The Hon. the Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Gold, 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 public assurance 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.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: Are senators ready for the question?

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Senator Gold: You failed in your effort to overturn. The fact that you continued to return to it both yesterday and now in the question, in my opinion, shows disrespect to the office of the Speaker, to the individual — I’m talking about you; I’m talking about this continual return to an issue — I’m sorry that you lost your vote. My heart is breaking. The fact is, the interpretation was correct. I will answer your question if you’ll allow me to continue.

I consider that this line of questioning, the insinuations that you have made and that continue to percolate beneath the surface are disrespectful to the office of the Speaker and, indeed, to the person of the Speaker and to this institution, and I think it is an example of public discourse that breeds delegitimization of our important institutions. Apart from the fact of having spent an entire career and life interpreting legal text, studying writing and teaching the subject, I can tell you that the interpretation the Speaker gave was correct.

Having said that, I will answer your question. I am not a member of the Liberal Party. I represent the government in this place. That has been my role and my predecessor’s role, which he and I were and are privileged to do, and that’s the end of it. It’s a simple matter of fact. You can say whatever you want. You can impugn the independence of our colleagues in this chamber because of who appointed them or how they vote. I’m not impugning your integrity, colleagues. You’ve asked a question, and I’ve answered it. I’m not a member of the Liberal Party, neither is Senator Gagné or Senator LaBoucane-Benson. We represent the government in the Senate. It’s a big job, and we are proud to do it.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Nili Kaplan-Myrth and her family. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Boyer.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, 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 public assurance 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.

Senator Plett: Well, Senator Gold, your fig leaf is, in fact, getting smaller by the day. Yesterday, the Speaker ruled you were the Leader of the Government in the Senate — in the Rules. Hold your hands up and shake your head all you want, you can’t one day be a representative and the next day the leader. It’s one or the other.

The similarities are very clear, leader. The Prime Minister says he has no connection to the Trudeau Foundation, even though his government and his family can appoint members. His brother was involved in Beijing’s $200,000 gift. At least one meeting took place in his own office between government officials and the foundation. The Prime Minister says the senators he appoints are independent, even though the Prime Minister’s Office uses a Liberal list — a Liberal Party database of donors and supporters — to screen the nominees in this place. The Trudeau Foundation has ties to the Senate appointments advisory board. Senators appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau overwhelmingly vote for his government — 96%.

Government leader, do you understand that you cannot claim to have a non-partisan Senate while also checking to see if candidates for Senate appointments took Liberal lawn signs during the last election campaign?

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, 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 public assurance 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.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

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”.

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the motion in amendment be amended:

1. in the proposed new wording for sub-paragraph (b), by replacing the words “amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;” by the following:

“amendment 3 to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

(c)do not insist on its other amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”; and

2.in the proposed new paragraph empowering the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to develop the Senate’s reasons for its insistence, by replacing the word “amendments” by the word “amendment”.

Senator Plett: Would Senator Quinn take a question?

Senator MacDonald: Just once. Just once.

Senator MacDonald: No, she’s a big Tory.

Senator Gold: Senator Carignan, I must admit I was rather puzzled to see you proudly brag about never having used the closure motion on messages from the House of Commons during your term as leader of the government in the Senate. However, I understand that your term, which ran from 2013 to 2015, coincided with that of a majority Conservative government in both houses of Parliament.

Am I also to understand — and please correct me if I am wrong — that only one of the 61 government bills passed during that time was amended by the Senate? In comparison, one third of bills were amended during Prime Minister Trudeau’s majority government. Can you confirm how many messages the Senate received during your term on government bills that were introduced in the House of Commons and then amended by the Senate, against the will of the government?

Senator Batters: Senator Gold, I’m quoting the definition that the Speaker quoted in his ruling, the definition that is in the Senate Rules.

We know that in the Liberal Party of Canada membership has its privileges, so does the Trudeau Foundation. Senator Gold, in 2017, you proclaimed that you were “not affiliated with any political party,” not a member of a political caucus, and you defined yourself as “non-partisan.” You, Senator Gagné and Senator LaBoucane-Benson were all appointed to the Government Representative Office from the Independent Senators Group, or ISG, and I know that it is ISG policy that you must declare your party memberships.

