Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, this is the story of Larry “Pretty Boy” Smith. He was, his friends said, always the best-looking guy in the room, but he kind of knew it. He is still the same, I said: perfectly coiffed hair, dapper, charming. But let’s turn to football.

In 1972, “Pretty Boy” Smith was the first overall pick in the Canadian Football League Draft, round 1, pick 1, then played nine seasons, always a running back, and won two Grey Cup championships, in 1974 and 1977. But 1975 was a different story. Eskimos versus the Alouettes, known as the “Als,” played in Calgary. It was bitterly cold. As was the fad, a young woman streaked the opening ceremonies. Many thought she was just looking for Larry.

But back to the game. Quarterback Jesse “Sonny” Wade completed a 23-yard pass to Larry. “That oughta do it,” someone heard Larry say, but then Don Sweet missed a field goal, and Edmonton won the Grey Cup by a point. But Larry had done his job. He always did. And he has two rings to prove it.

The man has a degree in economics and one in civil law. He was publisher of the Montreal Gazette before returning to his beloved game as Commissioner of the Canadian Football League, the CFL, in 1992. The league was in dire straits, so he tried expansion into the U.S. It didn’t work, but he relocated the Baltimore Stallions to Montreal, where they became the Alouettes.

His vision breathed life into a game that had been seen as a bit of an Anglo pastime and made it a passion for an entire province.

Of course, he later became team president and he has worked every day since to advise and guide and even help them find an owner with deep pockets and commitment.

So the résumé is impressive, very impressive, but he is also loved. I called a friend of Larry’s the other day. The two had careers almost in tandem as players and then as presidents of their respective organizations, the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Montreal Alouettes. Jim Hopson remembered the time that he and his daughter flew to Montreal at Larry’s behest for a game where they would be sitting with the Prime Minister. Montreal won, and the PM invited Jim and his daughter out for a celebratory drink. Larry didn’t get invited.

Jim later figured out, just as with everything else in the world, that there may have been a bit of politics at play.

The PM was Paul Martin. Larry was a bit more blue.

Larry ran for office and even contemplated a run for party leader but, in the end, he succumbed to the siren song of the Senate and served as Conservative Party caucus leader before coming to his senses and joining our team. His friend Jim said, “Just tell him he may have had a better career as a player and that he was prettier than me, but I went into the Hall of Fame first.”

So, Larry, better late than never.

Thank you for your love of the game; your commitment to the country; and for being a man with skill, determination, a sense of humour and a kind, generous heart. We take pride in being your colleagues and friends.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, Canada Post is apparently again polling on closing rural post offices to deal with revenue shortfalls. They’re even polling on how to redefine “rural” to get around their existing moratorium on closures. Post offices are vital in rural Canada, where internet is already iffy and everything from flyers to Amazon orders go to the post office. I drive 22 kilometres to get my mail. Hours are restricted, the cost of mailing is higher than the birthday gift I’m sending and the post office is competing with struggling local newspapers — and actually killing some — by putting advertising directly in our mailboxes. Can you please assure us that we will stop compensating bad business practices at Canada Post on the backs of rural Canadians?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18 with a genuine concern about what it means for the free exchange of ideas and open debate in this country.

The online news act, as proposed, will restrict access to and the amount of news we can read and consume in this country. The government not only wants to decide what we watch and read — as we saw in Bill C-11 — but will now force foreign companies, through Bill C-18, to fund some Canadian content, but not all. Again, limiting choice and sources.

Ottawa’s online reform crusade is, simply put, government regulation of content, which risks not only the independence of the media but also limits what you and I are able to read or hear about the events in our communities, country and around the world. For these reasons and as someone who believes in free speech and choice, I am fundamentally opposed to a bill that limits my right to inform myself.

