Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question and the opportunity to improve upon my answer. I fear, as seems to be the case, I may disappoint you. I don’t have a date. I could stop there, and I won’t go on much longer. I’ll make inquiries and certainly report back.

It is important for Canadians to understand the measures the government has taken to deal with the complex question of housing affordability, a large part of which is a question of supply. In that regard I will stop here, but I will be happy to answer further questions on the measures that are being taken by the government to work with industry and other levels of government to address what is a real problem for which solutions are rather challenging.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. I know I didn’t have the answer when you asked me the question, and I’m sorry to hear that you did not receive a written response during this period of time. Had I known, honourable colleague, I would have made inquiries in the hope I could get you an answer in a timely fashion. Regrettably, only being made aware of it now, I will have to make inquiries as I do not have the information at hand.

Senator Plett: I asked you this question last June. Let me assure you that the week after we come back from the break, I will ask you this question again. I hope I will have a direct answer then. I’m now giving you notice.

Leader, Veterans Affairs cancelled the reimbursement of child care expenses for Mr. Bruyea’s young son after his criticism of Minister O’Regan was published in The Hill Times newspaper. The Veterans Ombudsman expressed her concern in a report two years ago that the department had not been fair to this veteran. The report detailed how Mr. Bruyea didn’t appear to trust Veterans Affairs and felt this action toward him was retaliatory.

Your government agreed to mediation. I’m told it is still not in place well over a year later. How does such a long delay build trust between a veteran and the department? How can that promise of mediation be viewed as sincere, Senator Gold?

Senator Plett: Senator Gold, you spent a bit of time today assuring us that we in the Senate are masters of our own destiny. I think you at least alluded to it being entirely the idea of the government in the Senate to have this pre-study.

Senator Gold, have you received any instructions from the House leader in the other place that we do a pre-study, or have you been given any timelines by the House leader in the other place as to when they want us to be finished with this and what their expectations are of us?

Senator Gold: Senator Plett, I will not divulge conversations that I have had with cabinet colleagues, in the same way that I would not divulge conversations we have as leaders — both of which must remain in confidence.

I am here to propose, as Government Representative — and as a senator — the motion before you. I will consult, as I always have, as my predecessor did, with leaders at such time as we know when the bill will arrive. That’s when we will sit down as leaders, chart a path forward and negotiate as we always do. Leaders will bring it to their members. We will ultimately arrive at some path forward one way or another, but it’s premature to enter into that discussion now. We don’t know when we are going to receive the bill.

Senator Plett: I’m not asking you to break any confidentiality, but you made a point of suggesting that it was not the other place. I think my question is perfectly legitimate.

I am proud to be a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I am proud to be part of a national caucus. Today, I was at a national caucus meeting. I am proud to be part of the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. I make no apologies for collaboration. They don’t tell us what to do and we don’t tell them what to do, but we talk.

You made a lot of comments that alluded to this being your decision and not theirs. So, if that is the case, my question is very legitimate and I will ask it again: Were you in any way encouraged by the House leader to do this?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate), pursuant to notice of May 17, 2022, moved:

That, in accordance with rule 10-11(1), the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, introduced in the House of Commons on February 2, 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 or adjourned, with the application of rules 12-18(1) and 12-18(2) being suspended in relation thereto.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to government Motion No. 42, which authorizes the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to examine the subject matter of Bill C-11, known as the online streaming act.

As honourable senators would know, Bill C-11 is essentially the revised version of the Forty-third Parliament’s Bill C-10 that died at the Senate committee stage at dissolution.

As you would recall, Bill C-10 was the subject of a fulsome and passionate debate at second reading in this place less than a year ago. On that occasion, we heard from the sponsor, Senator Dawson; the critic, Senator Housakos; and the Independent Senators Group legislative leads, Senators Dasko and Simons. As all four still occupy the same roles vis-à-vis Bill C-11, I anticipate we will have a reprise once Bill C-11 arrives to us. We also heard from Senators Richards, Bovey, Loffreda, Wallin, Downe, Colin Deacon and Miville-Dechêne. Different perspectives were shared, but all raised specific issues for the committee to focus on and all agreed on the importance of the committee study.

