Senator Dasko: Thank you for the enthusiasm. Senator Plett, you have today offered high praise for the six amendments that were rejected by the House of Commons. You have lauded them, and you said that you insist on the entire amendment package.

However, senator, you did not support the bill with these amendments in it at third reading. I ask you, how can you urge us to insist on the 26 amendments when you yourself did not support them at third reading of the bill?

Senator Plett: Well, I hope you will be enthusiastic about my answer. The bill didn’t go far enough. The amendments didn’t go far enough. I said repeatedly in my speech that it’s still a flawed bill, even with the amendments, but the amendments make it a better bill.

Senator Plett: Yes.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, it is my duty as a senator and my honour as a grandfather to rise today and bring you the fourth instalment of “Myla Plett’s Curling Adventures.”

As you know from my last instalment, Myla and her team have been on an impressive winning streak. They won the Canadian Under-18 Girls Curling Championships in Timmins, Ontario, followed by a silver medal at the Canada Winter Games in Prince Edward Island in March. From there, they headed to Rouyn-Noranda in Quebec for the 2023 Canadian Under-21 Women’s Curling Championships.

Betty and I were not able to be there in person this time, but I understand that someone may have almost dialled 911 because Team Plett was on fire. They played 10 games in eight days and went 10 and 0 for a perfect winning record, clinching the gold medal after defeating Newfoundland and Labrador in the final! Following their earlier 9 and 0 streak at the Canadian Under-18 Curling Championship, that puts them at an incredible 19 and 0 between the two events.

Colleagues, Myla was extremely surprised and excited to find out that this victory was a historic achievement because it is the first time in Canadian curling history that a team has captured both the Under-21 and the Under-18 titles in the same year!

The Calgary Sun noted:

It’s another chapter in an astonishing and ongoing championship run for Plett, vice-skip Alyssa Nedohin, second Chloe Fediuk, lead Allie Iskiw —

— as well as their coaches, Blaire Lenton and David Nedohin.

I couldn’t agree more. Their achievements have been remarkable, and they have made history in Canadian curling. Team Plett’s win at the Under-21 Nationals means they will now spend the summer and fall training and then will be off to Lohja, Finland, for the 2023 World Junior-B Curling Championships as Team Canada. If they secure a podium spot there, they will be back in Finland in February 2024 for the 2024 World Junior Curling Championships.

Colleagues, Myla and her team are representative of Canada’s many amazing athletes. They have dedicated countless hours to their training and have worked tirelessly to perfect their skills. Their commitment to excellence is an inspiration to us all.

I also want to congratulate the Alberta men’s team for their incredible victory at the Canadian Under-21 Curling Championships as well. Skip Johnson Tao, third Jaedon Neuert, second Benjamin Morin and lead Adam Naugler demonstrated great skill, determination and teamwork to bring home the gold medal. Their success, along with Myla’s team, is a testament to the strength of Canadian curling and the talent of our many young athletes.

Colleagues, I invite you to join me in congratulating Team Plett on their historic win, along with the Alberta men’s team and all the young athletes who participated and continue to make us proud.

Senator Plett: Well, leader, the Prime Minister appointed an old family friend, neighbour and Trudeau Foundation member to investigate what the Prime Minister himself knew about Beijing’s interference, but it’s okay because of this man’s reputation.

The Prime Minister won’t say if he paid $80,000 in accommodations for a luxury vacation in Jamaica, but it’s okay because the resort is owned by another old family friend.

Minister LeBlanc awarded a fishing licence to his wife’s cousin, but it’s okay because he didn’t know the cousin all that well.

Mr. Hussen gave $93,000 in contracts to his staffer’s sister, but it’s okay because it was for communications services.

Ms. Ng gave $20,000 in contracts to her best friend for some Zoom calls, but it’s okay because it was for public relations advice.

Do you see a pattern here, leader? Canadians are sick and tired of this. When will this patronage end?

Senator Plett: What is the purpose of this Senate?

If after four months of hearing from witnesses on this issue, the Senate immediately throws in the towel as soon as the government says “no,” then we have, very simply, failed in our legislative duty, and we have failed as Canadians.

Don’t call ourselves “independent” if we are just going to roll over at the first available opportunity. That is not independence, colleagues. That is not independence.

I believe that is why we must insist on our entire amendment package.