Senator Gold, because of this ruling put out last night and the definition that is contained in the Senate Rules that you must belong to a government party, I guess you’ve become a member of the governing Liberal Party some time since 2017. When was that? Did all three of you declare your party memberships in the Liberal Party of Canada when you were in the ISG, or have you just become members of the governing Liberal Party since Justin Trudeau named you to his Senate leadership team?

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion, as amended, 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 public assurance 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.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Plett, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

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”.

And on the subamendment of the Honourable Senator MacDonald, seconded by the Honourable Senator Housakos:

That the motion in amendment be amended:

1. in the proposed new wording for sub-paragraph (b), by replacing the words “amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;” by the following:

“amendment 3 to which the House of Commons disagrees; and

(c)do not insist on its other amendments to which the House of Commons disagrees;”; and

2.in the proposed new paragraph empowering the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications to develop the Senate’s reasons for its insistence, by replacing the word “amendments” by the word “amendment”.

Senator Gold: That is a good question. Thank you for asking it.

As you know, temporary foreign workers play an essential role in the Quebec and Canadian economy. Employers are having a hard time meeting their labour needs and the availability of temporary foreign workers is an important issue for Quebec, where the unemployment rate was 4.2% in March.

The government is implementing a pilot project in Quebec for temporary foreign workers. The purpose of the project is to ensure that intermediate-skilled jobs are included in the facilitated process. The government also signed a new agreement with Quebec to allow key sectors to welcome more temporary foreign workers without displacing local workers.

That is an example of strong collaboration that can help us build the workforce we need and then ensure that foreign workers are able to find a new life with us here in Canada.

[English]

Senator Plett: Thank you, Senator Quinn. Thank you for your speech. I’m glad that at least a part of what I said had an impact on you, whether negatively or positively. I hope it was positively.

Nevertheless, I found your comments intriguing. Are you suggesting that because I said that when we form government — not if, when we form government — we will kill this bill, you are saying that is somehow a good reason for voting for bad legislation, thinking, “Well, the next government will take care of this, so we can go ahead and vote for bad legislation”?

Hon. Colin Deacon: Honourable senators, today is World Intellectual Property Day, established by the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization to build awareness of how patents, copyrights, trademarks and designs impact daily life and to celebrate the economic and social contributions of creators and innovators.

I want to focus on that second point: the contribution of IP to the Canadian economy.

Intangible assets such as IP, data and software now make up over 90% of the S&P’s market value. In the 1970s and 1980s, physical assets — things like natural resources and land — were overwhelmingly valued. That world is no longer. Today, investors look for companies that control valuable IP and data. They use those assets to control markets and capture superior economic rents from the work of others all around the globe. Think of the global efforts to control natural resources and land and you will have some sense of the battle that is currently raging to control intangible assets like IP. Those who control crucial IP can control access to markets and information.

But, globally, Canada has not yet adjusted to this highly technical, highly strategic global transformation.

Consider that about half of the patents that protect Canada’s publicly funded IP are transferred to foreign-owned entities once issued. As a result, that research output creates opportunities and wealth elsewhere in the world. The annual gross income earned from the IP licensed by Canadian universities produces a paltry 1.3% return on the $7 billion invested annually through university-based research in Canada.

We are investing in research without a modern strategy to protect and grow its economic value for the benefit of Canadians.

Some believe in the strategy of incentivizing foreign-owned tech giants to build IP branch plants or research facilities in Canada. But, yet again, the resulting IP leaves our country and creates wealth elsewhere.

Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt thanked Canada for the talent and IP that now underpins its business model. Some celebrated; I did not.

Canada’s IP problem results from a policy belief system that assumes that investments in research automatically convert into opportunity and wealth. This misconception has been sustained through both the Conservative government and the Liberal government who’ve each led our country for similar periods — over the last 40 years — where Canada’s living standards have declined steadily in relative terms. This trend is projected to continue — unless we change. We can quickly turn this around; we have the talent. But I fear that our investments in research will continue to diminish unless we finally implement a coordinated strategy that converts our best IP into, yes, Canadian jobs but also, even more importantly, into Canadian opportunities and Canadian prosperity.

Thank you, colleagues.