Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Downe, for your intervention. When Conservatives get to their feet in this chamber, it is not because of political expediency, and the language we use is not to appeal to our base or moderate voters. Our objective is to speak on behalf of Canadians on issues and express our feelings on the issues of the day, and that’s what we have done.

Your Honour, I spent some time this morning — not a considerable amount of time because I was informed shortly before that we would have this opportunity — and looked back at previous rulings. This chamber operates on the premise of procedural rules, our existing Rules that are in writing, and, of course, in large part, based on precedent. I tried to look up cases in the history of this august chamber when parliamentary language was called into question. I have to say that there haven’t been that many instances. There have been rulings by Speaker Molgat, Speaker Kinsella and Speaker Furey.

I will go back to March 1, 2000, and read a couple of excerpts, obviously consistent with what Senator Downe was speaking to. Speaker Molgat said:

I remind honourable senators that the position of the Speaker in this place is very different from that of the Speaker in the other place. The practice and long-established custom is that senators regulate themselves, and that the Speaker has a limited responsibility insofar as interfering.

Also, toward the end of the ruling:

Having said that, honourable senators, the rules indicate that as Speaker I have no authority in this matter. I do not have, as the House of Commons has, the authority to name a senator. If I did take that authority, I would have no means of enforcing it. It is up to the chamber.

That is as Senator Downe pointed out.

Honourable senators, when it comes to language that is not parliamentary, there is no rule in our chamber that lists unparliamentary language. They do have that list in the House of Commons and in various other chambers. Of course, the beauty of this chamber is that it has ultimate leeway and the Speaker is not an arbitrator, like in the House of Commons, but more a barometer.

More importantly, I also want to point out, colleagues, that if we get into this habit of calling a point of order on every single word that we personally find offensive or not acceptable, depending on which side of the political issue we fall on, we will have points of order coming out of our ears, and the Speaker will be busier ruling on points of order than he will be calling votes on government legislation.

I was offended during Question Period today. And I think the government leader was offended when he heard the word “scheme” in my question. I saw his comportment: he took offence. I felt, based on the issue I was asking about at the time, that a scheme is in place, and he clearly doesn’t believe that is the case.

He then got up, and in his response he accused me of a “smear.” To “smear,” if you look up the definition, is pretty offensive. He might have actually offended my sensibilities, and I could have jumped up on a point of order — not during Question Period, because, if you know procedure, colleagues, you are not allowed to stand up on a point of order during Question Period and routine business. That is the tradition in this place.

There are two issues just on the Rules: number one, there is no prescriptive language in this chamber that is not parliamentary; and number two, there is no history of the Speaker having the authority to exercise and remediate what the chair might deem to be unacceptable. Having said that, because I have had the privilege to serve in that chair, the chair has the leeway to make sure there is order and decorum in the chamber and, of course, our Speaker has done an excellent job of that.

The language that is being called to question on this point of order is language that I’ve been using consistently during Question Period for a number of months, to be honest with you. I think it is consistent and applies to this government and this Prime Minister. I think it is grossly unfair, given the leeway and benevolence that the Speaker has shown in allowing me to use that language for such a short period of time, if, suddenly, he would find it offensive because someone’s sensibilities were tested more than usual. Those are some of the points that I wanted to share with the chamber.

Again, I call upon all of us to understand that this is a house of parliament, and we sometimes engage on very controversial and contentious issues. In the heat of debate, on legislation or in Question Period or at committee — even sometimes with our best friends — we will sometimes feel that somebody crossed the line when it came to addressing us or the issues that we believe in.

I’m sure His Honour will take this under advisement and come back with a sage ruling, and I will, of course, acquiesce to that final ruling. Thank you.

Hon. Claude Carignan: I would like to clarify something. Senator Moncion just raised another point. My understanding is that the point of order raised by Senator Downe was really about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments more directly. There seems to be some confusion. That said, obviously —

[English]

Hon. Lucie Moncion: Thank you, Senator Downe, for raising the point of order on that day, because we had an issue with some of the comments made that afternoon. I would refer to the comment that, if Senator Downe had not raised that point of order, I would have. I will quote exactly what was said, Your Honour, so that we are not misled by another conversation and end up with two points of order on the same day. I understand the Rules that when there is a point of order you cannot make another, but I will provide the information.

