The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In amendment, it was moved by 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”.

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

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Fifteen minutes, honourable senators? Do we have an agreement or not? Since there seems to be no agreement, we will have a 60-minute bell. The vote will take place at 7:06 p.m. Call in the senators.

[English]

Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Plett negatived on the following division:

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Do we have an agreement on a bell?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen:

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Would Senator Carignan take a question?

Hon. Michael L. MacDonald: Honourable senators, I have a few short remarks; I don’t have a prepared speech. I just want to talk about our committee for a few minutes.

When I entered the Senate in January 2009, it was the Thirty‑ninth Parliament, and I was immediately appointed to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, which I really loved. I eventually became the deputy chair. When Senator Dawson was chair and I was deputy chair, and Senator Dawson had to spend time getting medical treatment, I was acting chair for over a year and I eventually became chair of the committee. I was chair of the committee until this Parliament, so I miss the committee and I have had a long history with it.

I must say I followed the deliberations of Bill C-11 closely — from a distance, but I still followed it closely.

I do want to congratulate the committee, the chair and all of the people on the committee for the great work they did. One of the things that we pride ourselves on in the Senate is the quality of our committee work, and I think that the committee work on Bill C-11 is another example of how strong our committee work is. The fact that the House had to adopt 19 amendments is illustrative of how slack the work was in the other chamber and how thorough our work was. I want to acknowledge the great work that was done.

When I proposed putting amendment 3 in — and insisting upon it — I knew that we had done a great job of listening to the people who spoke to the committee. That’s one of the great strengths of the Senate committees: We listen to people. When we sent those amendments back to the House, we proved to the government, the public and especially to the people who came to speak to us that we were listening. I was hoping that — in this rare time — we would insist on this amendment because listening is one thing, but we should also have shown the public that we were willing to fight for what we believe in.

What would have happened if it had gone back? Would it have been delayed for a few days? It would have been back here. We wouldn’t have played Ping-Pong with this forever. I think we’re missing an opportunity. A friend of mine once said to me — and I think there’s a lot of truth in it — “When you’re a senator, it gives you something very rare in politics. It gives you the opportunity to be brave, if you want to be.” I know it’s hard to fight the system. I know it’s hard to stick your neck out sometimes. In the future, going forward, I want us to keep this in mind: Being a senator gives us the opportunity to be brave and to take an extra step. It’s one thing to listen and support — we took the message, and we sent it to the House — but it’s also very important to fight for the things you believe in. I want to remind all of us of that. Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of our former Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the Parliaments, Mr. Gary O’Brien.

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

Hon. Marty Deacon: Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Senator MacDonald. I’ll start by saying that your amendment and your comments on talking and courage are extremely important and compelling — and both have been part of my big challenge in decision making regarding this bill, so thank you.

I’m going to speak very briefly this evening. I’m in absolutely no rush to repeat what we have heard over the past year in committee, in our communities, in this chamber, in the other place or in the media. It has been a challenge to decipher what is real, true and accurate — and what is not.

As senators, we are not — and cannot be — the experts of everything. Instead, we need to be informed, listen closely and ask for clarification from a variety of sources. I thank the experts and the stakeholders that we have all heard from on this, both in committee and in our offices, with a variety of perspectives.

Colleagues, though I don’t sit on the committee that looked at Bill C-11, I followed the committee work, read and reread the transcripts and asked questions where I could right up until this moment. When I stepped off of the plane in Ottawa on Monday, I was still unsure about how I would vote on this bill. I share this because our job, as I see it, is to know as best we can what this bill will do, as well as the impact it will have on Canadians as individuals and as a country. My job is not to cheerlead a bill through to Royal Assent because the government wishes it to be. It has been clear to me since that first call from the Prime Minister informing me of my impending appointment that if the wishes are for true independence, there will be many days when we disagree. My voting record demonstrates this.

