Hon. Diane Bellemare: Honourable senators, to begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Colleagues, the Speech from the Throne is ambitious: growing an economy that works for everyone, fighting climate change, moving forward on the path of reconciliation and making sure our communities are safe, healthy and inclusive. Indeed, all Canadians want to live in a country that is secure, prosperous, just and equitable. This begs the question: Can the federal government deliver on those promises? This is the subject of my speech.

[Translation]

I would argue that, in the current context, the federal government doesn’t have the means to fulfill its ambitions, but it could be different.

As you know, the federal government is limited in what it can do in a number of areas. Yes, it manages the military, the monetary policy, the Criminal Code and foreign relations, but its power to act is limited in a number of areas, such as health, education, training, income security, employment, labour, industrial development, climate change, security and even street violence. In order to solve complex problems with social, cultural, technological and environmental impacts, the government needs to better understand the situations, listen to stakeholders and rely on their contributions.

Although the government half-heartedly acknowledged this reality in the Speech from the Throne, it didn’t set out a strategy for taking collective, coherent and concerted action, even though doing so would be essential.

The federal government holds significant purchasing or spending power and uses it freely, but the production of many services depends on the provinces, civil society and the workers and businesses that create wealth.

The agenda set out in the Speech from the Throne won’t be achieved through a laissez-faire approach or increased reliance on consulting firms.

The best way forward involves collaboration and cooperation between governments and socio-economic partners. As you know, collaboration between public and private actors doesn’t happen spontaneously. To act together, we must agree on a vision and on results-based objectives. We need dialogue.

In free and democratic societies, it is social dialogue that allows collective action to be coordinated. Social dialogue is to collective action what the market is to commercial transactions. It is a place of exchange; one is the exchange of ideas; the other, money; and in both cases it is an institution.

Social dialogue seeks to create a consensus between the main actors in the work world and their democratic participation. Consensus then allows for important economic and social issues to be resolved. It also promotes social acceptance and peace, and helps to stimulate the economy. In short, social dialogue allows for a mutually beneficial collective strategy where losers can be compensated.

Social dialogue goes way beyond simple words — it is a practice that is embedded in a place and institutions. It is a style of public policy governance that contrasts with parliamentary political jousting.

Nevertheless, honourable senators, as legislators, it is important for us to recognize that social dialogue is a good practice and a governance tool that works. Several scientific studies have shown that democratic countries that rely on social dialogue adapt more quickly than others. They reform and adapt their social programs to new realities. Scandinavian countries are one example, but there are others. For example, Germany — which is a federation like Canada and relies on social dialogue for employment — managed to support its population’s income much more effectively than we did during the pandemic.

To be effective, social dialogue must meet certain conditions. The first and most important condition, as many studies have argued, is the government’s political will to engage. Second, it is important to create a place for dialogue as well as the institutions to support it. Participation must be balanced, ongoing, respectful, and the expected mandates must be well defined.

The United Nations, the World Bank, the OECD, and the International Labour Organization are making a strong and growing case for social dialogue.

The federal government has a responsibility to create the necessary conditions for establishing social dialogue at the national level. Even though at first glance this exercise may seem to cost a lot of time and energy, the countries that practise it all benefit in terms of membership, implementation, effectiveness and social justice.

[English]

Social dialogue has been identified by public policy experts as a key instrument for achieving a broad range of social goals. As you know, the Global Deal, a multi-stakeholder initiative for social dialogue and inclusive growth, has been created and supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Labour Organization in line with Sustainable Development Goal 17 in the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda.

The advisory board of this initiative is composed of senior advisers and economists who are well known, such as Olivier Blanchard, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, and others. A brief produced by the Global Deal provides evidence that more effective social dialogue could help reduce inequalities, enhance the inclusiveness and performance of labour markets and help countries achieve their commitments under the 2030 Agenda at large. It is considered a key pillar for the success of the Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals, and our government supports the Global Deal officially.

[Translation]

Just recently, on January 25, 2023, the European Commission made important recommendations to enhance social dialogue within member states of the European Union.

[English]

The European Commission initiative launched on January 25, 2023 — very recently — aims to promote social dialogue and the role of social partners at the European Union level and among individual states by providing technical, communicational and financial support.

[Translation]

In the community of nations, social dialogue is practised in 72 countries. These countries are also members of the International Association of Economic and Social Councils and Similar Institutions, created in 1999.

Even our neighbours to the south practise social dialogue. In each state of the U.S. territories, the United States has established social dialogue institutions on workforce that pursue objectives that are economic in nature such as business growth, as well as inclusion objectives for marginalized groups. These institutions are funded by the U.S. federal government and they were established through the Workforce Investment Act, which was adopted in 1988, then replaced by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014. There are workforce investment boards in 53 states and territories and 593 at the local level.

Colleagues, it is hard to understand why we don’t talk more about social dialogue in Canada and why the federal government dropped this practice over the decades.

Yet, Canada developed some remarkable social dialogue initiatives at the sectoral and provincial levels. Quebec stands out for its very structured social dialogue at the local, regional and sectoral levels when it comes to workplace health and safety, in the areas of labour, employment and workforce development.

[English]

The OECD praises the merit of a successful Canadian sectorial initiative around the commitment to phase out coal-fired power and ensure a successful transition by 2030. Our colleague Senator Yussuff played an important role in promoting this commitment.

In this chamber, some senators recognized the importance of social dialogue. In 2021, a group of senators produced a report entitled Rising to the Challenge of New Global Realities. This group, chaired by Senator Harder, included senators from all groups and caucuses — I was part of it, along with Senators Boehm, Cotter, Deacon from Nova Scotia, Dean, Downe, Harder, Klyne, Marshall, Marwah, Massicotte and Ringuette. It recommended that a prosperity council could be established, with the federal government acting as the catalyst. The council’s mandate would be to support cooperation among federal, provincial and territorial governments — to undertake consultations with civil society to foster social dialogue, and to share proposals for public policy action and relevant research findings with Canadians in order to build consensus across the country.

[Translation]

What’s keeping the federal government from providing financial and technical support for a national social dialogue? The federal government could reinstate its funding for sectoral committees. Canada could draw inspiration from the European Commission’s recent initiative.

In closing, the Senate has an opportunity to advance social dialogue around jobs and employment insurance. As you know, unions and employers’ associations worked together and came up with a budget-neutral way to participate in the Employment Insurance Commission as an advisory council. They want to transform the EI Commission’s consultative role into an advisory one.