The people whom I am most concerned about are the smaller players who will be impacted by this bill, people like Oorbee Roy, Vanessa Brousseau, Darcy Michael, Justin Tomchuk, J.J. McCullough, Frédéric Bastien Forrest, Scott Benzie and others, all of whom appeared before our committee. These people do not represent big corporations or big media concerns. I submit, colleagues, that at minimum we have an obligation to insist that this tone-deaf government listen to these individuals. Beyond that, we all know — or at least suspect — that this bill is deeply flawed and has serious freedom of speech and freedom of the press ramifications.

Given those ramifications, colleagues, we cannot now back down at the first sign that the government is not willing to take our amendments seriously.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, I know you’re waiting for me to ask this in French.

My question, government leader, is a follow up to a question posed yesterday by my colleague Senator Batters regarding the appointment of Minister LeBlanc’s sister-in-law as the Interim Ethics Commissioner.

In Question Period yesterday, leader, you defended this appointment. You chastised Senator Batters for undermining the important role the Ethics Commissioner plays in our system. Not long afterwards, we learned that Minister LeBlanc’s sister-in-law had, in fact, resigned as the Interim Ethics Commissioner, effective immediately.

Stepping down was the right thing for her to do, but the Trudeau government should never have put her in this situation in the first place. The blame for undermining the role of the Ethics Commissioner falls solely on the Trudeau government.

Now that the minister’s sister-in-law has resigned, Senator Gold, do you agree there was indeed a conflict of interest?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): I think the amendment is adjourned in my name, Your Honour, but I will withdraw that. I will defer to Senator Housakos, who I think has a few words to say on the amendment before we’re ready for the question.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Leader, at the same time that the CBC was covering the 2019 federal election campaign, it also chose to launch a lawsuit against the Conservative Party of Canada over video clips and ads. On May 13, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed this lawsuit with costs.

During Senate Question Period on June 1, 2021, I asked:

How much has the CBC cost taxpayers for this? How much will the CBC pay the Conservative Party? Has anyone who was responsible for bringing forward this ridiculous lawsuit been fired from the CBC?

I have yet to receive an answer. A similar written question that I put on the Order Paper on May 25, 2021, remains unanswered. These are events that happened two years ago, leader. The CBC knows the answers to my questions.

Over two months ago, on February 14, I asked you about this again, and you said you would make inquiries. What did you find out? How much did it cost the taxpayers?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak to the government’s response to the amendments proposed by the Senate in relation to Bill C-11.

Colleagues, after four months of Senate committee hearings, after hearing from 140 witnesses, as Senator Housakos said earlier and after hearing from and listening to numerous ordinary Canadians — many of whom by their own admission had never appeared before a parliamentary committee before — we have the response of the government to the amendments that the Senate proposed to this legislation.

That response is clear, and it is this: When it comes to listening to any of the substantive concerns that witnesses raised when they appeared before our Senate Transport and Communications Committee, the government simply isn’t interested.

To be sure, there have been a lot of nice-sounding words from the government that it is listening, and that it has seriously considered the Senate amendments. As Minister Rodriguez claimed when he spoke on this issue, “. . . we’re accepting a vast majority of the Senate amendments . . . .” If we look at the pure numbers, this may be technically correct.

But if we look more closely at the substance of what the government has accepted, it has actually rejected every one of the more substantive amendments proposed by the Senate.

The reality of the government’s response is that if particular amendments did not substantively impact the bill, they were regarded as tolerable. But if a particular amendment impacted the bill in any substantive way, they simply rejected it.

That is the essence of the government’s response, and I know that many Canadians are very disappointed.

When the minister appeared before our Transport and Communications Committee back on November 22, he made the following claim:

I was born with an open mind . . . so . . . . On the general principle, we are open to —

— amendments —

— but this bill comes after lots of consultation on the previous bill, Bill C-10, that was discussed here too. Now Bill C-11 has been discussed and consulted across the country. You have had about 120 witnesses, which is amazing. You did amazing work here. We think it’s the right balance, but, of course, we’re ready to look at . . . amendments.

I think the key word in that response is that the minister and the government were prepared to “look” at the amendments. But some senators likely did not appreciate how very brief that “look” would actually be.

The government’s rejection of the more substantive Senate amendments reveals that we have a government that is simply unwilling to engage in any sort of meaningful dialogue with Canadians who have fundamental concerns about this bill.

