Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-31, An Act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, introduced in the House of Commons on September 20, 2022, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate; and

That, for the purposes of this study, the committee be authorized to meet even though the Senate may then be sitting, with the application of rule 12-18(1) being suspended in relation thereto.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Government leader, yesterday General Wayne Eyre appeared before the defence committee in the other place. In his testimony, he reminded Parliament of the importance of reinforcing Canada’s sovereignty and security in the Arctic in the face of the increasing threat of Russia and China in that region.

The general said:

. . . in the decades to come, that threat, that tenuous hold that we have on our sovereignty at the extremities of this nation, is going to come under increasing challenge.

As of 2021, Canada only spends about 1.4% of GDP on the military despite a long-standing Russian and Chinese military buildup.

Leader, the only measure that your government is belatedly taking is to promise to upgrade the North Warning System. But even that, leader, has no timeline.

Why is the government so intent on ignoring a growing threat?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. The answer is the government is not ignoring this threat, quite the contrary. The government is making landmark investments to increase our ability to operate in and defend the Arctic. These include a $38.6 billion plan to modernize our continental defences. This is the most significant update to Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, capabilities in almost four decades, colleagues.

The government has awarded a $122-million contract to strengthen the CFS Alert. It is conducting joint exercises in the Arctic. It is purchasing six Arctic and offshore patrol ships and it is enhancing surveillance and intelligence capability in the Arctic with 88 fighter jets.

The Canadian government will remain firm in defending our sovereignty in the North, the peoples and communities in the North and our national interests.

Senator Boisvenu: I have a supplementary question. It is true, Senator Gold, that this is a troubling issue for public safety, so you must get back to us quickly with some numbers, especially since we’re talking about offenders who have very serious criminal records, including crimes like homicide and sexual assault, and who are now walking our streets.

Will the Department of Public Safety show some transparency and compel the agency to disclose the real numbers, which so far it has refused to make public?

Hon. Yuen Pau Woo: My question for the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is as follows: Senator Housakos, in a fundraising letter that you sent to, by your account, hundreds of thousands of Canadians, you describe Bill C-11 as a censorship law. This use of hyperbolic language has the effect of labelling witnesses who are in favour of the bill as supporters of censorship.

Senator Housakos, this is, at best, name-calling; at worst, it creates a chill for witnesses who are favourably disposed to Bill C-11.

How can this chamber and how can Canadians have confidence that you will honourably chair this committee so that we will have a fair, impartial and expedient review and investigation of this bill?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. First of all, the government acknowledges and recognizes the important work that so many NGOs and organizations are doing to assist and get support to those who were affected by Hurricane Fiona.

As colleagues would know, the Canadian Red Cross has previously been a partner to the Government of Canada in response to similar natural disasters — such as the 2021 B.C. flooding and the wildfires in 2017 in Fort McMurray — and the Red Cross has demonstrated an ability to provide impactful assistance to a significant number of people. The government is grateful for all the partners working and is focused on the well-being of those who are suffering.

I will make inquiries to the government to see what plans there may be to broaden the pool of groups where matching funds might be available. I’ll try to get an answer as quickly as I can.

Senator MacDonald: Well, as you know, I’m not alone in these concerns. As I mentioned in the speech, Senator Simons raised the same concerns. Proposed sections 4.1 and 4.2 are contradictory. One suggests it’s going to be protected, and the next provision removes that protection. So what are we to make of it?

It doesn’t give me any confidence. Certainly, it doesn’t give the witnesses, who are very well versed in this stuff, any confidence. I think this stuff has to be better explained and better justified. That’s why I’m looking forward to it going to committee to see if we can get a handle on these particular provisions, because I don’t think they give Canadians the confidence that they deserve and need when it comes to free speech, freedom of expression and free access to information on the internet.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

(At 3:17 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, the Government of Canada is committed to increasing participation by Indigenous businesses in federal procurement. Last year, former minister of public services and procurement Anita Anand announced a mandatory requirement for federal departments and agencies to ensure that Indigenous businesses hold a minimum of 5% of the total value of contracts. This requirement was to be phased in over three years with annual reporting on progress required. This is a very important initiative and one that will help this government work toward economic reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

Could you tell this chamber how close the federal government is to meeting this target of 5%?