I discussed this proposal in detail here on May 17, 2022. There’s no doubt that this new social dialogue tool would accelerate the adoption and implementation of the employment insurance reform many have been calling for.

EI reform has been a long time coming. The government wrapped up consultations on reform in the summer of 2022, but there’s no sign of a report yet even though consultations made it clear the system needs to be simpler, eligibility expanded and benefits increased, not to mention improving benefit delivery.

During the pandemic, the government was only able to deliver employment insurance benefits through Revenue Canada, which did a good job by the way. However, even today, the government and its departments, including Service Canada, are unable to deliver EI benefits in a reasonable period of time. I believe this would never have been tolerated under joint management.

Several organizations presented reform proposals. For example, on December 7, the Institute for Research on Public Policy presented a series of proposals for planned reforms. An advisory committee on employment insurance would be an ideal place to debate these recommendations and present a shared opinion to government. We could find mutually beneficial solutions to the thorny problem of seasonal unemployment, which is an obstacle that paralyzes governments of all political stripes.

Esteemed colleagues, let’s recall the matter of EI administrative tribunals. Last year, the government proposed a bill to reform these tribunals in part 4 of the budget implementation bill. Workers and companies were unanimous in calling for this reform. They were also almost unanimous in their opposition to the reform bill. Why? Things could have been different had this bill been reviewed by an advisory committee associated with the Employment Insurance Commission, in other words had social dialogue been involved.

Honourable senators, it is important and urgent to proceed with a system reform endorsed by the people who pay into the system. EI has an important role to play in a fair and equitable transition to a green economy. Many economists see a recession looming. We have to take action now. I think it is our duty to recognize what federal labour market partners need. They want to work together within a recognized institutional framework. It is our duty to act accordingly.

[English]

The Speech from the Throne affirms that “The government will work collaboratively with provinces, territories and other partners to deliver real results on what Canadians need.”

The government should walk the talk by introducing social dialogue mechanisms in its institutions, such as an enlarged advisory council in the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. As a complementary body, we should do our job. Thank you very much. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Gagné, debate adjourned.)

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders), with amendments and observations), presented in the Senate on December 14, 2022.

Hon. Rosa Galvez: Colleagues, I’m speaking to you today about Bill S-241, the Jane Goodall act. This bill, which aims to support Canada’s leadership on banning the holding of whales and dolphins in captivity, has received strong public support.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the work of former senator Murray Sinclair, who introduced this bill in 2020. I’d also like to thank Senator Klyne and his team, who worked tirelessly to ensure that this important work didn’t go unfinished.

[English]

Honourable senators, I and an increasing number of Canadians believe wild animals should have the right to a wildlife and shouldn’t be held in captivity, unless there is a direct benefit to them or a greater conservation goal. I am satisfied that this bill significantly contributes to making that goal a reality for a selection of animals, including great apes, elephants, big cats, bears, wolves, seals, walruses and dangerous reptiles.

Bill S-241 increases protection for more than 800 wild species where there is an abundance of evidence they suffer greatly in captivity because their natural movements and behaviour are severely restricted. There should be only exceptional circumstances for keeping wild animals in captivity: when it serves the animal’s best interests and for research that has conservation benefits.

Even if there is a conservation benefit to breeding wild animals in captivity, this bill was crafted with the foresight to recognize that a higher bar needs to be met to protect the dignity of the wild animal species and, indeed, to protect the dignity of our own species. The preamble of the bill sets out the opportunity to address the global wildlife trade through regulation. I strongly support further action in that regard.

Senator Klyne, in his initial speech, mentioned the opportunity to protect amphibians from a dangerous fungus and addressed the poaching of Canadian bears for gallbladders. I think those are important examples of the harm posed by the commercial wildlife trade. Whether that trade is legal or illegal, it causes harm to the animals themselves and increases the potential for significant zoonotic diseases that can harm animals and people. We just passed through COVID-19, as an example.

This bill will make Canada a global leader in protecting wildlife welfare and fulfill the mandate of the Minister of Environment to protect animals in captivity, help curb the illegal wildlife trade and end the elephant and rhinoceros tusk trade in Canada.

Last year, World Animal Protection released a report. Based on their analysis of Canada’s importation records, they estimated that more than 1.8 million wild animals were imported into our country between 2014 and 2018 and that the vast majority, 93%, were seemingly not subject to any permits or pathogen screening. Given the role of the wildlife trade in driving the biodiversity crisis and disease risk — I just talked about that a few weeks ago — that is very concerning.

Animal welfare science is constantly evolving. We are learning more and more about the complex biological, psychological and ecological needs of a variety of wild animal species and how difficult it is to meet those needs in captivity.

I’m very pleased the bill will end elephant captivity in Canada. I applaud the Zoo de Granby for announcing their plans to retire the elephants and support this bill. Highly social, intelligent and vast roaming animals like elephants should not be kept in captivity, particularly in Canada, where our climate for most of the year is brutal for these animals. Many people may not realize these animals spend most of their time in much smaller indoor enclosures due to the cold and, as a result, are unable to fully benefit from large outdoor pens, if they are provided.

This bill will help prevent future cases like that of the elephant Lucy. If you follow me on Twitter, I’ve been helping this group. It’s truly sad to see the situation of Lucy, who must spend more than two thirds of her life indoors at the Edmonton Valley Zoo due to harsh Canadian winters. As a result, she is 1,000 pounds overweight and shows signs of mental duress, such as rocking back and forth. I’d like to thank Lucy’s Edmonton Advocates’ Project for their important work in giving Lucy a voice.

I’m glad to see the bill is also supported by other zoos like the Toronto Zoo, the Calgary Zoo and the Montreal Biodome. This bill is clearly not anti-zoo, but it will raise the standard of zoos to what we, as a society, find acceptable. It will help establish transparent legal and science-based standards so animals like tigers, lions and many species of monkeys are no longer kept in undersized, flimsy cages where you don’t need a licence, a reason, any expertise or training to keep a tiger or other exotic wild animal.

It is no surprise that wild animals escape roadside zoos and people have been injured and even killed because of serious regulatory gaps. Just in 2013, we had a tragic case in New Brunswick where an African rock python, a reptile that wouldn’t be allowed to be held in captivity under this proposed legislation, killed two children aged 4 and 6. This legislation cannot be passed soon enough.