Today, I’m proposing that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to begin some of this work. As a refresher, and for the benefit of new colleagues in the Senate, rule 10-11(1) allows the subject matter of a bill to be referred to a Senate committee for study and analysis in advance of the bill’s passage in the other place. In essence, the procedure provides for a complementary examination that will work in tandem with the bill’s journey through the parliamentary process.

[Translation]

Bill C-11 will still need to go through each stage of the legislative process when it arrives in this chamber from the other place. In the meantime, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications will have the opportunity to better understand its substance, hear testimony from departmental officials and other witnesses, both pro and con, and begin to delve more deeply into the issues raised in the debates on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament.

You may notice that the motion does not contain any time constraints for the committee, and that is intentional. The aim is simply to support the committee and ensure it has the tools and flexibility needed to organize and conduct its work as it sees fit, so that it can adapt the course of its analysis to the unpredictable environment of the House of Commons.

[English]

Honourable senators, I have heard loud and clear that senators want as much time as possible to focus on studying government legislation. You are insisting that there be sufficient time for adequate study and debate regardless of how quickly or not legislation arrives. It is in that spirit that I am proposing this motion. As masters of our own house, I believe we can and should use whatever tools are available to us so as to provide the critical review of government legislation which is at the core of our constitutional function and mandate. With the consent of this chamber, the authority to pre-study proposed legislation is within our power and affords us the time to properly scrutinize legislation without prejudice to the time that may be required once the bill has passed in the other place.

[Translation]

Government Motion No. 42 proposes that Bill C-11 be examined in advance and, in my opinion, it meets the criteria and the need for pre-study in the Senate. This would allow the committee to do extensive work and give it the authority to undertake the study of a bill at the top of the list of the parliamentary agenda, while having some flexibility with respect to how the work is done.

Colleagues, it is important to note that when Bill C-11 arrives in the Senate from the other place, it will have to go through every legislative stage in the manner and at the pace that this chamber decides.

[English]

This motion in no way prejudices the manner in which the Senate may choose to handle Bill C-11. To be clear, the Senate ultimately decides how many days and weeks it chooses to spend on second reading, on committee stage and on third reading of a government bill.

Colleagues, it is perfectly legitimate, healthy and natural for this government or any government to have ambitious objectives. After all, the political parties that form governments run on platforms and on promises made to the electorate. However, as Government Representative in the Senate, whether or not I like it, it is my burden to persuade the Senate to agree to the pacing of the work. All this motion does is launch a study that many senators have been keen on undertaking so that our institution, the Senate, may add value and sober reflection to this important policy initiative.

Colleagues, for all intents and purposes, Bill C-11 has been in Parliament since 2020. Its predecessor, Bill C-10, received robust study in the other place. It was referred to the Senate committee on June 29, 2021. What I am proposing is simply this: that we allow the committee to pick up where it left off and do some advance work.

Many concerns were raised at second reading when we initiated our work on the former Bill C-10. The committee can utilize some of those concerns to organize its work and to determine if some of the original concerns or issues were addressed by the changes introduced in Bill C-11, which the bill purports to do.

All can agree that this bill requires serious scrutiny. We all know that Bill C-11 is politically charged. That is why I believe that this bill needs the Senate. It needs a less partisan, more independent lens and I believe it needs it now. At the same time, it is important to understand that, should Bill C-11 be delayed, hundreds of millions of dollars targeted for allocation to Canadian content and Canadian creators of content would be lost. A delay would perpetuate the void in the Broadcasting Act for minority and marginalized communities.

[Translation]

Esteemed colleagues, pre-studies in the Senate are neither new nor rare. They are also not limited to money bills. In 2001, in his ruling, the Speaker of the Senate described the purpose of a pre-study in Senate practice as follows:

[English]

Pre-study has been a feature of Senate practice for more than thirty years. . . . Its purpose was to allow the Senate more time to examine bills, particularly complex or controversial bills, while accommodating the broad legislative time-table of the Government. At the same time, it permitted Senators greater input into the legislative process by allowing the work of the Senate to have some influence on the study of a bill while it was still in the other place.