Senator Gold: Thank you. The government is not encouraging illegal immigration. The government is putting into place facilities for the proper and humane treatment of those who arrive seeking refuge. The fact remains that this government is committed to an open and transparent immigration process for the benefit of this country and to the fair treatment of those who find themselves here, however they arrive, and that is what the facilities that were placed at Roxham are there to do: for the CBSA to do its work and process and deal with, as appropriate, those who have arrived.

Senator Housakos: Government leader, every time we ask a question, more often than not the answer always starts off with the fact that the issue is complicated and the answers are not always simple. But when it comes to Roxham Road, it is striking what is going on over there. In 2017, a crisis began thanks to a poorly thought-out tweet by Prime Minister Trudeau that encouraged illegal immigration to come to Roxham Road. Since 2017, we’ve seen the government spend half a billion dollars building permanent installations, correct? That is a fact. We’ve seen the government signing long-term leases in order to continue and encourage the flow of illegal immigration at Roxham Road.

I’m a son of immigrants. Most Canadians are children of immigrants or immigrants themselves. They come here legally. They follow the rules and work hard. What kind of a message is this government sending to Canadians when you’re encouraging illegal immigration? When we see what’s going on at Roxham Road and all the facts I’ve alluded to, has the government simply shrugged off a solution to this problem they created? Or are we now saying that illegal immigration is part of this government’s immigration program? I know you find the question frustrating, but it has been going on for five years, senator, and what the government has done now is give a Liberal Party donor $28 million, and you set up permanent installations to continue the flow of illegal immigration.

I think Canadians should have some kind of an answer aside from the fact that it is a complicated issue.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Wallin, for that question. It is indeed a novelty for me to answer a question. I can see Senator Gold looking very pleased as I do so.

I want to tell you, I really appreciate the thrust of your question because I believe the matter you have raised is one of great urgency. I have raised it in this chamber with Senator Gold. I have followed up with a letter to Minister Lametti that was co-signed by my colleagues Senator Ataullahjan, Senator Marty Deacon and Senator Jaffer.

But you’re asking me a question as the Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. While I agree that a spot study could really provide some context and solutions to the government — although the solutions are apparent and clear because the U.K. and the U.S.A. have provided exemptions — I’m not sure that the Senate’s Social Affairs Committee is the right place. It is a matter of the anti‑terrorism code, so it could be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. It is a matter of the human rights of the Afghan people, so it could be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and it is a matter of international development as well, so it could be referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee.

I really appreciate the question, and I hope my colleagues who are the chairs of these other committees will take up your idea. Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: My question is for the government leader.

Yesterday I asked you a question about the document that the government hid showing that Pierre Guay, a Liberal Party donor, was awarded over $28 million worth of contracts in connection with Roxham Road.

You answered as follows, Senator Gold, and I quote:

The disclosure of confidential contract information would be a violation of agreements between the government and suppliers. This is standard practice, obviously.

Senator Gold, I do not understand you. If, as you stated, the disclosure of this information is a violation of agreements, why did your government disclose this information two years later? Is it a violation of agreements, yes or no?

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

(On motion of Senator Ravalia, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.)

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

I am privileged to be a member of the Senate, for more than 13 years now, so I’ve seen many bills pass through our chamber. For most of this time, I was a member of the Transport and Communications Committee, eventually serving as both deputy chair and finally chair of the committee, until this new Parliament was established after last year’s election. I have acquired a lot of experience, over those years, in dealing with communications issues.

I believe I am safe in saying that this bill is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to have been brought before any recent parliament. Many of the more controversial bills have been opposed by particular special interest groups; other bills have, to varying degrees, been controversial with the Canadian public.

However, with this bill, we have a piece of legislation that has truly aroused intense concern among ordinary Canadians. By “ordinary Canadians,” I mean people who normally do not have an interest in politics — particularly people under 40 years of age who do not watch the news or read the newspaper. This is what makes this legislation so unique.

Many Canadians believe this bill will have a very direct impact on them in a personal way because it touches directly on their viewing and listening habits. Other Canadians — usually younger Canadians — recognize that this legislation may impact their ability to express themselves online. This bill raises the spectre of government regulation interfering with that ability.