[Translation]

In Quebec, a zoo was criminally charged with animal cruelty and neglect, saddling the Montreal SPCA and its partners with the task of having to seize and relocate more than 100 wild animals.

Despite the importance of this bill, it isn’t the last chapter. More rules need to be adopted to fight against the trade of wild animals. This is an under-regulated and unsustainable sector. Although the preamble of the bill addresses the pleas of the World Animal Protection organization, we need to do more to reduce animal suffering, the risks of illness and the loss of biodiversity. Legal trade only fuels illegal trade and we need new regulations to improve the very lax data collection and monitoring system that exists in Canada.

Bill S-241 has my unwavering support and should be referred to committee to be studied in due course so that we can take this major step in recognizing that the well-being of animals is essential to the way we measure progress in our society.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[English]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boyer, seconded by the Honourable Senator Marwah, for the second reading of Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures).

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Would the Honourable Senator Boyer take a question, please?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Boyer. Thank you for never giving up, and thank you for your leadership. As a member of the Senate Human Rights Committee, I heard the witness statements. You know how it tore at us; how it tore at me. This bill is an important next step.

At the Senate Human Rights Committee, we heard witness testimony that there was a case being brought by certain witnesses, I believe, against a provincial court. I would like to ask you what the status of that case is and what implications the judgment in that case will have on your bill. Thank you.

Hon. Yvonne Boyer: Honourable senators, as we engage in this conversation about Bill S-250 today, I would like to begin by acknowledging we are on the traditional and unceded territories of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation. The people of these nations are the original stewards of the land, and it’s important to show our humility, gratefulness and respect for their stewardship by acknowledging and thanking them. When we pay our respects to the ancestors, we reaffirm our relationship with one another. In doing so, we are actively participating in reconciliation as we navigate our time together.

I rise today as sponsor of Senate public Bill S-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), which proposes to amend section 268 of the Criminal Code. Section 268 currently addresses aggravated assault offences, and Bill S-250 creates an offence for sterilization without consent. I would like to briefly expand on why I believe this bill is so important.

The first question I’m always asked when people discover I’m working on the topic of forced sterilization is, “That isn’t still happening, is it? That was a long time ago, wasn’t it?” The simple answer is “no.” It is happening today, and at this very moment, there are women who are being coerced or forced into sterilization, whether they are pregnant, have just given birth or are in another situation. Some of the underlying reasons will be explained today.

Historically, the role that Indigenous women had in their families, communities and nations commanded the highest respect as the givers of life. They were the keepers of the traditions, practices and customs of their nation. It was well understood by all that women held a sacred status as they brought new life into the world. This was a way to teach and to transfer knowledge to the youth that were involved in serving and learning the ways at the sacred birthing ceremony. The women were revered for their capacity to not only create new life, but by extension, the birth of a new relationship with the Creator.

These newest members of the community were also recognized for the Indigenous laws that were given to them by the Creator. These laws were given with the responsibility to enter into new relationships in a good, honest and truthful way.

Unlike these inherent Indigenous laws that were based on respect and gender balance, the British common law developed through legal traditions of the Romans, the Normans, church canon law and Anglo-Saxon law. These legal traditions considered married women to be under the protection and shield of their husbands. The common law viewed women as having no social or legal status, but as chattels dependent first on their fathers and then their husbands. Birthing was a medical procedure that was considered important to extend the male patrilineal line.

In contrast, womanhood of the Métis, Inuit and First Nations has been described as once being a sacred identity that was maintained through a knowledge system of balance and harmony. Women were politically, socially and economically powerful and held status in their communities and nations related to this power. Indigenous women were anchors to the family and closely linked to the land, and because land acquisition became a primary goal of the colonizers, various laws, regulations, policies and Christian edicts were applied to the identity of Indigenous women in Canada, forcing them into an oppressed position in society. These are all mitigating factors as to why we have forced and coerced sterilization today.

In addition, Canada has an extensive history of eugenics through sterilizing groups of people who were named as unfit. By virtue of their social strata, Indigenous women were easy targets. The history of the eugenics movement began in 19th-century England, and the term eugenics derived from the Greek for “well born” or “good breeding” and evolved into eugenics policies that spread to the United States, Canada and several European countries, and later became famous in Nazi Germany. A policy of involuntary surgical sterilization was carried out on Indigenous women in Canada and the United States.

Alberta and British Columbia upheld sexual sterilization acts. From 1928 to 1973, both provinces enacted sterilization laws that allowed a Eugenics Board, comprised of four people, to oversee cases for sterilization.

In 1930 the Eugenics Society in Canada was created, whose job it was to register the sterilization of women they considered unfit to give birth. Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario also introduced similar bills. They did not, however, become law. They nevertheless created an underpinning in our Canadian fabric that sterilization is a good method to control the population.

In 1988, the Alberta government destroyed all but 861 of the 4,785 files created by the Eugenics Board. Professor Jana Grekul reviewed them and commented:

[M]ost noticeably over-represented were Aboriginals (identified as “Indian,” “Métis,” “half breeds,” “treaty” and “Eskimo”). While the province’s Aboriginal population hovered between 2% and 3% of the total over the decades in question, Aboriginals made up 6% of all the cases represented.

In October 1989, Leilani Muir discovered she had been sterilized and brought legal action against the Government of Alberta for wrongful confinement and wrongful sterilization, and she won. In Ms. Muir’s case, a single IQ test had been enough to deem her mentally defective, and therefore a candidate for sterilization.

Upon Ms. Muir’s physical examination and discovery that she had been sterilized, her doctor reported that her insides looked like she had been through a slaughter house. I have heard similar words from many of the Indigenous women I’ve gotten to know over the years.

With the uncovering of the Muir case, the Government of Alberta’s response was a proposition to override the Charter using section 33 to limit the compensation to victims. This was met with a massive public uproar. The Government of Alberta finally apologized in 1999 and offered several individuals and groups the option to settle out of court.

For Indigenous women, the impact on health and the stigma of having been wrongfully sterilized is insurmountable. Although these explicit eugenic laws and policies have been repealed, the racist and discriminatory notions and social mores that gave rise to them are still present in Canadian society and underpin our health policies — and, yes, forced and coerced sterilization still occurs.