Honourable senators, because we do such good committee work in this place, there are significant benefits to pre-studies.

[Translation]

By undertaking a pre-study, the committee has the opportunity of becoming aware of certain issues, of having the concerns of stakeholders heard in a timely manner, of eliciting formal comments and of suggesting changes that the other place could integrate into the bill before it is passed.

[English]

There’s also a significant benefit to the identification of core issues that the Senate may wish to focus on once it has received the legislation.

This is a factor that is not mentioned very frequently, but in my experience, it can be critical in preparing the Senate to deal with complex legislation.

Colleagues, with respect, I fundamentally disagree with the argument that pre-studies somehow undermine the Senate’s fundamental role of sober second thought. This is simply not my experience. I have seen the tangible impact of pre-studies in bringing issues ignored in the House to the forefront and ultimately bringing about real change, either through the House or the Senate.

In the Government Representative Office, we know how important they are because we routinely work to resolve issues arising out of Senate pre-studies through the House process or through targeted government and stakeholder engagement. Even when that is not possible, colleagues, our pre-studies ensure that the Senate is particularly ready to focus on core issues, often leading to sober second thought improvements accepted by the other place.

[Translation]

You will remember, esteemed colleagues, that when we debated the bill on medical assistance in dying, the issue of excluding mental health emerged as a major concern during the pre-study. When we received the bill, we knew that it was a fundamental issue, and we had the opportunity to discuss it fully, to carry out a comprehensive study, and, ultimately, to propose amendments that were accepted in the other place. We were ready to receive the bill, and our work made a difference.

[English]

I would also note that pre-studies are far from a new phenomenon, even as it pertains to non-budgetary matters. A cursory review of past parliaments reveals that there were 16 Senate pre-studies during the Forty-first Parliament alone under the former government. These included not only budget implementation acts or supply bills, but proposed legislation on topics as diverse as citizenship, national elections, First Nations rights, changes to the Criminal Code, the updating of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, and free trade agreements. Going back nearly 50 years to the Thirtieth Parliament in 1974, the Senate pre-studied 22 bills that included constitutional amendments, prevention of violent crime, authorities for pipeline construction, changes to unemployment insurance and the rules for the calling of national referendums.

Colleagues, I should like to add that both the Forty-first Parliament and the Thirtieth Parliament were majority governments led by Prime Minister Harper and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau respectively, and the governing parties also held the majority of Senate seats during these years. Both chambers were in control of business, including the agenda and pacing of legislation, and yet, colleagues, Senate pre-studies were authorized and completed on numerous occasions before proposed legislation from the other place reached the Senate.

Now as colleagues well know, in a minority situation, the timing and passage of legislation are not in the government’s immediate control. This, as we know, complicates the downstream work that the Senate is expected to conduct. Colleagues, we have no control over the business of the other place. We do, however, control how it is handled here.

In this debate on this motion, we may hear that a pre-study may not be useful because there is a possibility that Bill C-11 could be amended in the House and that, when it arrives here, some of the provisions may be different than that which we would be studying in the pre-study. Again, respectfully, colleagues, this is not a compelling or persuasive argument.

Of course it is possible that Bill C-11 will be amended, but I just don’t know, nor does anybody else in this chamber. Every time a pre-study is approved in this place, that is a possibility — that is a variable. If the mere possibility that the bill may be amended by the House is a reason for the Senate not to proceed with a pre-study, then we would never pre-study any bills. If anything, House amendments brought after or during a pre-study are frequently responsive to concerns and issues highlighted not only by the opposition parties in the House but also in the Senate. This occurred on Bill C-12, the net-zero emissions bill and more recently on Bill C-3, the paid sick leave bill. This is one of the objectives of a pre-study. Who knows? It may very well happen on Bill C-11, and we should be glad if it does.

