product, that paywall grows, and that business grows.

By the way, back to my earlier point, there is a lot of print media in the country that is flourishing because of digital platforms. There are a lot of them that have to be lauded because they were ahead of their time and they realized they needed to adjust. The Globe and Mail adjusted. The Globe and Mail is as effective today as they were when I was a kid. They have great coverage. They still have a great product, and they are still making money, but they were also one of the first to sit down and make a deal with these platforms, and the platforms understood that this was a good product for them to make a good deal with.

And there are many more. Village Media was cited by one of the colleagues who spoke earlier. They’re a huge success story, as is Western Standard News Media Corp. There are so many out there, and, really, I don’t want to miss any, but Blacklock’s Reporter is another one. They’re an online subscription digital paper. They’re doing as well as ever.

The only one trying to steal their content, colleagues, is the government. They are in court right now because the Trudeau government that wants to protect independent journalistic organizations has been taking their product and spreading it around ministries without giving them their due. But Bill C-18 is going to save the industry? Why don’t we start with having our government departments respect paywalls of journalists and respect their content before we start passing legislation to protect certain giants?

Traditional media and some journalists themselves are struggling to adapt to the digital world and what that means for delivery and consumption of news. Shaking down big tech and driving them to the point where platforms like Meta and Alphabet will stop promoting your content is not the win this government and a lot of people in media think it is. I fear this legislation will have the opposite of the desired effect.

We have seen how serious Meta is about stopping the dissemination of news information. The people that will be hurt when that happens — and I believe it will happen. I think there is no reason why a business model that’s designed to be free to give consumer choice and to drive traffic is going to continue to drive traffic for the media and the journalists in this world if they have to pay for that service. Their whole business model will be disrupted, and the loser will be Canadian consumers. The loss will be the taxpayers’ because I think there will be a detrimental growth. We had witnesses who came before our committee, including print associations that represent journalists in this country, who say that thanks to Meta, their traffic is up as much as 31%, 32% or 33%.

We all know that the only way you make money — I don’t care if you’re a journalist or if you’re selling hotdogs or if you’re a local gas station — is you need traffic and you need people to be attracted to your product. The only people who don’t need to attract consumers are government agencies or government Crown corporations, because they have taxpayers’ money to compensate, so they don’t have to be that agile and they don’t have to be that good. That’s the truth.

Facebook and Google are at a point right now where, like any business, when you have a government that wants to come in and regulate you and tell you what to do with your business enterprise — and I don’t care who it is — at some point, you’re going to say, “You know what, I’m going to shut down and go elsewhere; there’s no future here.” Again, the loser will be our country because we live —

[Translation]

Senator Simons: Your Honour, I do seriously wish to apologize. I’m slightly mortified. I apologize to Senator Housakos and to the chamber.

Senator Harder: No.

[English]