In 2017, after a public outcry from Indigenous women who had been sterilized in a Saskatoon hospital, I was commissioned to conduct an external review of the practice of tubal ligation in the Saskatoon Health Region. Although many came forward, Dr. Judith Bartlett and I interviewed seven women who had been sterilized against their will in a Saskatoon hospital. This study revealed that survivors of forced and coerced sterilization felt invisible, profiled and powerless by the Canadian health care system.

Sterilization without consent, or with coerced consent, leaves women extremely traumatized and terrified with the knowledge that the Canadian health care system does not have their best interests in mind. Among other trauma-induced responses, the lack of trust makes them avoid basic or even necessary health care for themselves and their families, especially concerning their reproductive health.

This was the case for all of the women interviewed in the report, who expressed to me that they go to great lengths to avoid doctors out of a fear of being retraumatized.

On the issue of coercion, one Indigenous woman with a child with cerebral palsy and about to deliver another baby was told that if she did not sign the consent to a tubal ligation, her baby that was about to be delivered would also have cerebral palsy: think about that.

The external review provided recommendations for change, including calls to action relating to support and reparations, cultural training and education, law and policy reform. It also laid the foundation for the class action lawsuits that are currently occurring all across Canada in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and now Quebec.

In 2019 and 2022, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights completed two studies on forced and coerced sterilization of persons in Canada. In the first study, the committee heard from several experts on the topic of sterilization. In The Scars that We Carry: Forced and Coerced Sterilization of Persons in Canada — Part II, a comprehensive study was completed with survivors of forced and coerced sterilization. Both reports provided strong recommendations and calls to action on the eradication of forced sterilization.

Internationally, the United Nations Committee Against Torture, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and two UN special rapporteurs have also called on Canada to take concrete action on this issue.

Regardless of these directives, we still see a crisis in Canada. In the words of Madeleine Redfern, a witness who spoke about the terrifying experiences of Inuit women:

In an inquiry that was done in the 1970s, it was determined that hundreds of Indigenous women from 52 Northern communities were sterilized . . . . at least 70 Inuit women were sterilized. In Igloolik, 26% of women between the ages of 30 to 50 were sterilized. In Naujaat, formerly known as Repulse Bay, almost 50% of women in the 30 to 50 age group were sterilized. In Gjao Haven, 31% of the women had been sterilized. More than 25% of women in Chesterfield Inlet, Kugaaruk had been sterilized. Those are the only ones that were well documented, but we know there were a lot more.

Other data from the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicates at least 470 Inuit and Aboriginal women were sterilized in 1972 alone.

Dr. Josephine Etowa spoke of her participation in a project that facilitated health care delivery in rural Nova Scotia to Black women. Professor Etowa explained that upon reviewing data from the study, team members noticed “the issue of hysterectomy continually coming up in the qualitative interviews involving 237 women.”

The issue of forced hysterectomies as a form of sterilization is as equally shocking, but it’s not surprising. Louise Delisle, a Black woman from Nova Scotia, was 15 when she gave birth to her daughter. The attending doctor gave her a partial hysterectomy, and she was never able to have more children. Her mother was her guardian and did not consent to this.

Another one of the Senate witnesses was sterilized in 2018 when she was 24. She had two children, and she shared the story of the birth of her son. As she was waiting for a Cesarean section, she knew the baby she was carrying was in distress and at risk of going into septic shock. The doctor informed her that she should have a tubal ligation. The witness explained that, given her state of mind at the time, she was willing to provide consent for the sterilization if it meant the Cesarean section would proceed and her baby would be saved.

Another witness shared that:

Paired with blood loss, pain, exhaustion, and lack of family presence, I find it unethical that I was asked to make a choice about a procedure that I did not know was permanent. Yet, within two hours of giving birth, I was in the operating theatre getting sterilized.

Other examples of coercive methods include intimidating medical terminology, not explicitly informing women that sterilization procedures are permanent and threatening to apprehend their newborn if they do not sign the consent form.

While the exact extent and severity of forced sterilization have not been determined — we need good data on that — my office has documented over 12,000 Indigenous women in Canada who have had coerced or forced sterilization between 1971 and 2018.

What can we do about this? How will this bill help stop these atrocities?

Canada prides itself on having a health care system that is grounded on five core principles: comprehensiveness, public administration, portability, accessibility and universality. These are the core principles of the Canada Health Act. Two of these principles are particularly relevant — accessibility and universality — although two sections of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms highlight the importance of the right to health care access for all Canadians.

First, section 15 states that:

Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, physical or mental disability.

Similarly, section 7 states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Unfortunately, these rights to health care access are not the reality for all, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable populations who have been and continue to be denied reproductive rights through coerced and forced sterilization procedures, despite being a small portion of the nation’s overall population.

Coerced and forced sterilization is not a matter of the past; it is a disturbing reality of the present. It is also illegal under Canadian law. For instance, section 265 of the Criminal Code is assault; section 267 is assault causing bodily harm; section 268 is aggravated assault; and, in addition, all provinces and territories have legislation requiring consent for medical care and treatment. To date, no charges have been laid, to my knowledge.

I will now discuss how Bill S-250 is the next best step in ensuring we uphold Charter principles and provide protections for the populations that are most typically affected. This bill would bring about important changes to the Criminal Code, notably by explicitly setting out that the act of sterilizing a person against their will and/or without obtaining proper consent is a criminal offence in Canada.

Bill S-250 amends section 268 of the Criminal Code, which covers aggravated assault offences, to include a new offence for sterilization procedures. Under this offence, new section 268.1(7) establishes that anyone who takes part in coercive measures to cause or attempt to cause someone to be sterilized is guilty of an indictable offence that holds a maximum of 14 years in prison.

Moreover, new section 268.1(2) establishes that section 45 of the Criminal Code — which sets out that everyone is “protected from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation on any person for the benefit of that person” if it is “performed with reasonable care and skill” and reasonable to perform with respect to the health and circumstances of the case — is not a defence to the new offence of sterilizations.

However, new section 268.1(3) allows an exception, stating that the new section does not apply where the sterilization procedure is performed by a medical practitioner who obtained informed consent of the individual and followed the safeguard measures stated in new sections 268.1(5) and 268.1(6).

These safeguard measures include the following: Medical practitioners must inform patients of all possible alternative contraceptive options that temporarily prevent conception; ensure that patients understand that they can withdraw consent at any time leading up to immediately before the sterilization procedure; and ensure comprehension of the provided information, fully informed consent and an absence of external pressure before performing the sterilization procedure.