Senator Plett said:

Leader, the Trudeau government has sold themselves to the NDP and stopped even pretending to care about fiscal restraint. There are names for people who sell themselves. I’m not sure whether it’s parliamentary language or not, so I will refrain from using it.

Leader, there are no lines that the NDP-Trudeau government won’t cross, no fiscal guardrails and no anchors. What’s left?

This was the offending comment that, in my view, was disturbing.

Now, there are two things that have been said so far. We have to understand that we have to be careful around sensibilities, because our sensibilities are our own. When we don’t like comments we usually keep it to ourselves, but the other one is respect. I think here there is a lack of respect for people who work for this country, and I think it is important at some point to be respectful of the work that people do — whether we agree with them or not.

We have a minimum of decorum to keep here, and I think that’s important. As to my point of order, I would refer you to the exact information that is in Hansard. Thank you, Your Honour, for allowing me the time to speak.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Carignan, I know you are anxious to make a comment, but we have spent a considerable amount of the chamber’s time on this issue. I will allow you a couple of minutes to make further comments, but please keep it to a couple of minutes.

[Translation]

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Tannas, I appreciate the wording and the comments you made about this, but, given the question that I asked Senator Gold yesterday, it appears to me that this is yet another way for the Trudeau government to say they’re making a promise that user-generated content would not be subject to Bill C-11 — without actually putting it in the substance of the bill. This is simply a message. It’s not a part of the bill or the provision that would actually govern the bill.

You indicated, senator, the wise words — always — of Senator Baker about how courts look to the Senate and our debates, but what the courts also, of course, look to is the actual provisions of the bill.

Wouldn’t you agree that if the government wanted to make it crystal clear, what your constituents in Alberta and, certainly, mine in Saskatchewan want is for user-generated content to actually be out of Bill C-11? Wouldn’t that be the way to make it the most crystal clear for the courts, for Canadians and for everyone?

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.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will you take a question, Senator Tannas?

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion be not now adopted, but that it be amended by replacing, in the second paragraph, the words “stated intent” by the words “public assurance”.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, honourable senators. I’ve heard enough. I would like to give you more time, senator, but everything I’m hearing now is repetitive. I think I’ve heard enough to make a determination. My apologies, senator, for not allowing you to speak now, but we have chewed up a considerable amount of the chamber’s time on this issue. I’m prepared to take it under advisement. Thank you to those who provided their input, and thank you, Senator Downe, for raising the point.

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s stated intent that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I wanted to rise during this debate to speak briefly to the motion moved by Senator Gold regarding the message about Bill C-11.

[English]

During the debate yesterday, Senator Tannas made a very constructive suggestion which was to bolster some of the language in the motion proposing the Senate’s response to the other place — specifically the paragraph of the motion in which the Senate would make it clear to the other place that it has taken note of the government’s frequently communicated assurances around user-generated digital content. Following discussions that have taken place, I am proposing to replace the words “stated intent” with “public assurance.”

On behalf of the Government Representative Office, or GRO, I would like to thank Senator Tannas for the suggestion and his support. As this is a message to the other place, it is only fitting that the original language proposed by Senator Gold be strengthened in a way that is consistent with the broadly shared perspective of this distinguished chamber. I believe this is a testament to the spirit of collaboration, openness and the solutions-oriented approach that we so often see in this chamber on matters of public interest.

The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, honourable senators. I’ve heard enough. I would like to give you more time, senator, but everything I’m hearing now is repetitive. I think I’ve heard enough to make a determination. My apologies, senator, for not allowing you to speak now, but we have chewed up a considerable amount of the chamber’s time on this issue. I’m prepared to take it under advisement. Thank you to those who provided their input, and thank you, Senator Downe, for raising the point.