The government argues this bill is intended to provide an adrenaline boost to a struggling legacy industry. But at what cost? In essence, the government is forcing companies to enter into contracts that will take money from large foreign platforms such as Google or Facebook and use that to fund broadcasters and publishers here in Canada — primarily the large legacy players. In response, Facebook and Google have threatened to simply pull all the news content off their sites, and that means preventing us from sharing content with others that we think is interesting or important. This bill ends up punishing us.

It’s actually even worse than that because by forcing companies to pay for links — the way we click through to a larger story — it will also be a disaster for smaller independent outlets who have grown and survived by sharing their work through those links on those platforms at no cost.

My local newspaper, as you heard me comment on earlier, has just gone under. Yes, technology has changed the game, but these small entrepreneurs want business — not subsidies — and they survive by sharing their content for free online.

This bill will limit the ability of these small struggling players to use the internet to attract subscribers. The irony of the government’s approach is that the big legacy newspapers and broadcasters, in whose interests they are supposedly doing this, need the platforms even more. They, too, need more eyes on their content as viewership and subscriptions continue to dwindle.

As for Ottawa, the self-interest is obvious. Force the platforms to pay so they don’t have to be seen to be handing out the cash, which, of course, risks the charge that they are buying favour from the media. Just to remind you, the government has been funding and backstopping ailing entities, including those that cover Ottawa politics.

The government says platforms like Facebook benefit financially from sharing news stories or links, so they should pay. The platforms counter with some numbers, pointing out that news accounts for a very small portion of their online activity, approximately 3% for Facebook, and express that they don’t even place ads on shared news because most users don’t want to see them. So it’s not a big revenue stream.

Regardless, what the government seems not to understand — or doesn’t want to — is that platforms are a free online space provided to everyone, including the media. People can share content, and that obviously benefits the content creators in this country.

Of course, many people these days want to consume their news online, and free platforms provide a nearly limitless source of information. Therefore, without these platforms, smaller operations will likely continue to cease to exist — like the Wadena News — and it would become increasingly difficult to break into the industry with some new online product and compete against the established and already well-subsidized players.

The larger media organizations already have an advantage. They can put up a paywall around their articles, so even if a link is shared on a platform, the article is still blocked to those without a subscription. With Bill C-18, they get to have their cake and eat it too: subscription fees from consumers and subsidies from big tech.

With Bill C-18, Ottawa is playing a bit of a risky game of chicken. Here is why: Big tech companies such as Google and Facebook have faced this kind of legislation in other countries. Canada is such a small market that walking away from doing business here hurts us far more than them.

We are also risking trade retaliation from allies and partners, namely, the United States. Bill C-11 was deemed protectionist and possibly in violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and Bill C-18 will be no different. We are forcing companies to negotiate contracts that will take money from foreign sources to fund Canadian broadcasters and publishers. This is, of course, nothing short of a backdoor subsidy without the government’s fingerprints on the money.

The very idea that we would demand money from American corporations to prop up our national broadcaster, among others, is shocking. Could you imagine our reaction in this country if the U.S. passed a law forcing Canadian companies to shell out millions of dollars to support ailing American media companies simply because they needed more money? This is embarrassing.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that this will cost big tech hundreds of millions of dollars because the bill puts no real cap on potential costs, and the list of those eligible for funding has grown, including hundreds of local campus and Indigenous broadcasters.

As we know, when one country imposes this kind of taxation, it is an inconvenience, but if many countries want to buttress legacy media with money they haven’t earned, it becomes a costly precedent. It is no wonder that the big players such as Facebook or Twitter have threatened to block news sharing.

You can see why the cost-benefit analysis of keeping the news on these platforms if this bill passes will not be worth it. It will just be easier for these companies to shut it down. The platforms’ losses would be negligible, but the damage to the news-sharing process would be devastating and the Canadian consumer would be the real collateral damage. As my colleague Senator Simons says, it is as if those who wrote this bill had never used the internet.

If it weren’t obvious already, government should not be interfering with what and how we all consume information. As an old comedian, Tommy Smothers, once said, “The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.”

