Hon. Renée Dupuis: Honourable senators, on the eve of National Indigenous History Month, I would like to draw your attention to the recipients of the First Peoples (First Nations) Medal, one of the honours created by the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec, the Honourable J. Michel Doyon. This medal has just been awarded for the second time on May 19 to members of the First Nations of Quebec for their exceptional contribution as citizens of the First Nations of Quebec.

Awarding a medal to First Nations members and a medal to members of the Inuit Nation is in keeping with the tradition of the presentation of medals by the Lieutenant-Governor, which dates back to 1884. Lieutenant-Governor Doyon considers these two medals to be a special symbol of the outstanding contribution that First Nations and Inuit members make to society as a whole and a gesture to foster closer ties and reconciliation between First Nations and Inuit Nation members and Quebecers. This institutional recognition is significant.

When this award was created, the first ceremony, held on December 16, 2019, honoured Anne Archambault of the Malecite Nation, Dr. Kenneth Atsenhaienton Deer of the Mokawk Nation, Viviane Gray of the Mi’kmaq Nation, Dr. Darlene Kitty of the Cree Nation, Kim O’Bomsawin of the Abenaki Nation, Eva Ottawa of the Atikamekw Nation, Major-General Jocelyn Paul of the Huron-Wendat Nation, Dominique Rankin of the Algonquin Nation, Glenda Sandy of the Naskapi Nation, Dr. Stanley Vollant of the Innu Nation and Édith Cloutier of the Algonquin Nation.

The First Peoples Medal for members of the Inuit Nation was awarded for the first time on October 12, 2021, in Kuujjuaq, to the following individuals: Lolly Annahatak of the municipality of Kangirsuk, Zebedee Nungak of the municipality of Kangirsuk, Tommy Palliser of the municipality of Inukjuak, Aani Palliser Tulugak of the municipality of Puvirnituq and Eliyasi Sallualuk of the municipality of Puvirnituq.

The second ceremony to present the First Peoples (First Nations) Medal took place on May 19, 2022, at Parliament House in Quebec City, and honoured the following individuals: Lise Bastien of the Huron-Wendat Nation, Denys Bernard of the Abenaki Nation, Daniel Brière of the Malicite Nation, Pénélope Guay of the Innu Nation, Dr. Ojistoh Horn of the Mohawk Nation, Robert Kanatewat of the Cree Nation, Oscar Kistabish of the Algonquin Nation, and Loretta Robinson of the Naskapi Nation.

These individuals are involved in a very wide range of human and professional activities, including everything from cinema, Indigenous culture and spirituality, medicine, media, support for women who are victims of violence, education, politics, administration, community health and sports. They have all made invaluable contributions.

Colleagues, as an honorary witness for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I appeal to each of you to reflect on what the Senate can do, as an institution, to contribute to the necessary work of fostering reconciliation and closer ties.

[English]

Hon. Renée Dupuis: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Motion No. 42, which was moved on May 18 by the Government Representative in the Senate. It concerns a pre-study of Bill C-11, which seeks to amend the Broadcasting Act and is currently being studied in the House of Commons. I was appointed to the Senate as an independent senator in November 2016, and since then I have had the opportunity to participate in some pre-studies of bills dealing with all manner of subjects.

One that stands out was the pre-study of the medical assistance in dying bill, which I participated in as a member of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. In that specific case, our study of the principles and objectives of the bill enabled the committee to broaden its consultation and thereby take a deeper dive into all aspects of what was a very sensitive issue for people. If you were following the debate at that stage, you most likely know that the committee heard from numerous witnesses with highly divergent if not diametrically opposed viewpoints. They helped the committee zero in on the main issues with the bill.

The Senate’s sober second thought is not confined to a rigid procedural cycle.

I would note that rule 10-11 reads as follows:

The subject matter of a bill originating in the House of Commons may be referred to a standing committee for study at any time before the bill is received in the Senate.

The Senate is not required to wait for a bill to be passed by the House of Commons before it can begin its study. That is not our role as a chamber that provides sober second thought on legislation. We have the authority to make decisions about how we conduct our work on the bills that the government introduces.

Honourable senators, we have a duty to study the underlying issues of a bill as comprehensively as possible. We must find ways to make it clear that we want the public to participate more in our debates. Pre-studies of bills allow us to hear from more Canadians and more organizations on the issues that we are studying.

We are still governed by criteria that were set out in the last century, even though the public is much more educated. The Canadian public now has just as much expertise as we do in government and in Parliament, including here, in the Senate. We must acknowledge that and adjust our methods accordingly.

The Canadians we are today want to be more directly involved in democratic debate and decision-making. That is what we are hearing.

A pre-study is an educational exercise that is most important to us, senators, if only to provide the means to understand all the details of a bill, especially when it seems complex at first glance. A pre-study also provides an opportunity for hearing as many interested people and groups as possible, and to shed light on the views of Canadians as a whole.

In my opinion, pre-studies could become part of committee activities every time a bill meets certain criteria, including if it deals with a key element of public policy that has not been reviewed recently, if it deals with an element of public policy involving a significant change to a legislative or administrative regime, or if it deals with a controversial social issue on which it is difficult to obtain a consensus initially.

Nothing prevents us from establishing the criteria that would help us decide when a proposed pre-study would be appropriate.

Honourable senators, I am of the opinion that Bill C-11, which the government has stated has the objective of overhauling the Broadcasting Act, and in particular to make it more inclusive, meets the criteria I just set out.

First, it represents a major update to Canadian broadcasting policy, and it is intended to ensure that streaming services contribute to the creation and offer of Canadian music and literary works. Culture is the foundation of a society. The means of disseminating culture constitute an essential service and must be updated to fit the digital world.

However, the genesis of culture is found in the works of the creators, without whom we cannot talk about culture. It is important to remember this and to ensure that the work done by these creators is recognized for its value and its worth, which includes the fact that many others are able to benefit from their work. It is also important to ensure that copyright for their creations is respected and remunerated accordingly.

Honourable senators, Bill C-11 must be closely examined, particularly from this perspective.

Second, it extends the application of the current legislation to online broadcasting undertakings, but exempts them from the licensing requirement. What effect does this exemption have on creators? What benefit do they get from this exemption relative to businesses that are required to hold a licence?

Third, Bill C-11 proposes a new order regime under which the CRTC will be able to impose different conditions on broadcasters, particularly regarding program content. However, the CRTC could also decide that its orders will apply to only one, some, or all of the licence holders. If the CRTC is granted this discretionary power, will it choose to favour one or more categories of businesses?

The bill also amends cabinet’s powers to issue directives to the CRTC and gives the government more time to ask the CRTC to review or reverse its decisions.

Also, what are the views of Canadian and Quebec creators, including anglophones and francophones, creators of all categories of works, when it comes to respect for copyright and the rights of performers in the new regime set out in the bill? What are the views of the groups identified in Bill C-11, namely official language minority communities, Indigenous peoples and people with disabilities? Have the general public’s views on the new regime been sought, considered and documented?

Honourable senators, for all these reasons, I will be voting in favour of Motion No. 42, which calls for a pre-study of Bill C-11.

[English]