Colleagues, we again need to remind ourselves that the more substantive amendments that were proposed in relation to Bill C-11 were proposed after hearing from a nearly unprecedented number of witnesses on this legislation.

These were not amendments that senators simply dreamed up on their own.

Many very well-informed witnesses appeared before our committee. These were witnesses whose very livelihoods will be impacted by this legislation — witnesses who were very concerned about the freedom of speech implications of this bill.

The Senate took on the role of trying to speak for these many Canadians.

From my perspective, the Senate’s amendments actually did not go nearly far enough in addressing the many concerns that were raised about Bill C-11.

From my perspective, amendments or not, Bill C-11 remains a deeply flawed and bad bill.

But nevertheless, even government-appointed senators opposite could not ignore all of the issues that were raised by witnesses once they were repeatedly explained to the committee.

That is why 26 amendments were proposed and adopted by the Senate in relation to this bill.

I will acknowledge, colleagues, that in making these amendments the Senate was trying to fulfill its constitutional role. I believe that, in relation to many of the amendments that were made, the Senate was speaking for the political minority in Canada.

It is a political minority that was not really listened to on the House side where the hearing process was artificially cut short by the government.

In essence, the Senate has been exercising its role of providing sober second thought.

I think it is useful to go through some of the more substantive amendments that the government has rejected out of hand, because I believe, as a result of the government’s rejection of these amendments, it is vital that the Senate now stand firm and insist on these amendments.

First, there is the example of the child protection age verification amendment that was proposed by Senator Miville-Dechêne and supported by the majority of senators at committee and in this chamber.

The committee received a number of written briefs on this specific matter, including from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, whose brief stated:

Bill C-11 . . . needs to be consistent with Canada’s international obligations to children. For example, principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child . . . and General Comment No. 25, General Comment on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment, which provides state parties with guidance on the implementation of the UNCRC in the digital space, should be considered and reflected in Bill C-11.

C3P has long been advocating for government to regulate online platforms that children are exposed to. The lack of regulation over online platforms has meant that children have been a casualty of the “move fast and break things” ideology that has characterized the incredibly lucrative technology sector. Children continue to be an afterthought in the creation of online programs and services despite widespread reports of harm to children on such platforms. We cannot permit the status quo to continue. Legislation that is drafted to regulate online platforms needs to include meaningful protections for children.

Just as we protect children against the harms of tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and R-rated movies, there need to be adequate protections for children regarding sexually explicit content online. Society must not abrogate its responsibilities to children because of the digital nature of sexually explicit content online. We cannot let online platforms dictate the sexual education of Canada’s children.

Senator Miville-Dechêne, who has long been an advocate on this matter in our chamber, took up this issue and introduced an amendment to the bill that stated:

The amendment is simple and to the point. It was adopted by our committee and then also passed by the Senate as a whole.

Officially, of course, the government expressed its sympathy for this amendment. Indeed, the government made no fundamental objections in principle to the amendment, but it rejected it notwithstanding.

This week, Senator Gold again stated:

. . . protecting children is a priority of this government, and it is looking forward to introducing legislation on online safety with the goal of keeping all Canadians safe online. In the government’s view, however, Bill C-11 is not the appropriate vehicle to advance this important issue.

One is left wondering why that is the case. I suspect it is simply because the amendment proposed by Senator Miville-Dechêne goes beyond what the government plans to do. It is likely as simple as that.

In my view, if we permit this rejection to go unchallenged, we will fail in our duty to Canadians, and we will simultaneously fail in taking this important opportunity to better protect Canadian children.

In my view, we must, therefore, insist upon this amendment.

Another amendment in the Senate package that the government rejected was one that was proposed to update the CRTC’s outdated Canadian content rules. This amendment responded to what the Senate heard from many witnesses: that a restrictive interpretation of Canadian content rules, under existing legislation, is doing serious harm to many Canadian creators and is undermining our ability to tell Canadian stories to the world. Many witnesses pointed out that even though a program might be filmed in Canada, employ Canadian actors and be written by a Canadian, if the production company is not Canadian, then it does not qualify as “Canadian content.” Other witnesses pointed out that Canadian content rules are often so cumbersome that it becomes impossible for smaller creators to navigate the process.