From my perspective, the bill, while deeply vetted, still falls short in some areas. Bill C-11 will not leave everybody happy — legislation rarely does. But this bill, for me, is a strong reminder, again, of what our role is as senators, and what our role is not.

The legislation in all of its iterations has been served second thought, third thought, fourth sober thought and then some. This message that I have just shared with you is proof that we did all we could to make it better. We’ve seen this, whether it has been debate on this bill directly or yesterday evening’s debate on the procedure around this bill.

Like Senator Housakos said last night, debate is so important in the Senate; it’s more important, frankly, than these scripted speeches and statements that we make at times. Last night, in a time of very divergent thinking and emotion, I was very proud to be a senator. At midnight, with a full chamber, we could all see the passion, the presence and the purpose of our collective work and desires. The will to act and the will to speak are both based on conviction and courage. I was reminded, again, of how important this is at every moment and juncture in our work. Even at that later hour, many of us lingered following adjournment — continuing discussions we had heard or had been part of in the hours earlier in order to clarify and recognize very different opinions. Even then, I was still working through my decision on this bill.

I woke up very early this morning, grabbed an umbrella and walked the streets of Ottawa. Through the solitude and quiet of the rain, I decided that, yes, I will vote in favour of this message before us because of what I have just mentioned.

On this, we’ve had dialogue at every level for a very long time. While it’s not exactly what I hope for it to look like, I can live with it — not with a pushover attitude, but in hopes that we monitor and keep our eye on this. I think we should be proud of the work that has been done on this legislation through the hard work of many of you in this chamber. It has made this bill better.

My final thought — and it’s probably my dominating thought — is that this bill must be well monitored for its intended and unintended circumstances. Senators, since I arrived, we have not done well on our commitment to review bills as stipulated in legislation. I do ask about this often during Question Period, and we simply have to do better.

Senators, I support this message, and I support Bill C-11, but I insist that we keep our eyes and ears open as this bill comes to life. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Before I enter into the crux of the debate, I want to share with colleagues that in my long time in this institution, there’s no piece of legislation that’s been more important than this one. It’s important because I find that, as senators, we have an obligation to pay homage to the past and to fight for the present, but we also have responsibility in defending the future. This bill touches a young generation of Canadians particularly, and touches upon how we will be dealing with information going forward.

I’ll say this before I enter into the crux of the bill, as well as the issue and my concerns with it, government leader. There’s been accusations back and forth about partisanship in this particular debate. I’ll tell you this: The people that I’m fighting for have been traditional Liberal voters. The people that came before my committee — the stakeholders that I met — are young Canadians who don’t fit the stereotype of your typical Conservative voters. These are people who voted for the Liberal Party in 2015, 2019 and 2021, and they feel betrayed and concerned. These are the people that I’m fighting for.

Bill C-11, without a doubt in my mind, opens the door to censorship. The government has, of course, made a bunch of justifications that they’re doing this in order to align traditional broadcasters with digital platforms. I’ve said on a number of occasions that digital platforms are not broadcasters.

We keep hearing about protecting Canadian content, but the reality of the matter is that Bill C-11 hardly dealt with Canadian content — other than the fact that we give a mandate to the CRTC to decide unilaterally what that Canadian content will be, which raises concerns from coast to coast to coast.

Colleagues, I’ll say it again and again: I understand the importance of this legislation to certain unions, associations and legacy media who are struggling as the entertainment industry evolves and as digital platforms continue to take up more space. We know that. We know that traditional broadcasting is in decline and we know that their business models are facing risk of extinction.

I understand the desire for regulations to bring foreign streaming companies that behave like broadcasters — like Netflix and Prime — in line with other domestic broadcasters, and to make sure the Canada Media Fund and others get their cut and continue to be the gatekeepers who get to decide who becomes successful and who doesn’t. Keep in mind, though, colleagues, that it’s our responsibility in this institution to be fair.