The natural marketplace of ideas allows creators to offer their wares and allows consumers to choose. We subscribe to publications we like, we watch channels we enjoy and when we don’t, we shut them off or cancel our subscriptions.

Let’s keep government out of this process, let’s try to keep the media more independent and let’s keep Canadians informed about their world.

Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cotter, seconded by the Honourable Senator Woo, for the second reading of 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.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, presented the following report:

Tuesday, March 7, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy has the honour to present its

SIXTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill C-228, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act and the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, has, in obedience to the order of reference of December 14, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same without amendment but with certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

PAMELA WALLIN

Chair

(For text of observations, see today’s Journals of the Senate, p. 1281.)

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, today I pay tribute to the people who, against all odds, try to keep the voice of their community alive. However, after more than a century in business, the Wadena News has had to close its doors. It’s the latest casualty, but it won’t be the last.

Community papers are particularly disadvantaged because they must compete with larger, well-subsidized players who can capture bigger audiences, charge more for ads and attract government help.

The federal government has long ignored the power of community newspapers except when there is a crisis or a federal election. They might well remember that nearly 8 out of 10 Canadians still read their community newspaper — the hard copy. But governments have stopped advertising in these papers, then turned around and offered subsidies to larger competitors.

To quote Alison Squires, the last publisher of the Wadena News:

Newspapers don’t want subsidies, but if Maclean’s magazine gets $1.5 million, then those who are at the grassroots of their communities recording local history as it happens, sitting in council meetings and following the local hockey scene should get a cut as well.

She went on to say, “. . . but we would rather have the advertising.”

They are businesses and they are looking for a level playing field. When you buy an ad, you are paying for a service and getting your message out. When you offer a subsidy, you are buying — or trying to buy — favour.

If the government really wanted to help our local papers, it would do better to get out of the way and buy an ad. It would be a more genuine expression of support, and it would also show an understanding of community when you make a point of speaking to people where they live.

I am proud to have presented the paper with the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for service to community. They are deserving. These papers are the connective tissue of our communities. Their archives that tell our story will be lost — the births, the deaths, weddings and anniversaries, good crop years and bad, the successes of our sons and daughters, and the impact of policies dreamed up in that faraway place called Ottawa.

I would like to thank Alison Squires, her father Bob, Jim Headington and Ethel Keele who built the paper. They were people of and for their community.

And to all those who have contributed and supported this paper over the years, thank you for 115 years of service to your fellow citizens, thank you for reporting our stories and thank you for taking up the task of writing down the first draft of our local history as it happened each and every day in our hometown. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin moved:

That the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, tabled in the Senate on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-24(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Finance being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report.

She said: Honourable senators, the tabling of this report was very timely because our country is going through a period of rapid inflation, with drastic rises in the cost of living, and our report shines a light on the series of decisions and circumstances that led us here and how we can do better to avoid this in the future. The testimony from various economists and from the Governor of the Bank of Canada himself has put into sharp relief that the state of our economy is troubling, and concerning what should be done in the future. We as a committee put in a great amount of time and work on this file, and therefore, that is why we hope the decision makers will take serious note and respond. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report (interim) of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy entitled The State of the Canadian Economy and Inflation and I move that the report be placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

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

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of February 9, 2023, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on the state of the Canadian economy and inflation, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, on behalf of Senator Richards who could not be here today, these are his words of tribute to Viola Léger:

I saw her perform only one time — a number of years ago now — when I was artist-in-residence at St. Thomas University, and she came to the small, intimate stage, sitting on a chair under one light, dressed as La Sagouine, speaking — this time — in English. We surrounded her on three sides, mostly students but professors as well, and she spoke Antonine Maillet’s great monologues in a voice that was not only hers, not only Antonine’s and not just Acadian — though, of course, it was Acadian — but a voice that became, over the hour, ours as well. That is, I knew her as I knew my grandmother from Matapédia or my Acadian great-grandmother. Slowly, it became our voice too and, as the hour progressed, mesmerizing.