Once we have received the legislation and conducted a pre-study, we can examine whether the concerns expressed by the Senate were, in fact, addressed sufficiently or at all. If changes are indeed brought in the House, it’s entirely within the Senate’s prerogative to examine these changes, and it can do so in a very focused way because it has had the benefit of the previous draft of the bill and the findings of the pre-study.

Now, I have also heard it said dans les coulisses, as we say in French, that a pre-study is not useful because we may not even get this bill in time. Again, respectfully, this is not persuasive; this is entirely speculative.

I stand here as the Government Representative, and I’m telling you I do not know when it will arrive. It is nonetheless a top priority of the government that is doing all it can to get it to the finish line. It’s also because we don’t know when we’re going to get it — we don’t know when the bill will be with us — that a pre-study with no constraints and with a flexible frame of operation is helpful. Even if Bill C-11 does not make it to the Senate before the fall, I cannot see why a pre-study would be a waste of our time. The key point is this: I am proposing that we conduct some work, the work we do best, so that we may be in a position of preparedness for whenever we receive Bill C-11.

In my view — and I know this is a view shared not only in this chamber but by those interested observers of the work of the Senate over many, many parliaments — our committee work is our best work. I know that any advance work we do on Bill C-11 will pay dividends regardless of when we receive it.

Colleagues, it’s wise for us to have the foresight to use the tools we have to adapt to the challenges that we all experience posed by the capacity of our committees to meet and the unpredictability of the House’s passing of priority bills. Of course, we could simply wait and do nothing, but I prefer to propose government Motion No. 42 as a tool to manage these challenges.

[Translation]

I think we should take advantage of the time that we now have but may not have later, given the considerable constraints affecting committees. In fact, the adjustments we very recently made with respect to a hybrid Senate were intended to ensure that committees would have the greatest flexibility possible to carry out their work on government business in an appropriate and thorough manner.

[English]

This motion will allow for the committee to have the time to determine its work and to avail itself of additional committee slots as needed.

Colleagues, we all know that it will be difficult to ask committees to do intensive work at the tail end of our sittings because of the constraints that have been discussed ad nauseam in this chamber. As well, the unpredictability of house business may see bills arriving here sooner than anticipated. One simply cannot know. If this were the case with Bill C-11, a pre-study could morph into a formal study once second reading was complete and it had been referred to the committee.

It is also conceivable that even though a bill comes to us late, capacity issues around committee availability may have made it impossible to complete a pre-study. In such a scenario, the advance work that was achieved will be crucial to the review. We simply cannot let the capacity limitations that we face prevent us from achieving the work that Canadians expect us to do.

To quote our colleague Senator Saint-Germain when she spoke to Motion No. 30 on March 29:

We have the ability to do pre-studies on bills that we know will arrive late for our consideration in accordance with rule 10-11(1). This practice is beneficial because it allows us to be ready for debate and, eventually, amendments when the bills arrive in circumstances requiring a diligent and timely response.

Colleagues, isn’t that our job description? Isn’t that what we were summoned here to do — to be informed, to be ready for debate, ready for review, and, if necessary, ready to improve legislation by amending it?

I understand your frustration at my inability to provide you with a predictable time frame for the passage of these priority bills. I do wish I could give you a clearer picture. However, our work must still get done, and we’re the ones to make it happen. It is our responsibility to use whatever tools we have at our disposal to see that these bills aren’t given short shrift.

Allow me to quote from Senator Tannas, from February 8:

I think that the more tools we can have within our Rules, like pre-study — there is a process by which we approve that — the better.

On this, I agree with Senator Tannas. Honourable senators have been requesting and, in some instances, demanding more time for the review of proposed legislation.

On the same subject, I would like to quote my good friend Senator Plett, who said the following on November 16, 2011:

. . . I am proposing a pre-study in order to give this legislation the appropriate amount of time for discussion and debate.

He was requesting and brought forward a motion concerning a pre-study on, then, Bill C-18, Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act. Senator Plett went on to say:

Our chamber must begin a pre-study to allow for the proper amount of study the bill deserves. As we are anticipating that this legislation will be before this chamber shortly, a pre-study would allow us the extra time to properly study this legislation — instead of rushing it through the committee process — just as Senator Peterson has asked us to do.