I would like to reference some quotations that help illustrate the depth of concern that has been expressed regarding this legislation. During the Transport and Communications Committee’s study on Bill C-11, Tim Denton, the Chairperson of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, made the following comments:

. . . We oppose Bill C-11 because it embodies a fundamentally illiberal idea of communications, because it constitutes a vast overreach of governmental authority and because it threatens the engine of innovation and economic growth, which is the internet.

What we object to is the nearly boundless extension of governmental regulatory authority over communications. . . . [This bill] captures virtually all online audio and video.

Then we have J.J. McCullough, a YouTuber and columnist, who told the committee:

. . . content creators and consumers don’t merely consider Bill C-11 a badly written bill — although it is, . . . many people consider the bill at its core badly motivated. Of the dozens of online video makers and viewers I’ve heard from, all have been crystal clear that they have zero desire to live under a government with the power to force platforms like YouTube to push, promote, suggest or otherwise encourage certain kinds of Canadian content to Canadians who have not freely chosen to see it.

Morghan Fortier, the Co-Owner and Chief Executive Officer of Skyship Entertainment — a Toronto-based company that produces children’s content and has more than 48 million subscribers and more than 20 billion views in the past two years — testified before the Senate committee that:

Bill C-11 poses a danger not only to my company but to thousands of Canadian content creators who have been steadily building this industry with nothing more than their unique voices and their hard work. Their content is enjoyed by millions of Canadians here at home and many millions of people outside of Canada. They do it all without a government handout and without the government forcing it down people’s throats through false algorithm manipulation.

Senators may or may not agree with these perspectives, but the common element between them is the belief that Bill C-11 represents an attack on consumer choice and on the freedom of Canada’s online entrepreneurs. In essence, Bill C-11 is increasingly seen as an attack on freedom of expression, freedom of consumer choice and freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press was established in 1835 — in what is today known as Canada — by Joseph Howe, who was the editor of Nova Scotia’s leading newspaper. Howe was accused of libel by those who wielded social and political power at the time, and, since no lawyer would represent him, he had to represent himself in court.

Howe won his case, but I wonder what he would think of today’s circumstances surrounding Canadian mainstream media. The CBC and our legacy print media are now subsidized by approximately $2 billion annually. With most of our mainstream media now on the payroll of the government, thoughtful Canadians demand access to independent points of view — not compromised by government interference.

The social engineers in this government want to give the CRTC control over the information that Canadians can access. They want faceless, unaccountable bureaucrats to decide what content Canadians should consume. Who will benefit from that? Rogers, Bell and Shaw might benefit financially — don’t they always? All three service providers rake in billions of dollars annually — sometimes quarterly — with Rogers presently trying to purchase Shaw for a mere $26 billion. They don’t seem to be hurting under the present circumstances, do they?

Yet Canadians pay some of the highest fees worldwide for phone, internet and cable services. The CRTC has proven to be little more than a toothless tiger when it comes to looking out for the best interests of the Canadian consumer.

Now the government wants to give the same CRTC control over the algorithms that will direct people toward information and opinions that they prefer and approve of, but limit access to information and opinions that don’t subscribe to their views of what the CRTC deems to be appropriately Canadian.

So let’s review the public policy objectives this legislation purports to address. A core perception of Bill C-11 proponents is that, today, Canadian law does not apply to the foreign-based web streaming services, like broadcasters that operate over the internet. The perception is that those tech giants siphon billions of dollars out of the country, without any requirement to invest back into the Canadian system. But the reality is that many of those tech giants actually do reinvest in the Canadian economy, and they invest billions in that regard.

That reality notwithstanding, a common perception is, nevertheless, that their investments are insufficient. This bill is supposed to address that.

This bill also purports to ensure that investment flows to Canadian-based companies and artists. It is designed to try to force streaming services to give Canadian audiences a chance to discover Canadian shows. I understand the depths of this perception. I know that this perception has served as the foundation of Canadian cultural policy for, at least, part of the past half-century.

But this approach does not align with many of the realities of the internet world in which we now live, so we seem to have a dichotomy: The traditional view, from elements of our cultural history, is that Canadian culture is highly vulnerable unless we have significant government regulation and control. The other view is that the past 30 years demonstrate exactly the opposite, namely that Canadian culture and Canadian content have actually thrived in an era with little regulation.