Based upon that testimony, the amendment proposed to incorporate a principle of greater flexibility in determining what is, and what is not, Canadian content. This was an extremely reasonable and modest amendment, but again, the government rejected it.

The government claimed that it did so because:

. . . the principle that Canadian programs are first and foremost content made by Canadians is, and has been, at the centre of the definition of Canadian programs for decades, and this amendment would remove the ability for the CRTC to ensure that that remains the case . . .

Clearly, no one in the government either read or seriously considered the actual testimony that was heard at our Senate committee on this matter. No one appearing before our Senate committee argued with the notion that Canadian programs should be “first and foremost content made by Canadians.” What witnesses took issue with was how the CRTC was prioritizing and adjudicating what is considered a Canadian program.

Witnesses said that our approach is decades old and needs to better respond to today’s realities when it comes to how programs are produced and broadcast. Witnesses like Oorbee Roy, who, by her own admission, is a smaller player in the area of content creation but who nevertheless is bound by the CRTC’s interpretation of “Canadian content,” asked our committee on September 28 why the bill was not addressing the issue of the inequity in Canadian content creation.

She was quite explicit in criticizing the minister’s response during a House committee meeting, a response which was simply to push the entire issue off to a distant future decision. At our committee, she asked:

Why is this bill pushing off Canadian digital content creators into the future, but then including user-generated content platforms now? Aren’t we the very people this bill is supposed to be helping?

She pointed to the major hurdles in the way of small content creators like herself in getting approved as Canadian content. She asked:

Do I have to hire my ten-year-old son to help me register each piece of skateboarding content for CanCon approval? . . .

Other larger players explained how inflexible Canadian content rules are undermining investment and making it more difficult for Canadian stories to be told.

Wendy Noss, President of the Motion Picture Association — Canada, told our committee:

. . . it’s . . . as if people think the definition of “Canadian content” was established on some tablets in the desert long ago and cannot ever be changed. . . .

We are dealing with a definition of Canadian programs for broadcasting policy, and for that, when you are bringing global companies and streamers that make content for the world, there needs to be an expansive 2022 approach, rather than being mired in a 1970s approach.

If we look at the different kinds of stories, you can have stories set in Canada, like Washington Black, written by Esi Edugyan. It is a fantastic novel Giller Prize-winning novel about a Black slave travelling to Nova Scotia. The investment in that Canadian novel, Canadian writer and Canadian story is being made by Disney, and it is being shot in Nova Scotia. It is not qualified as Canadian content.

You have heard a lot about Turning Red, which resonates with any child of immigrants growing up in Canada, particularly in Toronto. That, too, is a Canadian story.

There are a host of Canadian creative positions that are not currently recognized in the definition. So you can have a Mexican director . . . who makes all of his fantastic content in Toronto, with Oscar-winning and -nominated creative teams — production designers, art directors, costume designers and a Canadian producer — but for which Fox owns the copyright. That also would not qualify.

That is what witnesses told our committee, colleagues.

No witness took issue with the principle that Canadian content should be that which is made by Canadians. Neither did the amendment adopted by the Senate take issue with that. What the Senate amendment did was to incorporate direction to the CRTC to exercise greater flexibility in determining what Canadian content is.

The government’s response was to reject that amendment out of hand.

Quite frankly colleagues, Canadians deserve better.

Another substantive amendment was proposed by our colleague Senator Downe. Senator Downe proposed an amendment to restrict advertising that is designed to resemble journalistic programming. It was a simple amendment but one that touched upon a very important issue.

We have heard a lot from the government about disinformation. Indeed, the government has argued that both this bill and Bill C-18 are important vehicles for ensuring accuracy in news, as well as in programming that is presented as news. Senator Downe proposed this amendment to prevent the CBC from entering into:

. . . any contract, arrangement or agreement that results in the broadcasting or development of an advertisement or announcement on behalf of an advertiser that is designed to resemble journalistic programming.

In essence, Senator Downe’s amendment is designed to promote and protect truth in advertising, as well as truth in the presentation of what is purported to be news — a very reasonable amendment that actually supports the government’s stated objective.

So what was the government’s response to that? You would think they would be happy with that. They rejected the amendment because it was, in the government’s view, beyond the policy intent of the bill. They argued that further study was required on the matter. Colleagues, “further study” is simply a euphemism for the fact that the government doesn’t want to do it, and they don’t want to be bothered to engage on the issue any further.

