Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Of course, the government considered all relevant constitutional positions, doctrines and interpretations, and those of leading experts. I’m pleased that you mentioned the late Professor MacDonald. He was a colleague and a friend, as was the late Peter Hogg.

I’m not going to repeat the analysis that Senator Cotter provided. I agree with him. It is 100% clear that the ancillary doctrine only applies in the context of federal legislation under a federal legislative power. The spending power does not give Parliament the ability to legislate, and so the ancillary doctrine, therefore, does not apply. Though it is true that constitutional doctrines evolve, this one hasn’t. This one has been clearly established for decades and decades and is independent of whether or not cooperative federalism or the understanding of it ebbs and flows.

I could go on at great length. The arguments have been made. The government considered it. I believe the government made the correct decision with regard to the constitutionality. I’m also confident that the government, in its negotiations with the provinces and territories, and that the provinces and territories, in negotiations with private companies, will do the right thing by way of protecting those persons receiving benefits under this important program.

Senator Gold: It’s an important question. This initiative was only launched a few months ago, in February 2023. I imagine it is somewhat premature to fully evaluate the initiative. The government remains fully committed to working, listening to feedback and continuing on improving the services that are offered to Indigenous persons and organizations across this country generally and through this program.

Senator Gold: I have resisted, and I will continue to resist, being sucked into these kinds of simplistic and partisan talking points. The short answer is that this is not a serious response to a global environmental and economic crisis. The country would be served better — at least in this chamber, if not in the other place — with serious policy alternatives instead of simply repeating talking points for the benefit of your Twitter feed.

Senator Gold: I’ll answer that frankly and with all due respect for the Speaker: No, it doesn’t happen to me often, and every time it does, I own up.

[English]

Senator Gold: My responses to your earlier question and to this question are not responses to “partisanship.” It’s simply to provide an accurate economic analysis. The fact is that mortgage rates are a function of not only interest rates but also house prices or the amount that one pays.

Canadians are suffering with higher interests rates and facing challenges with affordable housing, but as I have said on many occasions, that is a function of many factors that have nothing to do with the government’s monetary or fiscal policy.

The government has provided assistance to individuals in this country and is providing support for the building of more low-cost housing. It is simply incorrect to attribute the increasing share which Canadians unfortunately have to pay to sustain their mortgages to government spending alone. It is a function of far more market forces and others than anyone can fairly see.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: I’ll answer that frankly and with all due respect for the Chair: No, it doesn’t happen to me often, and every time it does, I own up.

Senator Gold: I’ll answer that frankly and with all due respect for the Chair: No, it doesn’t happen to me often, and every time it does, I own up.

[English]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-6(1)(f), I move that the bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading later this day.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. Respectfully, the government is not of the view that its spending has, in fact, had those results. Paul Vieira reported that the economists at Desjardins Securities were quite clear in their analysis of the budget that the spending announced in the budget was not especially inflationary.

It is true that Canadians are suffering from high mortgage costs and high interest rates. This is a function of factors that go far beyond the government’s spending. Again, in the interest of respecting that my answers be short, I will refrain from citing all the examples that Mr. Vieira cited of why the economy of Canada is on a very sustainable and good track, despite the problems.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for that question, which gives me an opportunity to set the record straight. I said, in answer to your question, that I had set the record straight, and the record was set straight in the press. In your question, you indicated that we had received an extradition request. However, as I explained to reporters, and as was published, that was not in fact the case. It was my fault. I misspoke.

[English]

To the chamber, I apologize.

[Translation]

In fact, France has not sent an extradition request to Canada. Canada has not received an extradition request. There has been no extradition request yet. As such, Canada cannot make a decision.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. As I understand it, the navigator is meant to help connect Indigenous businesses and owners, Indigenous organizations and communities with programs and services that exist across many different departments and agencies of the federal government. Quite a number of those agencies are participating, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions; indeed, there are over a dozen. They can be found easily.

They cover the span of this country and focus on economic development, women and gender equality and the like. The navigator process can be initiated by emailing navigator@sac-isc.gc.ca, providing certain details for one’s business community organization and information will be transmitted.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for bringing the chamber’s attention back to the important issue of supporting healthy eating habits for everyone, including children, which we dealt with in the past.