She was an old lady, a fisherwoman born of the bay, a scrubwoman far away in New Brunswick, a part of some rustic backwoods region — what could she ever have to offer sophisticated people? Well, you see, everything, everything in the world — whatever God intended us to know, understand or cherish.

She slowly filled that small stage — and that group that surrounded her on three sides — with charm, wit, laughter and, in the end, a deep understanding of both the great joy and great sorrow of our world. The audience of young boys and girls — boys and girls from another age — listened with reverence. She had the spirit of a woman who celebrated the spirit of all mankind — a joyful celebration that we, in fact, share far more in our common humanity than we could ever imagine.

Monologues were delivered with such impeccable understanding of “how” — that is how stories are related, and why they must be told the way they are; that is how human beings relate to one another and the world around them. Yes, this was the great Antonine Maillet’s writing, of course, but it was Ms. Léger’s delivery that brought it to life. In that moment, I suppose the two women were as one — the wonderful friendship between them that had started half of a century before were transformed by those words on that bare stage.

Though I had known Antonine Maillet for some time, and though Peg and I were invited to l’Université de Moncton for a celebration on the fortieth anniversary of La Sagouine, I never got to speak to or meet Ms. Léger. I wish I had. I always thought I would have a chance. Of course, as life would have it, I never did. Still, I will never forget that little washerwoman on stage for that one hour, surrounded by us all — with one light shining on a hunched and noble soul as she confided in us a gracious and eloquent wisdom. It was the wisdom that Tolstoy himself understood: There is no greatness without goodness, kindness and simplicity.

What might I have said if I had met her? I would have told her that her little washerwoman is universal, and like “The Song of Joy,” “Amazing Grace” or “Oh Danny Boy,” her monologues can be understood by anyone from any language — flying any flag over any country — and all one needs in order to understand such a grand old woman is love.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: I just have a quick comment, really, in response to some of your comments. Of course, we’ll discuss this endlessly at committee.

Speaking with local newspapers in my area, I heard that one of the things that troubles them is that while government, on the one hand, has agreed to pay them money, therefore compromising independence, they have also stopped 100% of their advertising in these local papers, which was a genuine and arm’s-length source of income. So if they wanted to support these news operations in small communities, they do have a mechanism.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit with the Clerk of the Senate a report relating to its study on the state of the Canadian economy and inflation, if the Senate is not then sitting, and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Senate.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, after weeks of committee hearings and hour upon hour of testimony on Bill C-11, I feel as strongly as ever about the extraordinary overreach inherent in this poorly conceived bill. The legislation — the very idea itself — is out of touch with reality and with the people who actually use this technology for learning, teaching, communication, entertainment or for earning a living.

The government insists, despite much evidence to the contrary, that this is simply a modernization of the Broadcasting Act. It is neither simple, nor just an update of the rules. The internet is most definitely not a traditional broadcaster, so trying to impose the broadcasting rules, including content rules, Canadian or otherwise, is a flawed approach and will bring unintended consequences.

The internet and its platforms are global structures and entities — infinite in size and time — and are, therefore, completely unlike a finite, 24-hour, linear radio or TV station where you can actually enforce a percentage requirement or quota for designated content. For example, 30% of 24 hours is measurable and enforceable. How do you impose quotas on a system that crosses all borders, including time and space?

Well, this concept of discoverability is used. It will force platforms to make some content easier to find, or more discoverable, and other materials less discoverable. This is not an update of the broadcasting rules. This is government, through its agencies like the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, deciding what is most important, and then deciding that it is also most important for you and me. I cannot imagine that the global internet audience will be any happier than I am about the domestic content choices selected and promoted by our government overriding their own personal choices.

Our behaviour online is what teaches the algorithms to offer us more of what we like. The platforms track our interests, preferences and browsing habits, and then show us more of what we have chosen — not what the government has chosen. This is at the very heart of this bill — the fundamental issue of algorithmic manipulation. For me, it raises this question: Should any government or organization in a democracy be given the authority to override my choices or the choices of users everywhere?