This is not how disputes over legislative issues between the two houses of our Parliament should be handled. The Senate is our chamber of sober second thought. When the Senate objects to government legislation, it usually does so because it has heard from Canadians, whether through witness testimony or through other forms of communication.

The Senate’s amendments are usually modest, but they very often deal with very substantive matters. The government is constitutionally obligated to take the Senate’s advice seriously, particularly when it is based on substantial witness testimony. I would argue that — in so many of their responses to the Senate’s proposed amendments — the government has simply not taken the amendments, or what the witnesses told the senators in committee, seriously.

We had an amendment from Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons on user-generated content. I would argue that this is particularly the case in relation to the core amendment from the Senate which the government rejected. That concerns, of course, the amendment that was proposed by the two senators.

When Senator Miville-Dechêne spoke to this amendment at committee, she stated:

I would remind you that both the government and the CRTC have repeatedly said that social media users and content creators would not be covered by Bill C-11. This has been repeatedly stated.

Despite this, we heard from witnesses and experts that section 4.2 is too far-reaching and that they do not trust the CRTC with such discretionary power. There was a desire expressed during our hearings that we restrict the type of content that the CRTC could regulate on platforms. We also heard that the main target of clause 4.2 is professional, non‑amateur content, in particular self-produced and record label music content and related music videos.

In all of this, Senator Miville-Dechêne was, of course, correct. The government has repeatedly claimed that user-generated content is not to be regulated by the bill.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage, when he appeared before our committee, specifically stated the following:

We listened to the social media creators. We listened to them, we understood their concerns and we brought it back, with the exception of 4.2, which catches only commercial content with the three criteria. That’s it.

That was what the government claimed.

So a modest amendment was made at committee simply to confirm that assertion. As Senator Simons stated at the Senate’s third reading of Bill C-11:

. . . I think the biggest and most critical amendment we made was to a vexing part of the bill, subclause 4.2(2), which I like to call the ”exception to the exception” clause. In the wake of some of the controversy around Bill C-10, the Minister of Canadian Heritage promised that Bill C-11 would not pertain to nor capture users of social media but only big streamers who were analogous to traditional broadcasters. Indeed, that is what clause 4.1(1) of the bill says — that the act does not apply to a program that is uploaded to a social media service by a user of that service.

Furthermore, when Senator Miville-Dechêne spoke to this amendment at committee, she stated:

Our proposed amendment would focus clause 4.2 on the intended target of professional music without unduly curtailing the CRTC’s discretion. Finally, these amendments would have the effect of focusing clause 4.2 on professional music that is downloaded by copyright owners, or that has been played in whole or in substantial part on traditional broadcasting undertakings.

In essence, this means that YouTubers, amateur videos or any other content which is not associated with professional music are not covered by Bill C-11.

At committee, Senator Simons was more specific as to her intent when she said, “We’re hoping that this will allow us to reach a workable compromise.”

She went on further to say:

I share the concerns of Senator Manning, Senator Wallin and Senator Plett about clause 4 which, despite the protestations of everybody, clearly includes individual creators. We believe this amendment scopes out all of those people and only includes the very biggest music producers.

This is an amendment that has been arrived at in consultation with YouTube, with TikTok, but also with all sorts of independent Quebecois music producers who provided a great deal of input so we could craft an amendment that we capture the right peoples.

So what has been the government’s response? The government asserts that they disagree with the amendment, and their reason is because it:

. . . would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time . . . .

In other words, in the government’s view, the CRTC’s discretion simply outweighs and is more important than any concerns that ordinary creators might have.

As Senator Simons pointed out earlier this week, the government’s rationale is not credible — in particular, she noted that the first part of the government’s response is a bit strange. Senator Simons said the following:

Nothing in our amendment would have prevented the government from holding public consultations at any time on any subject. The last clause is also a bit odd. Nothing in our amendment would have prevented the broadcasting system from adapting to technological change.

It’s the middle of the sentence that matters. It’s the meat of the sandwich — the part about scoping the regulation of commercial programs on social media. And this is precisely the problem. The minister and the government keep telling us — and everyone else — that they do not intend to include user-generated content and that Canadians who post their comedy sketches or animated shorts or children’s songs to Twitter, YouTube, TikTok and Instagram would not be scoped into the ambit of the CRTC. Yet, the government’s own written response to our amendment demonstrates that they wish to retain the power to direct the CRTC to do precisely that — to regulate the distribution of content on social media.