Lastly, new section 268.1(4) clarifies that consent is deemed not to have been obtained where:

(a) the person is under the age of 18;

(b) the person is incapable of consenting . . . for any reason; or

(c) the person has not initiated a voluntary request to undergo a sterilization procedure.

Section 268(6) is a very important section that adds a final opportunity to withdraw consent, which must be offered before the procedure occurs.

In summarizing the importance of the bill, when we ensure that coerced and forced sterilizations are illegal under the Criminal Code, the reproductive rights of vulnerable and marginalized populations are better protected. It is but one tool to assist in the eradication of these practices.

It is important to note that the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report’s Call to Action 19 urges the federal government to narrow the gaps between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal community health outcomes, encouraging that the federal government includes maternal health as one indicator of a health outcome gap. This is also addressed in this bill.

Reproductive justice can be defined as:

. . . the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.

How can we pride ourselves for having a health care system that promotes the principles of universality and accessibility to all, while robbing certain populations of the same standard of care?

Second, the implementation of this bill establishes a legislative framework that explicitly recognizes the place coerced and forced sterilization has in the legacy of colonization, racism and systemic discrimination in Canada. Coerced and forced sterilization is a national crisis that must finally be addressed in a genuine way.

The question is simple: Why are these women having their tubes tied, burned and cut without consent? These horrific practices are overwhelmingly overrepresented by Indigenous women, women with disabilities, racialized women, intersex children and institutionalized persons.

These statistics are no coincidence. It is evident that sterilization practices are being implemented to ensure specific groups of people do not have the ability to reproduce in Canadian society. Simply put, it is a modern form of eugenics.

Third, this bill would respond to the recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, namely Recommendation 1, “That legislation be introduced to add a specific offence to the Criminal Code prohibiting forced and coerced sterilization.”

In addition, the United Nations Committee against Torture, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and two UN special rapporteurs have called on Canada to take concrete action on this issue by following through on the direction of the United Nations Committee against Torture to:

Adopt legislative and policy measures to prevent and criminalize the forced or coerced sterilization of women, particularly by clearly defining the requirement for free, prior and informed consent with regard to sterilization and by raising awareness among [I]ndigenous women and medical personnel of that requirement.

It would also respond to international pressures for Canada to be held accountable for this injustice it has inflicted on certain marginalized and vulnerable groups.

Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide highlights that “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” is considered genocide, which I believe coerced and forced sterilization falls under.

Canada could pave the way in setting a good example internationally by taking concrete measures to address its own history and present-day practices of coerced and forced sterilization.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all my parliamentary colleagues, who have been so incredibly supportive. I would also like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and all of the stakeholders who have contributed tirelessly to move this bill forward. My office has received overwhelming support for this bill from the newly incorporated 200+ members of the Survivors Circle for reproductive justice, as well as community leaders from communities big and small across Turtle Island. Their dedication to this issue has resulted in the birth of this very critical bill.

Most importantly, I would like to thank the women who have trusted me, the women who have telephoned me, the women who have emailed me or found me in person to tell their stories and the courageous women who have come forward to provide testimony. I encourage others to keep contacting me. I will never give up.

I want to thank Tracy Bannab and Brenda Pelletier for being the first women to come forward. They faced a horrendous amount of racial abuse and targeted attacks from social media for telling their stories. Without them as a catalyst, we would not be standing here today. I want to thank Betty Ann Adam for calling me that day and exposing to the world what was happening to Indigenous women.

Thank you to all of the survivors of coerced and forced sterilization who have helped bring this bill to fruition. Your bravery and fearlessness to speak up are outstanding, and you have all made positive changes for generations to come.

As senators, we must use our platform to fight for those who do not have a voice and strive to restore their reproductive futures. Through Bill S-250, we can take a step toward eradicating this blatant violence. Let us come together to be on the right side of history.

Meegwetch, thank you, all of our relations.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

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

Hon. Peter Harder moved second reading of Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

He said: I wish to acknowledge, as I rise today, that I rise on the traditional and unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.

Honourable senators, I’m pleased to share my support for Bill C-18, the online news act. Before we get into the details of the bill, I hope we can agree that action is needed to address the challenges faced by the Canadian news sector at this time.

A healthy democracy depends on well-informed citizens, and well-informed citizens depend on a free and independent press. Yet, with each passing year, we witness news outlets struggling to deliver on their mandates of providing Canadians with fair and unbiased information. As we all know, colleagues, a free and independent press is one of the foundations of a safe, prosperous and democratic society. Ensuring the viability of news outlets is thus necessary and timely.

We can also agree that our news consumption habits have changed forever. Long gone are the days of the broadsheet setting the agenda for public debate. Today, whether through our personal searches on the web or social media, the news reaches us via a number of digital platforms. Put simply, the business model of these digital platforms is to capture billions of dollars in advertising in exchange for our eyeballs.

But while the news business is doing the heavy lifting in covering news and the events of the day and reporting on issues that matter to our communities — be it local, national or international — little of the value of that work goes back to them.

If we agree that news has a crucial value in producing an informed electorate, then we must address the present imbalance that threatens our democracy. This legislation follows on the heels of a similar effort in Australia, but other countries are implementing or planning comparable laws.

New Zealand, for example, announced in December 2022 that its own legislation would draw heavily on what they called Canada’s “objective, futureproof and transparent” approach.

The aim of Bill C-18 is to create a news ecosystem that promotes the creation of high-quality news content and reflects Canada’s diverse voices and stories. We know that this type of content is central to our social and democratic discourse and to the health of communities that make up this country. Without a healthy media — not just here in Ottawa, but in all communities, large and small — the public’s capacity to hold their leaders accountable will atrophy. Voters will become less informed — or misinformed — on what’s at stake in elections. Policy prescriptions aimed at creating a better society are barely illuminated, if they are discussed at all.

We have seen how the spread of misinformation and disinformation around the world can damage societies. A robust, questioning media is one of the most effective antidotes to these disorders.

We all understand that freedom of expression and freedom of the press require that news reporting be done with full editorial independence, free from undue governmental interference. It requires that Canadians be able to continue to express themselves online, including by sharing news content.

Further, we must also acknowledge that, ultimately, our freedom of expression as Canadians depends crucially on the quality of the news content and information that we create and consume.