We know that Bill C-11 gives the CRTC the ability to manipulate algorithms because of the chair’s own admission. Forcing platforms to manipulate algorithms to meet quotas — or to promote some content and obscure other choices — is simply not the business of governments. If you, as a consumer, enjoy country music or podcasts about philosophy, you would want to be able to access it without interference, and this kind of interference goes beyond the socially agreed-upon reasons for censorship, such as cases of hate speech or the incitement of violence or defamation.

There is also a fundamental arrogance with the notion. I ask honourable senators and Canadians listening or watching at home, who is up to the task of being censor-in-chief, deciding what you should see and hear? Would you give this superpower to the government of the day with its own biases and political interests? You might share the views of a certain party, but what if the government changes? Do you want a government you don’t agree with having such power?

In the words of Christopher Hitchens, one of our great writers:

. . . every time you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else . . . you’re making a rod for your own back . . . .

This whole concept is the antithesis of free expression. Free speech is not just about your rights; it’s about the rights of others, even those with whom we disagree, to have their say. It’s about my right to disagree with them, engage them or ignore them, but not to deny them the right to express their views. So many of our great thinkers have opined on the fundamental importance of free speech. Linguist Noam Chomsky was crisp: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

This bill poses exactly the same issue. Using discoverability to promote some anointed music, art, language or idea, you are silencing others. Let me make my choices about what I want to hear, listen to, debate or disagree with — or even discover. One of the most appealing characteristics of the internet is the serendipitous discovery — by searching for something you like, you stumble upon something unknown or special. Curiosity cannot be legislated or regulated by government.

I gratefully acknowledge the committee’s recognition of the importance of freedom of expression and journalistic independence in section 3.1 by adopting my amendment. It is fundamental, given that this bill gives extraordinary new powers to the CRTC, and to the government itself. At the very least, it must explicitly ensure protection of our right to free and open expression. Let us hope that it is accepted.

As mentioned earlier, the impact of this bill on content producers, particularly on young Canadians building their careers online as part of the digital economy, is very concerning. From TikTok to YouTube to podcasts, there is a thriving digital space that has provided new avenues to share information and ideas, and to carve out a professional future and be paid for it. This bill is truly counterintuitive because by picking favourites, the government is hurting the very people it is purporting to help — this new generation of Canadian content creators and their audiences. Their reach and success will be impacted if platforms, or even countries, decide our rules are unfair.

There has been testimony, supported by direct and strong representations from the U.S. government, that discoverability and the requirements to promote selected Canadian content violates provisions of our trade agreements, and would be seen as interference with the conduct of a domestic business in the free‑trade zone. Our trading partners might seek recourse or retaliation. As a trading nation, do we want to become the protectionists that we decry?

Your committee proposed amendments we hope will help protect content producers and entrepreneurs from the impact of this bill. The amendment to section 4.2 offers some assurances to the small, amateur creators that — with the removal of the revenue test and the narrowing of the definition of a “program” — they will, for now, escape some of the costly bureaucratic burdens imposed on others. If the CRTC does not intend to capture small content creators within its sphere, it still has the power to do so if it chooses or is instructed to do so. Again, the CRTC chair admitted that in testimony.

The committee also voted for the removal of clause 7(7) to try to limit the grip of the government on the CRTC and its policies. This arm’s-length institution was designed to be a regulatory body, not a political body, and any oversight should not be at the whim of political considerations of the day. Now we must wait and see if arm’s length is an irrefutable principle or a matter of convenience. Since this bill gives the government and the government-appointed CRTC new powers, the chair and the minister should be required to appear before parliamentary committees in both places on a regular basis so that we can assess the implementation and the impact of this act.

Ultimately, the folly of this entire endeavour is that our digital world is nothing at all like legacy media, and the space and pace of information sharing and content production is unprecedented. Canadians value free speech. They do not want to be told what they should consume, and they do not need a nanny state to present them with material that they are more than capable of finding on their own, if they wanted to in the first place.

