Senator Plett: Again, your question is not on Bill C-11, it’s on Bill S-210. My speech was on Bill C-11. I have no information that it will not pass. Again, as Senator Dalphond said yesterday, when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Our government has shown that they do not particularly care about the exploitation of children; they have shown it on Bill C-11. I have no optimism that they will show it on Bill S-210. I certainly support the bill.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will nevertheless ask my question. Why are you so pessimistic about the future of Bill S-210? Do you have any information suggesting that this bill will not pass and that the amendment to Bill C-11 is the only way forward?

[English]

Senator Gerba: Senator Gold, why are these men and women who feed us and take care of us not allowed to settle in Canada?

Senator Gold: It is serious, and I told you the truth. I do not have that information.

[English]

Senator Quinn: Yes.

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”?

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]

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. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, I would first like to acknowledge that we meet here today on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.

I’m delighted to share that I am rising today to offer my congratulations to one of our colleagues who was honoured this morning.

The Moose Hide Campaign, a grassroots Indigenous-led movement that is dedicated to ending gender-based and domestic violence, has a campaign that features a moose-hide pin. I know many of you have seen these and, looking around now, I see that many of you are wearing one today. These pins aim to spark conversations and bring more awareness to these important issues that impact too many people. Working together, particularly by engaging men and boys, is a crucial component in the work to end domestic and gender-based violence.

To date, 4 million moose-hide pins have been distributed, and a ceremony was held earlier in the Senators Lounge to present the four-millionth pin. Our very own Senator Michèle Audette was the deserving recipient of that milestone pin. Her dedication to reconciliation is a model for us all.

Having these conversations is indeed important, but doing the work is the only way we will see change. Members of the PSG — the Progressive Senate Group — are inspired by the Algonquin word “mamidosewin,” which means “meeting place” and “walking together.” I am so honoured to be walking together with Senator Audette.

Honourable senators, please join me in congratulating Senator Audette for this recognition. Félicitations, mon amie. For all your hard work, tshinashkumitin.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. I don’t know what the status is of the considerations around these issues. The sanctions regime that has been put in place has been used effectively by this government in a number of settings, as you know and as I’ve reported in previous Question Periods. It is a process that is informed by input from various instances, security agencies and others. I’ll make inquiries, senator, and try to get an answer as quickly as I can.

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.

Senator Gold: Well, many of the premises, assumptions and assertions in your question are simply false, and I am not going to take the time to catalogue them.

The process of appointing senators — and the senators that were appointed according to that process — is a fair, open and transparent one. It has provided a diversity of views, backgrounds, expertise and perspectives unparalleled in the history of this Senate. If it is true that we are still embarked upon a slow and sometimes painful progress towards a more effective, efficient and less partisan Senate, it is not because of the imputations you made yesterday and again today of interference in this Senate by the government or the Prime Minister’s Office, whether it’s with regard to Speaker’s rulings and interpretation of the Rules.

Let us be clear. You are entitled, and I respect the position of the opposition. You know I do, and I said so publicly long before I took this position. I also respect facts, and I respect the fact — and these are facts on the ground — that we are serving Canadians well in this Senate, and it is thanks in no small measure to the devotion of the people sitting here, regardless of who appointed them.

[Translation]

Senator Plett: Would Senator Quinn take a question?

Senator MacDonald: Just once. Just once.

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

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Plett, you have quoted me extensively, and I thank you for supporting my initiative to protect children from pornographic content.

However, since this is a public debate, I would like to set the record straight. As you know, beyond this amendment, Bill S-210 is being introduced today in the House of Commons by Conservative member Karen Vecchio, who you know well. Both of us are hopeful that this bill —

[English]

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: 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?

Senator Carignan: I have no problem asking for five more minutes if Senator Miville-Dechêne would like to ask me a question, because she seemed to have one.