Bill C-18 focuses its support on the entities that create high‑quality news content, eligible news businesses, the outlets they operate and the journalists they engage.

To be sure, the services that aggregate the reporting of others for their users have a role to play in the Canadian information ecosystem. These online services represent great advancements in how we access news and, more widely, how we share information.

Ultimately, these services, which act as gatekeepers to online information, are only as good as the information they curate. The success of some platforms as gatekeepers of information has allowed them to leverage a position of dominance in online advertising. This dominance creates an imbalance that undermines news businesses’ revenue streams and continued creation of quality news.

That is why Bill C-18 aims to level the playing field between dominant online platforms and the news businesses. Bill C-18 will support news businesses and their outlets when they primarily produce the kind of rigorous journalism and reporting that Canadians expect of professional news.

The government estimates that, annually, approximately C$215 million in compensation could go from digital platforms to eligible news businesses in Canada.

The online news act provides a legislative and regulatory framework that is flexible, modern and encourages market fairness. It will set the table for platforms to sit down with media outlets of all sizes, equipped with the ability to bargain collectively, bringing players to the bargaining process on a more equal footing. This is the path forward for a better balance of bargaining power in the Canadian digital news ecosystem.

The anticipated impact of Bill C-18 is significant regardless of whose financial estimates one uses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example, estimated the bill could result in $329 million in total compensation for news businesses. When you look at the definition used for broadcasters compared to the rest of the news industry, you will see it is far broader, so the breakdown on the broadcast side is likely higher. These potential discrepancies are worthy of committee discussions. It can’t be denied that these payments will provide a lifeline for our country’s struggling news businesses.

Key amendments introduced in the other place have improved the bill in several ways, such as changes to the criteria for news business eligibility, the rules exempting platforms from the regime and other elements that reflect calls from stakeholders to improve Bill C-18’s ability to support a wider range of news businesses, including smaller news outlets and diverse perspectives.

Who will benefit from this bill? First off, news businesses must apply to be eligible for participation in bargaining. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission — the CRTC — will designate news businesses as eligible if they meet a set of criteria intended to support rigorous, quality journalism that informs Canadians on important issues. There are four ways for news businesses to be eligible: as a qualified Canadian journalism organization under the Income Tax Act; as licensed campus, community or Indigenous broadcasters; as a Canadian organization covering news of general interest; or as an Indigenous news outlet. These carefully considered criteria are designed to ensure that only rigorous journalism benefits from this new regime.

You will recall that the first path to eligibility, which is the qualified Canadian journalism organization designation — also known by the acronym QCJO — was developed in support of the Canadian journalism labour tax credit introduced in the 2018 Fall Economic Statement. It specifies that to qualify, news businesses must produce original reporting on issues and events that matter to Canadian readers, including news, features, investigations, profiles, interviews and analyses or commentaries.

These qualified news organizations are reviewed by a diverse and independent advisory panel of active or retired faculty of post-secondary journalism schools across the country. By leveraging the QCJO standard, we can keep the eligibility criteria for new businesses in harmony with existing legislation with proven experience and keep the amount of red tape, government intervention and duplication to a minimum.

These QCJOs must also adhere to key journalistic principles, including a commitment to research and verifying information before publication and presenting diverse perspectives and analyses. An eligible news outlet will also have a policy for correcting errors and honestly representing sources.

The other place added a second route to being classified as an eligible news organization or business. Parties agreed that campus, community and Indigenous broadcasters licensed under the Broadcasting Act do provide a great amount of local news and information across the country even though they may not meet the QCJO definition. These broadcasters were added in recognition of their unique role and contribution to the Canadian news landscape.

News businesses that are not designated as QCJOs can also apply to be eligible if they report on current events of general interest, including coverage of democratic institutions and processes, and demonstrate rigour through editorial oversight and adherence to recognized professional journalistic standards.

This route requires that an organization regularly employs two or more journalists. This two-journalist threshold promotes consistency by reflecting the existing rules for qualification in the criteria for a QCJO. It also favours a higher standard of reporting by ensuring that the news content in question benefits from the editorial perspective and independent insights of another professional journalist. The two-journalist requirement is a crucial factor for ensuring that Canadians have access to independent and rigorous journalism.

One other important amendment that was added in the other place now specifies that this rule does not require journalists to operate at arm’s length from the business. In other words, this allows for a framework that is more inclusive of start-ups and small news outlets, including those serving a diverse readership and more rural communities whose owners or operators may also be practising journalists themselves. Outlets in small Prairie communities, Canada’s North and other isolated towns and villages, as well as ethnic media, will benefit from this bill. In many cases, these communities have but one local outlet upon which they can count.

A fourth and final path to eligibility was added by the other place. The last route by which a news business can be considered eligible is an Indigenous outlet. Indigenous organizations operating in Canada are eligible if they cover matters of general interest and the rights of Indigenous peoples, such as treaty rights and the right of self-government. Bill C-18 is platform-agnostic and will provide support to all types of news organizations. Print, digital and broadcast are all eligible under Bill C-18 if they meet the criteria.

Promoting the sustainability of Indigenous media in our country not only benefits the diversity of our media landscape in supporting news media content that adequately reflects our nation’s Indigenous cultural diversity; this aspect of Bill C-18 also reflects our and the government’s commitment to advancing reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

There have been some questions as to why our national broadcaster should be eligible under Bill C-18 since the CBC/Radio-Canada already receives public funding.

In many parts of our country, CBC/Radio-Canada is the only source of reliable, fact-based journalism. Canadians rely on the information of our public broadcaster. It is only to the advantage of the tech giants that our public broadcaster is excluded from bargaining over the value of their online content. Furthermore, why should Canadian taxpayers contribute to the bottom lines of these platforms by letting the content they helped pay for be used for free? Taken together, these eligibility criteria for news businesses offer clear guidance for outlets wanting to benefit from the regime. In being inclusive of a diversity of businesses, including small and independent businesses, the criteria support the bill’s purpose of contributing to the sustainability of the news marketplace.

As I have mentioned, Bill C-18 will encourage digital platforms — that have dominant market positions — to enter into voluntary commercial agreements that fairly compensate Canadian news businesses for the use and sharing of their news online. The CRTC will play an important role in ensuring the legislation results in fair agreements that contribute to the sustainability of the news sector. As an independent regulator, part of its job is to uphold freedom of expression and journalistic independence.