Former U.S. president Harry S. Truman warned of this:

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures . . . .

That is what I fear with Bill C-11 — more command and control over the flow of information.

I believe that what this bill aims to do is not, and should not be, the business of governments. It inhibits markets, innovation and creativity, and I cannot support it.

For now, we await evidence that the government has heard those witnesses who came before us to offer ideas, to build a way forward in the new digital world. I hope that the government will hear their pleas because the government’s track record on heeding the considered advice of the Senate is not encouraging. We hope this time it will be different, but I’m not optimistic. Thank you, colleagues.

Senator Wallin: I did just ask it.

Senator Cotter: I think I got a question out of that, Senator Wallin. Thank you.

You chose an extremely good example. My sense of the fertilizer reduction issue is that Ottawa didn’t know enough when it came forward with that proposal. Dialogue would improve that. Federal programs are being developed and will get rolled out. We have to do everything we can to ensure those programs are responsive to what farmers, small business people and the resource industry really need and can move forward with.

I worry about the situation where nobody will talk to them, Ottawa does something, and then the people who wouldn’t talk to them say, “You did the wrong thing.” With the greatest of respect, that’s not the best way to build a country; rather, it’s Ottawa consulting and the recipient consultees genuinely sharing their views so that the programs can be constructed and adapted to the best possible set of goals.

Senator D. Patterson: Senator Cotter, I think you’ve discerned that I’m concerned about the process and ensuring this important bill gets the scrutiny it deserves.

As you know, the Province of Alberta was in the middle of a leadership vote when the bill was considered at committee in the other place, so the committee did not hear from one of the three Prairie provinces. I’m sure you will be following the process of the bill and perhaps participating in committee as sponsor. If an important issue is raised in committee, as sponsor, are you open to considering amendments to this bill?

Senator Cotter: I don’t have a definitive answer to that. I have received advice that, because of Mr. Carr’s passing, if the bill does get amended, it would create real problems on its return to the other place. As you know, I’m a 30 handicap in terms of the rules of this place and the other place. But if you were to say to me, “Senator Cotter, are you open to an amendment that would jeopardize the bill?” I would be very reluctant to that.

I think the point would be that if this bill has defects and someone has a brilliant idea about how to make it better, I’m open to that. I’m not willing to make a commitment as sponsor. And it’s not solely my decision, as you can understand; the committee will decide.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Thank you, Senator Cotter, for your comments. You’ve talked about the fact that you want to pursue a sustainable economy on the Prairies. I believe that we have a sustainable economy on the Prairies if it’s allowed to grow and reflect the local needs.

When we’re talking about some of the concerns and resistance to this bill, just this summer we heard the federal government talking about reducing fertilizer use by 30%. Farmers are, in fact, the best stewards of the land. It is in their own interests and best interests to make sure the land is preserved and used wisely.

You spoke about the fertilizer sector, the potash industry. When we hear comments like that from the federal government, it creates concern about whether the best interests of the Prairie provinces are being put forward by this government.

Senator Wallin: Your government has said “no” to a credible and independent inquiry into pandemic spending and management. As you told us in this chamber this week, the government will conduct its own inquiry into itself.

We actually need an arm’s-length transparent assessment of the true cost of vaccines, supplies and the billions of dollars spent. Will you reconsider this absurd approach of passing judgment on yourself and have an independent inquiry?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, researchers and journalists yesterday appeared before the House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee to explain they are abandoning access-to-information tools because answers from government are coming too late to be relevant or not at all. The government blames the pandemic, staffing shortages and outdated technology, but excuses aside, it is unacceptable that the public cannot get relevant and timely information about government spending.

Just this week, the Auditor General stated that $4.6 billion in COVID overpayments to ineligible recipients and another $27.4 billion in questionable handouts should and must be further investigated.