With regard to the code you mentioned, I have been advised the code would only apply to its members, and only on a voluntary basis. While many of Canada’s food and beverage industry stakeholders are members of the signatory associations, I understand the code would not apply to a large number of small- and medium-sized enterprises as well as some large retailers and companies. Instead of adopting a voluntary code that may or may not apply to a given industry member, Health Canada issued a policy update two months ago — in April 2023 — with regard to restricting the advertising of food and beverages to children, starting with the advertising on television and in digital media. I have been advised that this policy update, which is the first step in the drafting of regulations, was informed by extensive consultations with the industry and partners between 2016 and 2019.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question, senator. I suspect this information is not readily available — I certainly don’t have it — as persons with disabilities may have multiple sources of income, including from various private insurance providers.

I would reiterate to this chamber the government’s commitment to lifting Canadians out of poverty by assuring their basic needs, such as safe and affordable housing, healthy food and health care, are provided for. The government’s commitment to individual dignity is a key pillar in Canada’s First Poverty Reduction Strategy, which the government first released back in 2018.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you very much for bringing attention to Canada’s first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, which was announced earlier this year. It is supported, as senators may know, by an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. Regarding the distribution of the funds, up to $1.4 billion may go to the provinces and territories through the bilateral agreements that are being negotiated. Further details, including details with regard to your question on the issue of sickle cell anemia, will be announced as the negotiations move forward.

With regard to your other question, senator, my understanding is that the national strategy reflects extensive consultations that garnered diverse perspectives from over 650 individuals and organizations, including patients with lived experiences, family members and caregivers. If it turns out, senator, that, for some reason or another, the interests of those representing sickle cell anemia have not been consulted, please let my office know, and I will make every effort to connect them with the appropriate person.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you. Without parsing how you characterized my answer — because I think it was somewhat incorrect — as I have said many times before, the price on pollution is an important tool in this government’s efforts to slow down climate change, as well as to help mitigate the ravages that we are increasingly experiencing, not only in every corner of our country, but also in this world.

Your question makes me also reflect on the recent ceremony, to which I referred, of the raising of the Survivors’ Flag. What is the link? Person after person, and Indigenous leader and survivor after Indigenous leader and survivor — the answer is clearly “no,” Senator Housakos.

I will take the liberty of reminding us of this: It is not simply government policy that is attempting to mitigate the crisis. This is a responsibility that we have. We are borrowing this land from our grandchildren, as was said. We have a responsibility, and the government is doing its part. Yes, taxes and rising costs are a challenge for Canadians. The government has stepped up and is helping Canadians, and it is doing so in a responsible and fiscally prudent way. The art of governing is the art of making important choices, and dealing with more than one subject at a time — this government is on track to do precisely that.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): It is an important question. I’m not seized with the details of the negotiations; they vary from province to province and territory to territory. As we know, health is an exclusively provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government is providing funds. The provinces have happily agreed to share data. Beyond that, the Government of Canada has not purported to tell the provinces how to spend their money out of respect for their jurisdiction and for their particular needs. Again, I encourage those stakeholders to work with their associations, and their provincial governments, to put that on the table so that the available funds can be used properly and effectively. Thank you.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you very much for bringing attention to Canada’s first-ever national strategy for drugs for rare diseases, which was announced earlier this year. It is supported, as senators may know, by an investment of up to $1.5 billion over three years. Regarding the distribution of the funds, up to $1.4 billion may go to the provinces and territories through the bilateral agreements that are being negotiated. Further details, including details with regard to your question on the issue of sickle cell anemia, will be announced as the negotiations move forward.

With regard to your other question, senator, my understanding is that the national strategy reflects extensive consultations that garnered diverse perspectives from over 650 individuals and organizations, including patients with lived experiences, family members and caregivers. If it turns out, senator, that, for some reason or another, the interests of those representing sickle cell anemia have not been consulted, please let my office know, and I will make every effort to connect them with the appropriate person.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question. You raise an important point.

We know the government is actively involved in communicating the opportunities for investors to invest in Canada in these initiatives. Minister Champagne is well known for the energy with which he approaches his task and the success he has reached, but it’s true across government.

The important point that you raise about communication both to businesses abroad and to Canadians is well taken. There is consultation with stakeholders, the public and the affected governments on the design of each of these programs. As projects are being contemplated, those conversations continue. Awareness campaigns may and will be undertaken for new, specific instances.

Having said that, I agree with you that clear and sustained communication to Canadians and abroad is important to the success of this, as it is for any initiative.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): I certainly will. I’m so sorry to hear what your niece had to go through. Thank goodness that she survived the ordeal.

I certainly will do everything I can to bring this to the minister’s attention.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate) moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, the Senate do not insist on its amendments with which the House of Commons disagrees; and

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

He said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the message on Bill C-18.