Those are the words of Senator Simons.

Now, let’s be clear about what this means. The government is saying that the officials it appoints to serve on the CRTC must have full leeway to do something that the government claims it has no intent to do, and the CRTC must have the leeway, notwithstanding the objections that have been raised by Canadians.

As Senator Simons acknowledges, the government’s response makes it absolutely clear that it reserves the right to regulate social media content without any hindrance in legislation.

Mr. Len St-Aubin is a former director general of telecommunications policy at Industry Canada. On September 14, 2022, he told the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications:

. . . it’s the CRTC, not Parliament, that will determine the scope of regulation and therefore the extent of intervention in the internet market and Canadians’ freedom to access the content of their choice.

There is simply no other conclusion that can be drawn from the government’s position. This is absolutely their intent.

Colleagues, when we considered Bill C-11 at third reading a few weeks ago, it was noted on this side of the house that senators would have to “steel their spines” given the likely government response to our amendments.

As much as we might have hoped that the government would respond substantively to what were substantive amendments, regrettably, that has not proved to be the case. We now have a government response which is to reject nearly every substantive amendment that the Senate has made, despite the fact that these amendments were actually proposed by the many Canadians who appeared before our committee. This means that, in essence, the government has said “no” to Canadians.

What are the implications of this? I believe the implications are dire in that they might impact on the most fundamental rights of Canadians. This government rejection impacts freedom of speech itself. Now, I know some senators will see that as an exaggeration, but I do not believe that to be the case. We have a very recent example.

Earlier this month we learned that government officials at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB, approached social media platforms to ask that they take down any posting of a column written by Lorne Gunter of the Edmonton Sun and also to prohibit users from linking to it.

The column itself was based on a draft document that was being circulated inside the IRB, making the article, by all accounts, factually correct. What IRB officials apparently did not like was Mr. Gunter’s interpretation of the implications of the same document.

Whether Mr. Gunter’s interpretation or analysis of the document was something that the IRB officials disagreed with or not, whether his interpretation was even accurate or not, what is at issue here is a clear willingness and belief among those same officials that it was entirely appropriate to advocate for the removal of content which the IRB regarded as objectionable. We should all be concerned.

We should be horrified, colleagues, about this attempted assault on freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

What many Canadians fear is that this is where we may be heading with Bill C-11, and there are many ominous signs that suggest those fears are not unfounded.

We have often heard senators in this chamber claim that the Senate must speak for political minorities. I agree that this is absolutely a key role for the upper house of Parliament. Colleagues, we have heard ample evidence and testimony that the implications of Bill C-11 are multi-faceted and serious.

In response to the testimony we heard, the Senate has made a few modest but important amendments to this bill. The government has rejected almost all of these modest amendments. In the face of that, I do not believe that the Senate can simply roll over. I am very concerned at what I hear from senators in this chamber that they intend to do exactly that, roll over.

Senator Simons said this week, “. . . I don’t think ‘ponging’ this amendment up the street will make a blind bit of difference.”

I would like to assure Senator Simons and all senators that what will absolutely not make “a blind bit of difference” is if we just give up. If that is the position of our Senate, I ask this: What, then, is the purpose of this chamber?

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That the motion, as amended, be further amended:

1. by replacing sub-paragraph (b) by the following:

“(b) insist on its amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”;

2.by adding, before the final paragraph, the following new paragraph:

“That, pursuant to rule 16-3, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be charged with drawing up the reasons for the Senate’s insistence on its amendments; and”; and

3.by replacing, in the final paragraph, the words “That a message be sent” by the words “That, once the reasons for the insistence have been agreed to by the Senate, a message be sent”.

Colleagues, I believe that what we must insist upon is for the government to seriously consider the arguments that were made by witnesses who appeared before the Senate and to respond appropriately to the Senate’s amendments.

When we sent our amendment package on this bill to the other place, I said we would almost certainly have to steel our spines in the face of the government’s response. Regrettably, that time has come, and that is exactly what we now need to do: steel our spines. I urge all senators to support this motion.

Hon. Donna Dasko: I have a question for Senator Plett, if he would take it.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, after having discussions with all of the different leaders, we have reached a consensus that we will accept the adjournment of the debate and move on to the rest of the agenda.