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. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I will make my comments complementary to those of Senator Gold, with whom I fully agree.

My first point will be to the last point of Senator Plett, which is that this chamber has no government leader.

I believe that we have passed the stage where this objection is valid. I do believe that it should have been raised at the earliest possibility, which would have been either November 2015, or, at the very least, at the beginning of this current Parliament, because Senator Plett and Senator Housakos and many colleagues here have each and every day called Senator Gold “government leader,” and obviously it is clear that Senator Gold is the Government Representative and that he holds the powers and responsibilities prescribed in our rules to the Leader of the Government. The precedent has been set and it is now part of our parliamentary conventions.

Furthermore, the Parliament of Canada Act — the PCA — which defines the rules, customs and regulations of the Parliament of Canada itself, has been amended and now recognizes on the same level the senator occupying the position of Leader of the Government in the Senate or Government Representative in the Senate. The definition of the Leader of the Government in the Senate in the companion of our Rules is as follows:

The Senator who acts as the head of the Senators belonging to the Government party. In modern practice, the Government Leader is also a member of Cabinet. The full title of the Government Leader is “Leader of the Government in the Senate.”

Senator Gold is regularly treated as the Leader of the Government. He is afforded unlimited speaking time. Senator Gagné regularly exercises powers vested in the government leader and deputy leader position.

There is no doubt that Senator Gold is the head of the senators belonging to the government party. The PCA has been amended. His title is now recognized and the PCA has precedence over the Rules of the Senate and obviously over the website of the Senate.

To the second point regarding negotiations, I concur with Senator Gold. I have been, as have my other leaders colleagues, participating in the leaders’ meeting and it is clear that there have been offers and attempts to negotiate further to this message. I won’t refer to previous negotiations where all leaders agreed when we signed gentlepersons’ agreements, but this time it was clear there were attempts. I was not witnessing the bilateral meetings between Senator Plett and Senator Gold, obviously, but to that point, I’d like to refer you to a ruling by Speaker Kinsella on September 20, 2000, further to a point of order raised by the then-deputy leader.

Senator Kinsella ruled:

. . . the deputy leader has stated that an agreement has not been reached. I have no means of knowing whether an agreement will be reached. All I have before me is a motion stating that if they have reached no agreement at this point, the rule has been followed and the terms have been set out. Therefore, I rule that the point of order is not valid.

I do believe, Speaker, that you are in the same type of situation, because as the Speaker of the Senate, you are not part of our negotiations. You are not part of our meetings. It is not your role to read our emails, our texts or to listen to all of our conversations.

Your role is to be given a motion indicating that there has been a failure to agree to allocate time to conclude and adjourn debate, and this is why, on this ruling, I refer you to Speaker Kinsella’s ruling on September 20, 2000.

On another point, it is clear, even from the Leader of the Opposition’s comments, that there have been efforts to modernize the Rules of the Senate of Canada to reflect the practices of the Senate. There are 14 instances of “recognized parties” or “parties” in the Rules of the Senate. The only place this is not followed by the words “recognized parliamentary group” is pertaining to time allocation. I do not believe it is the intent of the Senate to render the entire sections on time allocation entirely inoperable by this inadvertent omission.

Again, I reiterate that the point of order regarding the status of the Government Representative should have been raised sooner, at the first opportunity, which is very far from us, either at the end of the year in 2015 or at the beginning of the next Parliament.

Thank you.

Senator Saint-Germain: Of course.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for this question. This is a good question, and I would concur with you that we at the Senate have done thoughtful work.

I had the opportunity to say that no witnesses were denied the opportunity to be heard by the Transport and Communications Committee. Congratulations to all members of this committee.

At the same time, we need to listen to the witnesses and interpret their testimonies for what they were. We realized that all across the country, industry, artists and many stakeholders were in agreement with the bill, especially with some amendments that the committee listened to and this chamber listened to. But at the same time, at the end of the day — and I would refer to the Westminster convention and to our parliamentary system — we did our work and we presented the amendments to the government. Of 26 amendments, 20 were agreed to, and at the end of the day, if you do not agree to defer to the other place and to the government, you have a decision to make, and this decision is for you to be a candidate at the next election.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you for the question, Senator Carignan.

I think our pre-studies are done with just as much care. Let me point out that we have been in a pandemic for over two years now. That has to have influenced government legislation, the work of the House of Commons and our own chamber’s work. I feel that these pandemic times are exceptional and make it hard to compare anything to how both houses of Parliament have operated in normal times over the past few decades.

Senator Saint-Germain: No.

[English]

Senator Saint-Germain: Of course, former leader of the government in the Senate.

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Gold, for the question. I just consulted my list of the pre-studies, tabled then by the government, and I see Bill C-23. My chart is in French, so I will read in French.

[Translation]

The bill in question, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, was a non-budgetary bill. I see that the bill was introduced by MP Pierre Poilievre and was the subject of a pre-study by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on April 8, 2014, and passed in the House of Commons on May 13, 2014.

[English]

This gives me the opportunity again to make this comment. Why is it good under a specific Parliament, a specific government, and not good under another government? I think that we have to ask this question, and I reiterate that pre-studies on complex bills are relevant, so I don’t blame the previous Conservative government at all. However, what I do not agree with is the inconsistency in the consideration of the relevance of pre-studies and even of the tabling of government bills in the Senate, when so relevant. It’s not always relevant. It does not need to become the new normal. I do agree with this, and I agree with Senator Carignan to that end; but obviously, during the current context, from my standpoint, there is no doubt that Bill C-11 and even Bill C-13 deserve pre-studies.