Ultimately, colleagues, his motion was not required, as I understand that closure was imposed in the other place, and the Senate was able to receive the bill in a timely way. However, the rationale that Senator Plett offered is demonstrably relevant to the issue before us today.

Motion No. 42 relies on much the same rationale as Senator Plett argued regarding Bill C-18. This is a request for time. In the same speech of November 16, 2011, Senator Plett also said:

If we are to pass this important piece of legislation, it is imperative that it receive Royal Assent before the Christmas break to allow Western Canadian farmers ample time and opportunity to find markets for their wheat and barley for the next crop year.

Colleagues, there is similar importance to moving forward with Bill C-11.

[Translation]

As I mentioned earlier, the delay in passing this bill will result in the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars for the stakeholders, our Canadian artists and creators. Furthermore, any delay would extend the current void in Canadian content for marginalized and minority communities and their artists.

[English]

There are some in this chamber who may want to make the debate around this motion one that is about us and the role of the Senate. Honourable senators — and I’m saying this with the utmost respect — this motion is not about us. It’s about the Canadians who create content and the constant efforts by Canadian content creators who have been waiting for years, if not decades, for the legal landscape in which they operate — and for which we as parliamentarians are responsible — to be modernized.

For those who may argue that there is no urgency in passing Bill C-11 and that it is not time-sensitive, again, I would respectfully disagree. In my view, depriving Canadian artists of deserved, earned income and tacitly permitting the absence of Canadian content in our broadcasting is an urgent, time-sensitive issue, and it is also a priority of this government.

To those of you in this chamber who have been tweeting their reservations around this legislation for nearly two years, I hope you will support this motion, because it will provide you with an early opportunity to test your assertions.

While some of you may not agree with Bill C-11, that is no reason to deny content creators the benefit of our work, of our due diligence. There is also no reason to tell content creators to wait again and to wait longer for the Senate to begin its work.

Whether we support Bill C-11 or not, our message as parliamentarians should be that we care about this industry, and we’re prepared to get down to business now.

[Translation]

I urge honourable senators to approve this motion and authorize the pre-study of Bill C-11. This bill must not be hastily studied because of time constraints over which we have no control. We have the power and the tools required to start our work as soon as possible, and it is incumbent upon us to use them.

[English]

I would like once again to quote the current Leader of the Opposition:

. . . for now I simply ask that all honourable senators join me in support of this pre-study motion. We are not, honourable senators, asking you to support the bill today. We are today asking you to support a study.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you.

Senator Gold: No, I don’t have the specific numbers, but thank you for raising it. It is the case that although we tend to think of pre-studies in terms of budget bills and supply bills, as I said in my speech, and as I’m sure you will make us aware when you do address us in debate, I do know that a significant number of pre-studies were done in non-budget bills. As I tried to underline in my speech, and I won’t repeat myself, they produced salutary results for the legislation and for Canadians, and did honour to the Senate in terms of its contribution to the policy debate.

Senator Plett: Thank you, again, as is typical in Question Period, for that non-answer.

Let me tell you. I won’t wait until the debate to let you know. I’ll let you know now.

Prime Minister Harper, from 2006 to 2015, with half of that time being in a minority Parliament, had 10 pre-studies on non‑BIA bills. Prime Minister Trudeau, in four and a half years, has had 14, plus 7 on BIA. I would say that is a trend, especially for somebody who has a majority government.

I will obviously speak to this. The problem here, Senator Gold, is a complete lack of management by an inept government. As Senator Tannas has said — and I’m not quoting him here — but something along the lines of your inability to manage your time is not our emergency, something like that. I would agree with that.

The ineptness of this government not being able to bring its legislation — you yourself said that Bill C-10 had been before the other house in the previous parliament. They had four years to bring it in. They failed. Now they wait again. They can’t give us a deadline. You can’t give us a timeline, but let’s pre-study it just in case they send it to us sometime.