The government’s lack of transparency is alarming. Senator Gold, when will citizens and taxpayers once again be able to have timely access to information about how government spends their money, specifically the $27.4 billion?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Minister, on November 22, through last-minute amendments, without debate or committee hearings on Bill C-21, the federal government moved to ban hundreds of legally owned firearms and shotguns. Many of the weapons are rifles that are low powered, slow to fire and only designed to shoot birds or deer.

In rural areas, a rifle or a shotgun is an important tool. They also help put food on the table at a time when it is also too costly. These amendments will criminalize hunters and farmers when we know that the overwhelming bulk of violent gun crime is taking place in big cities. So why target legal hunters and farmers rather than the gangs and those who import weapons illegally?

Adding insult to injury through Bill C-5, your government has actually moved to reduce sentences for those who are convicted of serious gun crimes and violence.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Minister, in September, 11 people were murdered during a stabbing rampage at James Smith Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. We know of your government’s recent pledge of $40 million for the First Nation, but we also know that the issue is that there simply aren’t enough police officers to respond to crimes in progress or emergencies in a timely way in rural areas. When a citizen calls the RCMP, they are often told just to stay inside and lock their doors because they can’t get there.

Will your government commit, minister, to allocating serious new funding for training, recruitment and resources for the RCMP for officers for all rural areas of Saskatchewan and rural Canada? After all, safety and security are key economic determinants.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Yussuff, thank you for your comments here today. I think everybody, in general, agrees with the intent, which is that kids may need help on this issue. I share your concern that it may encourage some private providers to diminish their own contributions to dental care.

One of the other things — and I think it’s particularly important in the wake of what we have learned about fraudulent Canada Emergency Response Benefit, or CERB, claims during the pandemic — is that in this bill, in fact, while people are going to be required to keep receipts, there is an explicit instruction to have no audit of the program in year one. So, once again, we won’t know whether the program is being used appropriately. Are you concerned about that yourself?

Senator Yussuff: I’m happy to take Senator Wallin’s question and more importantly, of course, respond. Fraud is always an issue we should all be concerned about regardless of what program the government rolls out.

Individuals have to give attestation that the money they are going to receive will go for their children’s dental needs. They will have to identify the dentist that is providing the service. They will also have to tell the government directly in their application whether or not they have insurance coverage. In addition to that, they will have to keep the receipt. At any time, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, could conduct an audit. It is true that the individual is not required to submit receipts prior to accessing the benefit.

Over time, I think that we will learn how Canadian families access this benefit and whether or not there has been fraud because the CRA will have an opportunity to do some audits and give some data that will help deal with that to a large extent.

I am not worried. I say this because I come from humble beginnings. Working people struggle with the same challenges we all struggle with, like how to access things some of us have had the privilege of accessing. I’m a senator now, so I have dental benefits. At the age of 18 when I worked in the workplace for the first time in my life, I had access to dental benefits. But I know that privilege is not a right. Working families should be able to access the same thing that I have had for a good part of my life. There might be some who want to defraud the program. I am hoping enough deterrent is built into the legislation that it will deter those who may choose to commit fraud. However, as Canadians, I think we should have faith that poor, working families will do what is right to ensure their kids get the care they need.

Hon. Pamela Wallin, pursuant to notice of October 26, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy be authorized to meet on Tuesday, November 1, 2022, at 6:30 p.m., to hear from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, even though the Senate may then be sitting and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

She said: Honourable senators, I just want to make the obvious statement that it is the responsibility of the Banking Committee to monitor the activities of the Bank of Canada. We have just had the latest increase — number six — in interest rates announced by the Bank of Canada. The Monetary Policy Report is coming out. This is, at least, a semi-annual meeting that we have with the Governor of the Bank of Canada. I think it is important that he’s held to account, and, therefore, we would like to proceed with this meeting.

We have checked with his schedule to see if any other times are available. They are not. Hence, I’m asking for the support of the chamber to conduct this meeting. Thank you.