Hon. Raymonde Saint-Germain: Honourable senators, I must admit that I wondered whether I should rise to speak today after seeing that this debate was merely a stalling tactic. However, I think it is important to explain to Canadians why a pre-study of this bill is a good idea in this context.

My speech will focus on the principle of the pre-study and why it is important to our work on this bill.

I was rather taken aback by some of the objections that were raised yesterday in debate. While the Senate prides itself, and rightly so, on taking more time than the House of Commons to study bills and on giving Canadians more hours and more opportunities to make their voices heard, testify in committee and share their expertise with us as we provide sober second thought, here we are spending hours debating whether it is a good idea to conduct a pre-study on a complex bill, particularly one that has been the subject of misinformation.

Although, historically speaking, most of the pre-studies conducted by the Senate committees over the past 30 years have focused on omnibus bills, including budget bills, 42% of them were on non-budgetary issues.

I will soon come back to the pre-studies, but first I want to say how surprised I was yesterday at some of the questions that were put to the Government Representative in the Senate, Senator Gold, about introducing government bills in the Senate. I am talking about “S” bills, including Bill S-8, which we just studied.

The question asked yesterday by my esteemed colleague, Senator Carignan, is as follows, and I quote:

 . . . the job of the Senate and of senators is not to provide sober second thought to measures introduced by public servants, but to properly study bills passed in the House of Commons . . . .

Does this mean that the Senate should no longer directly study government bills, as it has done on several occasions? Yes, I am puzzled, honourable senators.

In the second session of the Forty-first Parliament, as the Conservative government’s representative in the Senate, Senator Carignan introduced six of these government bills, as he himself can attest. I have a list of those bills. Was he going against the role of the Senate at the time? The answer is obvious.

Allow me to get back to the pre-studies. I also noted that during the second session of the Forty-first Parliament — a session that lasted less than 20 months — the Senate conducted 10 pre-studies, just 4 of which were on budget bills. We must therefore conclude that the majority of these pre-studies, or 6 out of 10 of them, were on non-budget bills. I have a list of those, too. If something is good for one government, isn’t it good for another?

Honourable senators, although we should learn from our institution’s past, we must not be limited by it. The Senate is the master of its own destiny. I think that pre-studies are a worthwhile use of our time and resources, because they allow us to review complex government bills more efficiently and to better organize our own parliamentary business during key periods, for example, before we adjourn for the summer.

[English]

I know there are concerns that Bill C-11 will be amended before it is introduced in the Senate which, in the view of some colleagues, would make these pre-studies a waste of the Senate’s and its committees’ time. However, I do not come to the same conclusion.

I believe, on the contrary, that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications would be able to ensure that it receives key witnesses who can share their expertise on the substance and underlying principles of this bill, which will not be changed by future amendments.

These pre-studies could highlight the major policy proposals and issues associated with those complex bills, both this bill as well as Bill C-13. This would allow us to be ready and to act efficiently at the appropriate time.

It should also be noted that a pre-study does not preclude a study. It will be up to the committee members to make these recommendations and/or observations to the Senate following the conclusion of their work and changes made to the bill. Additionally, a pre-study in one or two committees does not prevent the many other committees of the Senate from proceeding with substantive studies and inquiries.

Pre-studies are a way to better organize our work in a timely manner. This is also an efficient way to prevent the use of time allocation measures — if we are efficiently organized, there will be no logic for any government to use this tool. If it were to be used in spite of our efforts, then it would be up to us to govern ourselves accordingly.

Some colleagues will also argue that these pre-studies are not necessary, as we are not on the eve of an election or at the end of a parliamentary session. However, this should not prevent us from being proactive.

Bill C-11 is a government priority. It was in the government electoral platform, as we know, and has been in the other place since the last Parliament.

In its current form, Bill C-11 was introduced in the House four months ago. In its previous form, Bill C-11, then Bill C-10, had even passed third reading in the House of Commons and was sent to us at the very end of the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament. We are, therefore, fulfilling our role by being adequately prepared when Bill C-11 arrives in this chamber. I believe that the most effective way to do it is through prior study in committee.

Another argument in favour of these pre-studies is very simple. We currently have the time and resources to conduct them. We have few government bills on the legislative agenda, and the two committees targeted by these motions — this current motion and the one regarding Bill C-13 — have no government business on their agendas. So why delay this work?

In my opinion, there is no reason to do so, and Canadians would be right to blame us for a gross dereliction of our responsibility if we do not pre-study Bill C-11 and Bill C-13.

Colleagues, let us get our act together and let us act responsibly. We are spending time and energy in a debate that would be way more relevant if it was on the substance of this bill. Let’s not waste our time bickering but rather use it wisely. Thank you, meegwetch.

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: Yes, senator.

Senator Saint-Germain: Senator Batters, I’m aware that this bill is one of the 10 bills that were pre-studied under the Conservative governments in less than 20 months, and I see that this bill is related to the Elections Act. It’s interesting that the sober second thought of the non-elected parliamentarians served the elected chamber. That is an interesting exception because on such bills normally I would say the expertise and the specific context of the members of Parliament are really definitive, so I think the Conservative government made a very good decision. I congratulate you and all the other members on the Legal Committee then because you obviously did great work, and I’m glad that even the current Liberal government recognized this, so thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Saint-Germain: Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for providing the answer in your question. I would add, as I indicated in my speech, that a pre-study does not preclude or replace a study if one is necessary.

Often the pre-study is on substantive issues and complex bills. You gave the very important example of medical assistance in dying. Canadians had different points of view, all of them justified, on a moral issue that was often the subject of disinformation and that deserved clarification that went beyond partisanship.

The answer is yes. A pre-study allows for in-depth discussions on principles and substantive issues and helps enrich a later study.

[English]