What concerns me about this bill is that it largely comes down to favouring the former position. It pays very little attention to the new realities that have emerged over the past several decades.

So although I’m not currently a member of the Transport and Communications Committee, I’ve been following the mounting critiques of the bill, and it is increasingly evident that this bill — based on cultural policies that originated in the last century — constitutes a serious overreach by the government. Notwithstanding the public policy arguments in favour of the legislation, the bill is too one-sided since it ignores contemporary realities. I fear that — unless we amend the bill in a significant way — there’s considerable danger that we will generate backlash that’s so significant that the bill itself, including policies that are worthwhile, will become unsustainable.

Much of what is wrong with this bill seems to be grounded in sections 4.1 and 4.2. Those are the sections related to the incorporation of user-generated content within the scope of the bill. Those are the sections that Senator Simons has accurately characterized as the “problem child” of the bill. This characterization is very widely shared and has certainly been fed by the government’s extremely poor handling of the issue of user-generated content in both Bill C-11 and the previous Bill C-10.

In relation to this issue, the Consumer Technology Association warned — in a brief to our Senate committee in August — that:

The association noted its strong concern related to the breadth of Bill C-11, about the bill’s lack of precision in certain areas, particularly in terms of the power it is granting to the CRTC and how those powers may be used. So what do sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the bill precisely do?

I’ve tried to understand this issue in layman’s terms, and in essence, these sections purport to exclude user-generated content, but then immediately create an exception to that exclusion. Section 4.1(2) notes that despite what is stated in subsection 4.1, the act does apply to user-generated content if a program:

(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or

(b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.2.

Point (b) is a considerable concern, since the regulations allowed for under section 4.2 are, to say the least, extremely expansive.

According to some witnesses, theoretically, the CRTC could arbitrarily consider any factors that it wants in making regulations prescribing programs in respect to the act. This is precisely why so many ordinary Canadian creators and consumers are so concerned.

When she testified at the Senate committee, Morghan Fortier referenced the situation as follows:

What keeps me up at night about this bill is the potential to gate content that is deemed not Canadian . . . .

Ms. Fortier referenced potential retaliation from other countries:

. . . should this type of a law pass through, we’re done. I don’t mean my company. I mean we don’t need to talk about this bill anymore because it’s over. That will affect regionalized content creators, small content creators and larger content creators. The world is watching. Australia will follow, and the U.K. If the U.S. were to decide, well, what’s fair is fair, that’s a complete game changer that no one seems to be talking about, which scares me.

She continued to say:

It’s the free, open internet for a reason. Attempting to put in place a bill that insists the government mandates its behaviour and intentionally gates content of a particular nature is exceptionally problematic.

I know that the Senate Transport and Communications Committee is looking at these concerns very seriously, and I know senators on both sides of the aisle are aware of these concerns. Some of you have noted in your remarks the potential negative implications. I am encouraged by that, since I think we are witnessing a groundswell of concern throughout the country about the implications of this bill and about some of its more troublesome provisions. I am hopeful that when we consider the bill at third reading, we will receive a bill from our Senate committee that will at least try to address some of these serious issues. I fear that if we pass this bill without addressing these concerns that have been raised by so many Canadians, particularly young Canadians, we risk undermining the legitimacy of our entire broadcasting policy.

In this regard, I think it is useful to reiterate the comments made by J.J. McCullough before the committee when he said:

Of the dozens of online video makers and viewers I’ve heard from, all have been crystal clear that they have zero desire to live under a government with the power to force platforms like YouTube to push, promote, suggest or otherwise encourage certain kinds of Canadian content to Canadians who have not freely chosen to see it.

We need to understand that if we do not heed this warning, these Canadians have options. Should they choose to simply opt out of Canada, we will all end up losing.

I encourage all senators to listen to the substantive and legitimate concerns of all Canadians regarding these issues. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are protected in our Constitution. Those are core Canadian values that should never be compromised. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: You have one minute left, Senator MacDonald.

The Hon. the Speaker: Leave is granted to answer this question.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator MacDonald, your time has expired. Are you asking for five minutes to answer questions?

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Do you wish to speak or ask a question, Senator Dupuis?