[Translation]

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Gold, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator LaBoucane-Benson:

That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the Senate:

(a)agree to the amendments made by the House of Commons to its amendments; and

(b)do not insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s stated intent that Bill C-11 will not apply to user-generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that house accordingly.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act.

(Bill read first time.)

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

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

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator McCallum, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mégie, for the second reading of Bill S-218, An Act to amend the Department for Women and Gender Equality Act.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

Hon. Leo Housakos moved second reading of Bill S-247, An Act to amend the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law).

(On motion of Senator Housakos, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Batters, seconded by the Honourable Senator Wells, for the second reading of Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material).

Hon. Leo Housakos: Will Senator Tannas take another question?

Senator Tannas, I thank you for this. Obviously, I know you’re always trying to find a compromise in the spirit of cooperation. You said that in the ideal world, it would be in the bill; it would be in the law. But you said that this is the best we can do and that this is the best we’ve been presented with.

Presented with by whom?

It’s not up to the executive branch of government to be dictating directives to Parliament. It’s not. It’s the other way around. It’s up to Parliament to be dictating to government on behalf of its constituents.

We also have a constitutional obligation. You talked about the Constitution. It’s black and white in the Constitution that we have the same rights, privileges and authority as the House of Commons. Yes, we exercise that authority with a great deal of prudence, because, colleagues, we are an unelected body, and we have to be cognizant of that at all times. But we’re equally bestowed this great privilege that, when the government or the Crown does something that is so egregious to a large number of Canadians, we’re compelled to speak on their behalf.

Even though you’re not a full standing member of the committee, you participated in many deliberations, and you know there are a large number of user-generating Canadians — millions — that are concerned by this.

What would be the harm if so many of us feel like that? And the committee was unanimous in its decision after the testimony. It was unanimous in these amendments. Why wouldn’t we, one more time, press the government and make them understand that these amendments are coming on behalf of millions and millions of Canadians, and they want it within the body of the law?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): We heard about this amendment for the first time yesterday when Senator Tannas raised it. The government didn’t give us an indication that they were going to bring forward their own amendment today. We did learn about it this morning a few hours before we sat.

I am not at all suggesting at this point that we are opposed or in favour of this amendment, but clearly, in light of the amount of time that we have had to look at it, I think we want to review this a little more.

In light of that, Your Honour, I would like to adjourn the debate for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Plett, debate adjourned.)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Income Tax Act.

(Bill read first time.)

Hon. Bev Busson: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material). As senators, it is our responsibility to look at bills with a critical eye. The only criticism I can share with you is that this bill does not increase the prison sentence for those guilty of these heinous crimes against children. But I digress.

I’m honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this bill and to lend my voice in support of this legislation. First, I would like to recognize the work of MPs Frank Caputo and Mel Arnold, both from my home province of British Columbia, who have taken on the challenge of championing this important legislation as a private member’s bill, which recently received unanimous support in the other place.

Of course, I also want to applaud our colleague Senator Denise Batters for carrying this forward to the Senate as sponsor, delivering a compelling and comprehensive speech on March 30 and introducing this legislation to you. I hope we can ensure that it receives the attention it deserves, sending it to committee and shepherding it through third reading in the very near future.

I would also like to recognize the brave men and women at every level of law enforcement who dedicate themselves to protecting children from heinous acts of child abuse and exploitation.

Colleagues, investigating child sexual abuse and exploitation on the internet is not easy work. Involuntarily exposing oneself to unimaginably horrific online sexual abuse material to protect children’s safety and innocence is courageous. Investigating these crimes requires confronting some of the ugliest aspects of humanity and necessitates spending time in some of the deepest and darkest corners of the internet. It comes at a tremendous personal cost to health and well-being.

This material has become more and more invasive and now commonly depicts everything from acts of bestiality to penal and digital penetration of children of every age, including toddlers and even infants. One cannot unsee the images or unhear the screaming. We owe a debt of gratitude to the investigators — an incalculable debt, I might say. This is child abuse and exploitation at its very worst, and any suggestion that it might be viewed, characterized or defined as pornography is ridiculous. Even the most depraved and even the most tolerant consumers of porn would find this unimaginable.