Just last week, the Senate adopted this key piece of legislation to support Canadian journalism with a dozen amendments. The bill returns to us from the other place with support for most of those changes. Today, I am proposing that the Senate accept the other place’s position in response to the Senate’s amendments and bring the online news act to Royal Assent.

Before turning to the message from the other place, I’d like to reflect on the situation facing journalism and how we have come to this point. This is a critical moment for journalism in Canada. Despite the tenacity and commitment of the witnesses we have heard here, we have painted a worrying picture of our nation’s news industry. Local newspapers are disappearing across the country. Canadian journalists are losing their jobs. We have heard devastating news from Bell Media in recent days. This can have long-term impacts on the Canadian news media ecosystem and on Canadian democracy.

We all lose if Canadian news businesses are starved to the point where they can no longer produce high-quality journalism. When no one is there to report on democratic institutions and to counter the growing wave of disinformation, citizens suffer the consequences. Every day brings new evidence of this phenomenon worldwide. The message we have heard from these stakeholders is clear: The time to act is now.

Colleagues, it’s clear that the internet has changed how Canadians get their news as they turn toward social media, apps and aggregators.

Canadian news businesses have pivoted to adapt their content to digital media but they are operating in a world where a handful of large players have an inordinate amount of power over how online content is accessed.

These large digital platforms have used their outsized market power to make news content available without compensating news organizations. Platforms claim that news has little to no value. But data shows us that Canadians rely heavily on social media to access news: 55% of Canadians use social media to find their news.

Platforms claim that they are providing a service to news businesses by making their content available to online audiences. But platforms are the ones who reap the benefits from monetizing Canadians’ access by selling user data, or targeted ads based on that data, to advertisers.

Colleagues, at the same time, I do not deny that news organizations benefit from their content being shared on digital platforms. Canadians across this country use these digital spaces to access information, exchange ideas, connect with each other and create content that reflects their unique experiences. Such spaces have the potential to strengthen our democracy by promoting foundational values such as freedom of expression. The problem lies not in the technology, but in the power imbalance between the platforms and everyone else.

Honourable senators, we have heard platforms and their proponents argue that any regulation that challenges their business model is a threat to the internet and free speech itself. We know that platform services are not the internet and free speech is not a product sold by an online platform or a search engine. Dr. Winseck, who testified here last month, estimates that in 2021 Google’s advertising revenue in Canada alone was $4.9 billion. Meta’s was $4 billion. This represents 80% of the online advertising market in Canada. Bill C-18 is a necessary response to these platforms’ dominant market position.

For Canada’s news industry, the numbers stand in stark contrast to the $9 billion in advertising revenue I just mentioned. Since 2008, close to 500 news media outlets have closed in 335 communities across Canada and more than 20,000 Canadian journalists have lost their jobs.

Throughout our study of the bill, we have heard first-person accounts from stakeholders that add a human dimension to these numbers. News businesses large and small are cutting back on journalists. Newsrooms are shrinking down to the bare bones or closing altogether. Students are turning away from careers in journalism. News deserts are multiplying as communities across the country lose their local papers. Under these pressures, many of the stories that Canadians want to hear are simply not being told.

Despite being a pillar of a functional democracy, reliable journalism has never been easy to finance. And today, as always, committed publishers, broadcasters, journalists and editors continue to find creative ways to produce quality journalism. But all the innovation and business chops in the world will not help when news organizations are not operating on a level playing field.

The situation is untenable. Reasonable intervention is needed before players can meet on even ground. Senators showed their support for this legislation last week in a vote of 51 to 23.

Our colleagues in the other place have now returned the bill to us, recognizing the work that we did and accepting almost all the amendments we made. Thanks to the diligent work of us here in the Senate, the bill before us today is a better bill.

[Translation]

The other place supported several of the amendments regarding the definition of “news outlet” in the bill. An amendment proposed by Senator Cormier adds references to “Indigenous news outlets” and “official language minority community news outlets,” while another amendment proposed by Senator Simons removes specific examples of what could be considered news content. The other place also accepted an amendment proposed by Senator Clement, with the support of the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, which makes the definition of “news content” less specific with regard to Indigenous media.

Senator Cormier’s definitions of “official language minority community” and “official language minority community news outlet” were also accepted by the other place.

The other place also accepted an amendment proposed by Senator Cormier that sought to create a separate category for agreements with official language minority community news outlets as part of the exemption criteria for platforms. Two technical amendments were adopted as a result.

[English]

Senator Dasko’s proposal, which aims to provide clarity with respect to the designation of news organizations by request from news organizations themselves, was also accepted.