Organizations like the Canada Media Fund — and, for that matter, the Canadian treasury — have benefited enormously from Canadian digital-first content producers in this country, because it’s an industry that is exploding. Unlike traditional broadcasters, those Canadians are making hefty contributions to the Canadian government. Yet, this bill is going to allow the gatekeepers and these giant traditional broadcasters to feed at the trough while there’s absolutely no accommodation for other Canadians. I don’t consider that fair.

I also understand the government’s desire to protect this paternalistic and antiquated system. However, I do not think that is our responsibility as senators. User-generated content will end up regulated by all means necessary, including algorithm manipulation. That is a fact under this bill. This puts the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Canadian digital creators at risk because of what it will do to their global rankings. That is what algorithms will do.

Someone at the CRTC or some bureaucrat at Canadian Heritage will determine whether their ranking should be at the top or bottom, based on whatever criteria the CRTC and bureaucrats decide — instead of having an open market where Canadians can choose for themselves what is a priority. I don’t think that choice and putting customers ahead of bureaucratic decisions are bad things.

These are creators, by the way. I keep saying “digital-first creators” and “user-generated content.” This is not some kind of techie, far-off concept. These are young Canadians, people from across the country — creators who have embraced the world of opportunities that has been opened up for them because of the internet. They haven’t needed or wanted government intervention. Quite the contrary; these people were happily going about their business and all of a sudden there’s a bill that raises deep concerns for them.

It is a noble thing to want to protect and promote Canadian culture. I have no issue with that. Who would? I’m not here to dispute that and I take no issue with the need to modernize the Broadcasting Act. However, colleagues, these young streamers and bloggers are part of the reason the Canadian cultural industry is exploding, both economically and artistically. We’ve seen Canada punch above its weight. Over and over again, I’ve seen statistics indicating that all of a sudden francophone streamers and bloggers are expanding their horizons. Instead of a limited francophone market of 7 or 8 million, all of a sudden at their feet is a market of hundreds of millions to which they can promote Canadian culture.

Why would we want to limit that? As the rest of the world is going global, Canada will become parochial and short-sighted. We will try to attach to the digital world antiquated solutions to cultural protection. These solutions were useful in the 1970s and 1980s, when the broadcasting industry was very different, but they don’t apply today.

Look around at our children and grandchildren. They’re no longer using cable. On a regular basis, they consume information from around the world. More importantly, they’re exporting around the world Canada and all the greatness of Canada. We’ve seen a boom in the tourist industry in this country. People from all corners of the world want to go to Banff and Quebec City. We’ve seen this explosion in tourism in large part because of digital platforms.

Artists, actors, writers, producers and directors are busier in 2023 than ever before. The biggest injection of cash in our cultural industry is no longer to Telefilm Canada or from legislation that we pass here in terms of budgets from the federal government. Why? It is because we can’t keep up. In today’s world, it costs billions of dollars to produce films and documentaries. Netflix and other international streaming companies are investing billions in Canada. Why? Because we happen to be a great place to invest. It’s cheap to produce films here and we have beautiful locations.

More important are the Canadian human resources and talent. Why would we want to hinder that talent? Why wouldn’t we want to unleash it and compete with the world? Canadians can compete. Have faith in Canadians.

An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.

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

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

And two honourable senators having risen:

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising, asking for a standing vote.

Honourable senators, it’s after 5:30 p.m. Pursuant to rule 7-4(5)(c), the standing vote is automatically deferred to 5:30 p.m. on the next sitting day of the Senate, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.

(At 7:54 p.m., pursuant to rule 7-4(6) and the order adopted by the Senate on September 21, 2022, the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising, asking for a standing vote.

Honourable senators, it’s after 5:30 p.m. Pursuant to rule 7-4(5)(c), the standing vote is automatically deferred to 5:30 p.m. on the next sitting day of the Senate, with the bells to ring at 5:15 p.m.

(At 7:54 p.m., pursuant to rule 7-4(6) and the order adopted by the Senate on September 21, 2022, the Senate adjourned until 2 p.m., tomorrow.)

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

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: All those opposed will please say “nay.”