Senator Tannas: Yes.

Senator Tannas: I think that’s still possible. I think we can defeat this amendment, if that’s what the Senate wishes to do, and we can defeat the message and start all over. That can be done, if that’s what we want to do.

But if that’s not the way the cards fall, I’m a pragmatist, and I come from a long line of Alberta pragmatists, and I would rather make sure that what is likely to be the eventuality, that we do our best with it, rather than shout at the rain and not do it.

Thank you.

Senator Tannas: I agree it would be. That’s not what we’re presented with.

We’re presented with, in the context of our constitutional responsibilities, how far we go and when we push and when we accept, and I think there are enough bread crumbs here that, if the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, chose at some future point to abuse this, somebody could make the case that it was not to be used, that the governments that passed this bill were adamant that it was not the intention to empower the CRTC to bring users in along with platforms.

I cannot deny that it would be better in the bill. This is what we have. I’m grateful that we have something with which to potentially give somebody a handle somewhere down the road if regulatory overreach occurs.

Hon. Scott Tannas: Honourable senators, I want to make clear that I’m not speaking in any capacity in my role with the Canadian Senators Group; I’m speaking as a senator from Alberta.

I want to thank the government leader and his colleagues for responding to the concerns that I raised yesterday. It may seem like a minor edit, but I think it does strengthen the observation or the “take note” paragraph that we have.

Much like Senator Simons — and maybe I said this yesterday — I wish that we weren’t grasping at something like this. It would be nice if it were in the bill, but I’m also pragmatic enough to know that this paragraph in this motion is truly what we have to work with. With that, I think we have to do our best to get the words right and as clear as possible to reflect what we, at this time, in this moment, understand to be the motivations and the intentions of the government.

Senator Gold likes to say — I’ve heard it frequently in the last while — that words matter. I believe they do, and I think we have found some better words that make the meaning clearer. Those of us who have been here awhile will remember former Senator Baker. Senator Baker talked about how often courts look back on debates — and on moments like this — to understand the circumstances that led to a bill being passed. I think we’re potentially in that moment right now. We have to be very clear, and I’m pleased. Senator Gagné mentioned collaboration and cooperation, and this is a wonderful example of that. In regard to Senator Baker, we should believe that someday someone may be relying on the discussions that we’ve had here — the articulation of what we understood, and the reiteration of what was said in public that weighed on all of our decisions not to insist, again, for our amendment, but to let it go. It is with that responsibility that I felt it was important to try to find something that I could support in this situation, notwithstanding what I know to be the wishes of a large majority of the citizens of Alberta.

Thank you to the GRO for the opportunity, and I intend to vote for this amendment. Thank you.