The other place also supported the proposal by Senator Clement to create a distinct reporting category within the independent auditor reports to understand the impact of this legislation on Indigenous news outlets, outlets that serve local and regional markets, outlets that serve Black and other racialized communities and outlets that serve official language minority communities.

The other place further accepted a technical amendment that I presented at committee, which would ensure that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission can impose conditions on members of the arbitration panel regarding the disclosure of confidential information and that the panel members know their obligations as it relates to such confidential information. Many witnesses had raised the importance of protecting commercially sensitive information throughout the negotiation process.

Finally, the other place supported an amendment proposed by Senator Miville-Dechêne to put a tripwire in place to bring the full regime into force within six months after Royal Assent.

There is, however, one point on which the other place has respectfully disagreed with us, with reasons articulated in their message. They have done so following a robust and vigorous debate in a minority parliament. Their decision is clear, informed and carefully considered, and I am asking this chamber to concur.

The amendment in question aims to narrow the scope of negotiation between news businesses and platforms by specifying that the deals must be based on the “value derived” by both parties. The amendment would then require parties to assign monetary value to news content. It would have an effect of attributing value through negotiations.

As noted by the sponsor of the bill, Senator Harder, by narrowing the scope of the negotiation process to determine the value exchanged between the two parties, this amendment would result in negotiations less favourable to the media and contrary to the objectives of the bill. As currently drafted, the legislation already requires that if parties cannot agree and reach the stage of final offer arbitration, the arbitration panel must look at an array of factors.

Indeed, the bill provides great leeway for parties to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement during the negotiation and mediation process. When an arbitration panel intervenes as a solution of last resort, its decision must be based on the following factors: the monetary and non-monetary value added to the news content in question, the benefits that each party derives from the content being made available on the platform as well as the bargaining imbalance between the parties. Colleagues, as you can see, this approach allows the parties to negotiate over elements that go beyond financial compensation.

The amendment that was not retained by the other place constrains this process. It may introduce challenges related to the determination of fair market value. It may be interpreted in a way that is less favourable to news organizations and that would result in significantly reduced compensation for the outlets.

Stakeholders have raised these concerns, and I believe these concerns bear repeating. For example, Paul Deegan, the CEO of News Media Canada, which represents 560 titles, said the following:

The amendment would limit the ability of news publishers to negotiate fair compensation with dominant platforms. Value will be determined during negotiations.

Similarly, Pierre-Elliott Levasseur, the President of La Presse, indicated:

This amendment would tie one hand behind our back and hamstring us in negotiations with the platforms that enjoy a massive power imbalance over news publishers. The majority of media outlets in Canada have tried to get deals with Facebook and Google, only to have the door slammed in their faces. This is particularly true in Quebec, where La Presse, the Quebecor titles and the Hebdos have all been left out in the cold. This amendment benefits the platforms at the expense of publishers.

Our colleagues in the other place note that the new clause would govern what is supposed to be a free negotiation process more restrictively than the end game of final offer arbitration. The other place’s decision to reject this amendment is based on its conclusion that including this language could constrain both parties by limiting the amount and form of compensation that platforms award news businesses early on in the bargaining process, a stage when parties should have the most flexibility.

[Translation]

Colleagues, with the online news act, we’ve come up with a made-in-Canada solution that offers a clear path forward. Bill C-18 requires news businesses and platforms to sit down at the negotiating table to determine fair compensation for online news content. It allows news businesses to form collective bargaining associations so that news businesses of all sizes are included in the negotiation process. The bill also requires platforms to enter into agreements with a range of news businesses reflecting the diversity of Canadian journalism. If the two parties fail to reach a fair agreement, the bill gives the CRTC the power to facilitate a final offer arbitration process.

Some will argue that existing agreements between platforms and news businesses make the passage of Bill C-18 unnecessary. We know full well that the platforms only began entering into agreements with certain publishers in Canada when the government indicated it was going to act. In the absence of a transparent accountability framework such as Bill C-18, agreements are subject to the whims of the platforms and could expire without being renewed.

It is up to us to keep pressuring the platforms to bring them to the negotiating table. Bill C-18 gives us a way to do that. It also guarantees more Canadian news businesses a seat at the negotiating table, instead of a handful of privileged media companies chosen by the platforms.

[English]

International momentum to regulate online platforms that make news available is growing. In addition to Canada and Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are putting forward comparable legislation. Just last week, our friends on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary voted to advance the bipartisan Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. Although each case is different, with lawmakers considering different approaches, a clear trend is emerging. The reality is that Bill C-18 is part of a bigger global trend to hold tech giants to account.