The CRTC is an expert in media regulation, as well as fair and transparent public processes, and offers final arbitration. The commission is well positioned to implement the regulatory tools included in this bill that prevent digital platforms from unduly favouring or disadvantaging certain news businesses, thus preserving the independence of the press.

The commission’s role will be to help pave the way to fairly negotiated agreements, including developing a code of conduct and monitoring the marketplace to ensure that the framework continues to meet its objectives. In the rare case that parties cannot agree, it will facilitate final offer arbitration — an option that Bill C-18 presents properly, in my view, as a last resort.

One of the CRTC’s roles will be to grant exemptions from parts of the act to platforms. To do so, platforms will need to demonstrate that they are contributing to a sustainable news sector by entering into fair commercial agreements with news businesses that reflect the diversity of the Canadian news marketplace.

Platforms — defined as “digital news intermediaries” in the bill — wishing to be granted an exemption have a clear road map. This means making deals with outlets based in small communities from coast to coast to coast. This means making agreements with news outlets producing coverage in both official languages, with Indigenous media and with outlets representing Black and racialized groups. This means there should be agreements with a balanced number of outlets from each region of the country. Agreements will have to guarantee that journalists and editors can still cover the issues and the stories that matter without interference, respecting the independence of the press and freedom of expression.

New criteria introduced in the other place ensure that platforms must also enter into agreements with smaller players, such as not‑for-profit outlets, news businesses serving diverse populations and Indigenous news outlets. This is another reason we can be optimistic that this bill, once implemented, will have a positive impact in our news ecosystem.

The rules for exemption from the regime provide platforms with clear and transparent criteria to guide them in taking a balanced and fair approach when making deals. The focus is on the scope of the agreements and the range of the marketplace they cover. The CRTC will grant an online platform exemption from the act, provided the agreement reflects this balanced and fair approach. These exemption criteria are objective and designed to advance the goals of the framework. To be clear, the CRTC will not pick winners and losers. The framework is fundamentally based on free negotiations between news publishers and platforms, setting a level playing field for those agreements. It provides safeguards to ensure that, ultimately, agreements further the public interest objectives of the legislation.

Transparency is built into the regulatory process at every step. This includes the decisions on both eligibility and exemption. The regulator will be able to assess whether any agreement between news businesses and platforms poses a risk to journalistic independence, safeguarding the freedom of the press.

The information from this process will also feed into another key innovation in Bill C-18: the annual report by an independent auditor on the impact of Bill C-18 on the digital news marketplace. Giving the CRTC the ability to assess agreements makes it easier to follow the outcomes and impact of the act. This is how we can assess how well it is meeting its goal of enhancing fairness in the digital news marketplace.

The CRTC’s public processes provide the opportunity for commentary and course correction down the line, if needed. Public processes make it possible to better gauge the impact of the legislation on the long-term viability of the Canadian news sector. It’s one of the reasons Canada’s innovative and flexible approach is seen by our like-minded countries as a model of objectivity and transparency.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, I would be remiss if I failed to recognize the essential role that the media play in protecting the vitality of our languages, culture and identity. It is also important to ensure that Canadians have access to in-depth fact-based information in the official language of their choice. That’s why Bill C-18 requires platforms to enter into a series of agreements with the media, including the local and regional press organizations of every province and territory and anglophone, francophone and official language minority communities.

I’m also pleased to see that organizations, such as Hebdos Québec, have expressed their strong support for this bill. I’d like to share with you an excerpt from a statement made by Hebdos Québec, which I believe reflects the sentiment of many media outlets across the country. It said, and I quote:

 . . . it is not about technology but a difference in negotiating power. Individually, newspapers have no choice but to turn to platforms unless they want to lose a large part of their readership and advertising revenue.

Google and Facebook are the only options for many editors, while the platforms can ignore the requests of any editor.

The government will be there for Canadians because they expect the government to act in a transparent manner to protect their local journalism; because the government must protect the future of a free and independent press; because we need to ensure that Canadians have access to fact-based information; and because we must work together to protect the strength of our democracy.

[English]

Now, I’d like to take this opportunity to address some of the concerns I’ve heard around this bill. Much of the commentary around Bill C-18 has involved unfortunate misrepresentations about “pay per click” and “ending free speech online in Canada.” Unfortunately, this commentary seeks to frame this legislation as yet another threat to the internet as we know it here in Canada.

I’m sure that many of you are hearing some of these issues surrounding the bill. But, of course, it isn’t hard to connect the dots.

When commentators claim that Bill C-18 will “break the internet,” what they mean is that Bill C-18 will impact the profit margins of the dominant platforms. It will require that these platforms share advertising revenues fairly with the people who create and publish the news content that appears on the platforms’ services. Australia has similar legislation, and let me assure you that the internet is still working there. I’m sure it will also work in New Zealand as that country puts forward its own regime in the coming weeks.

When some say that Bill C-18 will result in links being blocked online, what they mean is that big platforms are not above playing hardball. We all watched as Meta, in response to new online news legislation in Australia, pulled links to news, as well as information on essential services, including weather reports. We now know from whistle-blowers that Meta calculated the withdrawal to maximize chaos and damage. But Canadians will not be intimidated. Dominant digital platforms should have to bargain fairly and in good faith, and that is what this bill provides.

To be clear, Bill C-18 would target the most dominant platforms, which act as key intermediaries in the ways that Canadians access news. They would have these platforms negotiate agreements to fairly share the benefits they derive from the full scope of ways they make news content available to users of their services.

Bill C-18 is not a pay-per-click scheme for news. Those commentators who suggest this idea are, to my understanding, misrepresenting the framework. They see it through a conventional approach to online licensing — essentially a copyright lens. But Bill C-18 sits alongside the Copyright Act. In the context of a digital platform exercising significant power imbalances, it imposes a bargaining framework to require fair and good-faith negotiations. Bill C-18 is not copyright legislation; actually, it’s more in the form of ensuring fair competition in this area.

Another myth: There are observers who say that Bill C-18 is a “link tax” or mandates “payments for links” and conclude that the bill will incentivize clickbait over high-quality journalism and, worse, that it will end free linking on the internet. But that is not what Bill C-18 does. Nowhere does the bill mandate any kind of tariff or payment for a link. What it does require is that when links to news are made available by platforms that have significant power over news businesses, those platforms have to come to the table and bargain; that is all.