If there is such urgency, why did the government not put any urgency, and why is the government again treating us like a second-class house by demanding that we get something done, when they are not able to control their own time schedule?

Senator Gold: Again, Senator Plett, and with respect, I’m happy that you are proud and I’m happy that you talk to your colleagues. I talk to colleagues in the government that I represent.

I stand by what I said in my speech about the proposal before you. Certainly, the decision to come forward with a pre-study was a decision that we made in the Government Representative Office in the Senate. I hope that it will enjoy the support of a majority of senators. I think it’s the right thing for us to do.

[Translation]

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Gold: Well, thank you for confirming my assumption that some would like to make this a debate about the Senate or the government.

My position and the position of this government, the position of this Senate, which approved each and every one of the pre‑studies — it wasn’t the Prime Minister approving pre-studies in the Senate to which you referred, it was the Senate agreeing to doing pre-studies because the Senate collectively believed it was the appropriate thing to do.

It is my position as Government Representative that pre‑studies are a useful tool for the Senate to discharge its constitutional obligation. That’s why I’ve put this proposal forward. It is to give us the ability to do our jobs, to do our jobs freer from the constraints of time and in response to the legitimate demands and concerns expressed by so many of you in this chamber that we not be rushed to do our work.

I will not apologize for promoting the idea that this pre-study on this bill is a good thing. On the contrary, it is a very good thing. It is a good thing because it allows us to do our job for which we were summoned to do.

Senator Tannas: I have a couple of quick snappers. Would we call the same witnesses at the same time that the hearing is going on? Would we ask that the committee find different witnesses so we could get a different perspective? We can all watch television or go over to the House of Commons and watch the committee meetings if we want to get ourselves familiarized. Maybe that’s a practice we could do if we want to get things done.

The other question is since when it is the Senate of Canada’s problem that there is a minority government in the House of Commons.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Gold, there are a number of senators, both present and virtual, who wish to ask questions. Are you prepared to take questions?

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Plett, the process that we’ve been following so far is that senators will ask one question and one supplementary. Time permitting, we will go to a second round. I have you on the list for a second round.

The Hon. the Speaker: Just before you answer, Senator Gold, I will remind honourable senators that we are debating Motion No. 42, which is about whether there will be a pre-study. We are not debating the content of Bill C-11. We do have a fair amount of leeway when it comes to asking questions, however, so I’ll leave it to you, Senator Gold.

Hon. Frances Lankin: Senator Gold, thank you for your speech. I found it interesting. I look forward to hearing the other speeches, because I have my own analysis of what is behind the opposition to this. I won’t share it so as not to provoke people, and although I’m a bit bewildered, I will listen carefully.

I personally support this and believe that we should undertake the pre-study. It is a very controversial bill with a lot of supporters and a lot of detractors, so there is much to learn and refresh our minds on.

My question to you is: When the pre-study is finished, if the bill hasn’t arrived, and it arrives late, the preoccupation of the Senate as of late has been to talk to you about insufficient time to deal with bills. For me, a pre-study helps that situation, but it doesn’t alleviate the potential problem. I’m looking for some assurances from you that if the committee feels amendments and other things in the House of Commons mean that we have to dig back into some of these items, and we require the time to do it, will we be faced with rushing in order to get it done before the summer recess?

Hon. Claude Carignan: My question is for the government leader. I think you are misunderstanding the Senate’s historic powers. The power of the Senate goes beyond simply passing government bills. The Senate must also hold the government to account, conduct studies and produce reports. Right now, because of the pandemic, the committees are sitting half as often as they did in the past. Committee time slots have been slashed by 50%. Bills are now being introduced in the Senate before they are passed by the House of Commons, and this undermines the work of committees, which are supposed to investigate and hold the government accountable. Do you really believe that the only role of the Senate is to pass government bills?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there are still a number of senators who wish to ask questions. The procedure here is that when the Speaker stands, senators will please take their seats. I would ask you to keep your questions short and to the point, which is debate on Motion No. 42.