Colleagues, we all know Bill C-18 will not be a silver bullet, but it will level the playing field. It will check the power of the most dominant digital platforms, and it will empower even small news businesses to get fair compensation for the valuable news content they create for Canadians.

News media stakeholders across the board have signalled the urgency of passing Bill C-18, a piece of legislation that will not only save Canadian jobs and businesses but support Canadian democracy by ensuring that diverse Canadian news media can keep covering our institutions and our decision makers.

Governments and people around the world are waiting to see what happens in Canada. As I’ve described, some countries are already regulating the big tech platforms to ensure the sustainability of their own news industries. Will we, in Canada, have the courage to do the same? I hope the answer to that question will be a resounding “yes.”

I urge honourable senators to accept the message from the other place and pass Bill C-18. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, it’s that time of year, finally.

In recent months, we have all worked together to achieve significant progress on key government legislation. This week alone, 11 government bills will have received Royal Assent. That includes important pieces of legislation ranging from measures to make life more affordable to Canadians to ones advancing reconciliation. With the passage of Bill C-13, we have achieved the most substantive update to the Official Languages Act in more than 50 years. With Bill C-41, we have facilitated humanitarian aid in Afghanistan as well as other places under terrorist control. With Bill S-8, we have banned sanctioned foreign nationals from Canada, notably ensuring that individuals and entities sanctioned in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are inadmissible to Canada.

The Senate has also strengthened legislation with amendments that have followed from in-depth study at committee and in the chamber. Although not all Senate amendments were supported by our elected colleagues in the other place, many have now been solidified in law. For example, Bill C-18, known as the online news act, will shortly receive Royal Assent with key Senate improvements. Canadian journalism will now have much-needed support with the creation of a framework for digital platforms to enter into voluntary commercial agreements with the news organizations whose content is posted on their sites.

The Senate also strengthened Bill C-9, which replaces the process through which the conduct of federally appointed judges is reviewed by the Canadian Judicial Council. This law establishes a new process for reviewing allegations of misconduct in cases that do not warrant a judge’s removal from office.

I have no doubt that senators will continue to study bills with passion and expertise when the Senate resumes its sitting in the fall.

To my colleague in the GRO, Senator LaBoucane-Benson, Patti, I owe you a huge debt of gratitude for playing double duty these past few weeks. You took on the role of legislative deputy with aplomb and enthusiasm in May while continuing to do your fabulous work as government liaison. Your skill is obvious, and your dedication is, without exception, unparalleled. Your friendship is really appreciated. Thank you.

[Translation]

To our small but mighty team in the Government Representative Office: The long hours that you spend conducting research, giving advice and doing advocacy work on a wide range of subjects are essential to our team.

I would like to pay special tribute to Ginette Tremblay from Grandpré, our director of operations, who will be taking a well‑deserved retirement at the end of the month, after a long career in the public service.

Ginette joined my office when I was first appointed to the Senate in 2016. The learning curve was steep, but thanks to Ginette and her experience, dedication and wisdom, I quickly became comfortable in my new role as senator.

Thank you so much, Ginette.

To our Speaker, dear Raymonde, I want to once again congratulate you on your new responsibilities. It was a bittersweet moment when you left our GRO team after three years of commitment and support as the legislative coordinator. Your spirit of cooperation, determination, diplomacy and friendship will be very useful in your new role as Speaker of the Senate. Thank you so much.

[English]

To my colleagues in leadership — Don Plett, Raymonde Saint‑Germain, Jane Cordy, Scott Tannas — we didn’t always agree on which bills should be prioritized and at what pace we should advance them, but the record shows clearly that we managed to move important parliamentary business forward. We did so because we worked collaboratively in the interests of Canadians — each and every one of you, and your teams that support you. I’m very grateful to you all. Thank you.

I want to extend my sincere thanks to the clerks, pages, interpreters, reporters, client service officers, Senate Administration staff and Parliamentary Protective Service officers for your various roles in making this chamber and our committees run smoothly.

[Translation]

To all senators and everyone working behind the scenes to keep the Senate operating, and to your families who support you, I wish you a wonderful summer with your family members, friends and everyone you hold dear.

[English]

Finally, to my dear wife, Nancy, who has been so patient with me through the long hours that I spent in the Senate this spring and during the many years I have been here, I say thank you. I recall that when George Furey swore me in, along with Marie‑Françoise Mégie, he made a point of underlining the burden that this job puts on partners and spouses. I know it’s true for each and every one of you. It has been true in my family as well. Nancy, I couldn’t have done it without you. Thank you very much.

Thank you all very much.