This is a framework designed to empower news businesses in the digital economy. It is designed to help those businesses better leverage their news content and more fully realize the benefits of their efforts. It is designed to check the power of some of the world’s most dominant platforms so that fair negotiations can take place. It does not introduce a tax but, rather, it adjusts the marketplace to one that appropriately recognizes the value of news content and those who create and produce it.

Recognizing the appropriate value of news content to the most dominant platforms means counting all the ways this content features on their services.

One of the ways platforms benefit is by using this news content, and the ability to access and share it, to attract Canadians to their services. Links play a central role in this offering from platforms to Canadians.

We saw that links to news content have a value to platforms when Google continued to refuse to pay publishers in the European Union under a copyright approach that includes headlines and snippets but does not include hyperlinks. The results from the EU experiment have been found wanting, to say the least.

Lengthy court battles over unwieldy digital rights management systems have not delivered timely help to news businesses. That is precisely why Bill C-18 creates a marketplace that considers all the ways news content is made available.

Another important point I would like to make is the following: Freedom of speech is not threatened by this bill. Bill C-18 does not contain provisions that would allow anyone to block news links. Bill C-18 does not contain provisions empowering anyone to prohibit the quoting of news.

Instead, Bill C-18 imposes obligations on the most powerful entities in the online information ecosystem. It includes an obligation on platforms to not unfairly exploit the positions they hold as gateways to information online by redirecting crucial advertising revenue from the same news publishers whose work they feature on their services.

Online platforms have long touted their services as the “digital public square” — as online spaces where citizens can connect to share ideas and make decisions about their lives, their communities and their place in our broader society. These platforms have enriched themselves immensely, becoming some of the most valuable enterprises in the history of the world, by using network effects to essentially hold an audience captive.

However, the quality of the discourse in the public square can only be as good as the quality of the content through which people become informed and reach their understanding. Even as these platforms enrich themselves, new businesses — the ones that create the content on which Canadians rely for their information — are going out of business at an alarming rate. While it is true that the number of other independent outlets is growing — thanks to the increased development of products for the web — it is also true that Canada has lost over 460 outlets since 2008.

What is more, those losses have come in communities that are isolated and often served by only one outlet to begin with. Last month, Postmedia, which operates more than 100 large and small newspapers across the nation, announced cuts of 11% to a staff that is already overstretched.

More recently, British Columbia-based Overstory Media Group announced layoffs affecting publications like The Georgia Straight, Vancouver Tech Journal, The Coast, Burnaby Beacon, Fraser Valley Current, New West Anchor, Calgary Citizen, Tasting Victoria, Oak Bay Local, The Westshore, Victoria Tech Journal, Eat Tri-Cities, Calgary Tech Journal and Capital Daily.

It is hard for me to imagine that no one in this chamber has seen their home community untouched by layoffs or closures. As senators, our perspectives and ability to represent the concerns of our constituents are being weakened by this atrophy. If we don’t already, we will soon lack the information required to make the best decisions for the welfare of our fellow citizens.

Some have argued that only big media benefit from Bill C-18. The evidence from Australia is the exact opposite. The whole point of the legislation is to get as many outlets as possible to the negotiating table. There is strength in numbers. By coming together, the smaller outlets will be in a stronger negotiating position and they will finally get fair compensation for the content their journalists create. And it is that content that will drive advertising and subscriptions.

What Bill C-18 does is level the playing field so that news businesses may receive a fair share of the benefit when their works are made available on dominant digital platforms. It ensures that Canadian journalists can continue to create quality content to be discussed in the digital public square. By ensuring the continued creation of quality Canadian news content online, Bill C-18 fundamentally supports the sustainability of the news sector and, in so doing, the freedom of expression of all Canadians.

Finally, I cannot overstate the importance of this bill for the future and sustainability of local news. It is critical that we support Canadian news media by fostering the best conditions for them to continue to produce journalism of the highest industry standards that reach our citizens, no matter where they are.

This issue is not to be taken lightly, given the number of Canadian jobs and businesses that are at stake, but it’s also because the heart of this issue lies in the vitality and sustainability of our very democracy. Citizens need to be able to make informed decisions about who they want to lead them, what benefits and policies they believe will benefit them and their communities and what services they can afford to pay for and those they can do without. This is particularly important in an age when citizens increasingly gravitate to what are simply the loudest voices.

Just as governments shouldn’t pick winners and losers, big tech monopolies should not have that right either, yet that is precisely what is happening leading up to the introduction of this bill. In an attempt to thwart it, the web giants have already negotiated content licensing agreements with some of the largest names in the Canadian news business: The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star and Le Devoir, to name just three.

Bill C-18 allows many smaller outlets to come together as one to negotiate similar commercial agreements. Without legislation, those smaller outlets will wither on the vine and the lucky few larger players to whom the platforms have offered short-term deals can kiss them goodbye when their term is up.

Let me conclude by saying that while this bill is a priority for the government and has enjoyed multi-party support in the other place, this bill is urgent and essential for the news sector. Every month of delay risks further layoffs. It goes without saying that this bill requires appropriate and robust consideration in this place, but its passage ought to be expeditious, because most of the outlets it would serve are in a perilous state. I therefore urge this chamber to advance this bill as quickly as possible to committee so we can continue that review.

Thank you.

Hon. Frances Lankin: I won’t go into Uber drivers; that’s a matter for the new committee we’re trying to establish.

Senator Harder, I have two questions. I’m going into the weeds a little bit. I generally support the premise. As Senator Housakos stated, it’s about fairness, copyright, content and who does the heavy lifting in terms of the gathering and creation.

First, do you know how an organization like The Canadian Press will be treated, given that it’s kind of like a cooperatively owned organization and the companies largely involved in that have their own agreements already negotiated? You just referred to that. Do you have a sense whether there is a duplication of payment there from the platforms, or whether they will not qualify as an eligible entity?

Senator Harder: Thank you.

Senator, my understanding is that the agreements that are in place are with the publishing companies that, from time to time, also include The Canadian Press in their publications, and that is how the existing arrangements provide for compensation in that indirect fashion.

I can also state that you’re correct — as I stated — that there are some large newspapers that have agreements. I suspect the sustainability of those agreements will depend upon this legislation. This legislation will ensure there’s a requirement to negotiate fairly, and that is why News Media Canada is so supportive of this bill.