Bill C-291 is a simple amendment to the Criminal Code, but it holds significant importance because the language we use when discussing sexual exploitation of any form is important. Suggesting that this material is somehow salacious or anything short of disgusting or disturbing cannot stand. As someone said earlier today and is often said, “Words matter.” I would like to quote Sergeant Natalie Davis, who is in charge of the British Columbia Internet Child Exploitation Unit and has dedicated ten years of her life to this important and difficult work:

Each child is a victim, and they deserve the respect and support of the judicial system to call it what it is.

Changing the Criminal Code and other legislation to replace the words “child pornography” with “child abuse and exploitation material” seems like a small thing, but it’s an important step in addressing online child sexual abuse. As mentioned, the term “pornography” itself is typically used to describe sexual content between consenting adults. Without any judgmental diatribe about pornography, this disgusting material featuring children doesn’t belong in that genre. It can never be consensual, and it is never legal. The issue before us and the issue this bill strives to address is that the term “child pornography” risks implying that we’re simply talking about just another category of pornography. To avoid this, this bill proposes a new term that truly reflects the sickening nature of such exploitation.

For precisely this reason, the RCMP’s National Child Exploitation Crime Centre and other Canadian agencies do not use the word “child pornography.” Rather, they use the term “child sexual exploitation material,” a term already used internationally. As a lead agency on the national and international stage, the National Child Exploitation Crime Centre serves as a central point of contact for investigations related to online sexual exploitation of children when either the victim or the offender is Canadian. It has been very successful at bringing offenders to justice, sometimes even rescuing the most vulnerable victims in real time.

Corporal James Jenkins of the Kelowna, British Columbia, RCMP Internet Child Exploitation, or ICE, Unit explained that the unit’s goals are:

. . . to ensure children are not being actively offended against, identify and remove images from the internet, and successfully prosecute those who access, produce, and traffic in this material.

Just next door in Alberta, the ICE team does similar work. It has recently taken to social media to issue a stark warning to all Canadians regarding the dangers of anonymous online chat rooms, an insidious spinoff targeting children made possible by social media. Investigators also raised the alarm that predators are attempting to convince kids of all ages in anonymous chat rooms to send sexually explicit images or perform sexual acts on social media apps such as Instagram and Snapchat. Once they receive the explicit photos, the perpetrator will traffic these images or threaten to expose them to friends and family and demand compensation in exchange for keeping the images secret. This practice disproportionately targets vulnerable children, who are often still developing their sexual identity and a sense of self.

These devastating cases of sextortion can have real consequences. You may remember the tragic death of Amanda Todd, a teenager from Port Coquitlam, who died by suicide in 2012 after posting a heartbreaking video on YouTube using flash cards to detail her years of being sexually extorted online. In the Prairies, just last summer, a Manitoban youth died by suicide three hours after being sexually extorted online.

These shocking incidents of child abuse are not rare. National statistics paint a bleak picture. A Statistics Canada report showed that from 2019 to 2021, the police-reported rate of child sexual abuse and exploitation material increased nationwide by 31%. In B.C. in 2022 alone, there were over 8,000 reported incidents of child exploitation. This year, B.C. has already reported 5,700, and it’s only April. This worrying trend highlights the need for action by all levels of government. As the sponsor of Bill C-291, Mel Arnold, noted in his speech in the other place, this bill is a small but important step in the right direction.

I suggest, colleagues, that we are now at a place of opportunity to continue this work together. Passing Bill C-291 is a significant step forward in combatting child sexual abuse and exploitation and bringing the perpetrators of this disgusting crime to justice. I firmly believe that changing the language and thus the mindset we use in discussing this issue will help frame the dialogue needed in combatting child sexual abuse and exploitation. As I mentioned before, words matter.

I hope this important bill will find your support in getting through committee and third reading as quickly as possible so we might use this opportunity to make a significant difference for those most vulnerable and at risk in our society. I want to thank you, honourable senators, for your time. Meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Patterson (Nunavut), for Senator Patterson (Ontario), debate adjourned.)

(At 4 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted by the Senate on September 21, 2022, the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)