Hon. Brent Cotter: Honourable senators, it’s a pleasure to be here. I’ll be mercifully brief today.

With respect to Bill C-51, let me begin by thanking Chief Darcy Bear, Chief of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, and Councillors Dwayne Eagle and Frank Royal, who came to Ottawa to appear before our committee and meet with senators, enabling us to celebrate with them the achievements of this bill. Also a thank you to their policy adviser Murray Long, who joined them in that work and in their appearances both here and in the other place at committee. Also, congratulations and thanks to Minister Miller and his staff and to Federal Negotiations Manager Aayah Shadad and her team. Some of you were able to participate in briefings on this bill from Ms. Shadad. I was as well. They provided outstanding and insightful explanations of the bill to those of us who attended. I also want to extend thanks to each of you for agreeing to expedite consideration of this important bill. It means a lot to the people of Whitecap Dakota and it means a lot to Canadians, I think.

Briefly, to highlight the self-government treaty again, it does essentially three things. First, it brings Whitecap Dakota into the fold of Aboriginal peoples, pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act — a long-standing and unfair oversight to this First Nation and to a few others who are in the same category of essentially refugees from the United States, as you will recall, from a few hundred years ago. Second, it changes the official name of the First Nation to the Whitecap Dakota Nation; and, third, as a result of the name change, it enables them to transition out from under most aspects of the Indian Act.

This is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, but you should be aware that the Government of Saskatchewan — and the nation is located in Saskatchewan, just south of Saskatoon — does not oppose this agreement. In fact, there is a whole series of additional bilateral agreements between the First Nation and the Government of Saskatchewan that facilitate the effectiveness of the self‑government agreement.

Chief Bear described this at the hearings yesterday. This has always been a concern for many First Nations, namely, being able to enforce their own bylaws or band laws. The RCMP, for a variety of reasons, have been unwilling to do that in Saskatchewan in relation to Whitecap Dakota. However, there is an arrangement with the provincial government where they will make available community safety officers, who have law enforcement powers — not quite as enriched as policing powers but significant ones — and will provide that service. Those partnership agreements with the province are making possible this agreement not only to be lawful and meaningful but also to be highly effective, I think. That’s to the credit of Chief Bear and his team and also the Government of Saskatchewan.

Furthermore, this agreement helps to unlock what Senator Klyne was speaking about, namely, the power of this nation to be able to govern itself effectively. You heard the story about its successes over the last 30 years. This will continue the nation on that progress. Indeed, Chief Bear used the phrase, “This will make it possible for us to operate at the speed of business.” That’s a lovely phrase when you think about it. I think all of you have some, maybe deep, understanding of the way in which the Indian Act and various other colonial constraints have put handcuffs on First Nations who are keen to make both social and economic progress on behalf of their people.

My sense is that this orientation, a can-do attitude, an entrepreneurial spirit — all in the interests of the citizens of Whitecap Dakota — is exactly what can be achieved by acting on a commitment to reconciliation, to moving away from a century‑plus approach based on the imposition of colonial values and policies and a century-plus paternalistic attitude which the Indian Act tends to generate.

Adopting this bill will be a way of actualizing reconciliation for the Whitecap Dakota Nation and also a model of optimism for other First Nations and for Canada as a whole. I hope that you will support this bill and that we’ll be able to move it into actuality so that it can come into force in September, as planned.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation / Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

First, I want to send my best wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery to Chief Darcy Bear, who suffered a medical emergency at committee last night. I was encouraged to hear that Chief Bear, though hospitalized overnight, seems to be doing well.

It was a frightening moment for all concerned, I’m sure, and a reminder to all of us that life is delicate and time is precious. It also pleases me to know that the committee kept its wits last night and finished the necessary work on Bill C-51, a landmark piece of legislation that is long overdue and that Chief Bear has been so instrumental in bringing to fruition.

As he said in his opening remarks last night, “it has been a long journey,” and indeed it has, tracing in many ways all the way back to the War of 1812, more than two centuries ago.

As I mentioned the other night and as Minister Miller acknowledged in his remarks to the committee, the specific process leading to the treaty and this bill began in 2009 under the Harper government. Minister Miller, echoing the words of Chief Bear, said that too has been a long process, but to their credit the Whitecap Dakota First Nation used that time to work steadily and relentlessly toward this moment.

As Chief Bear said:

. . . as far as self-government goes, Whitecap First Nation has been, over time, had our own election code, our own First Nation land management code and our own membership code. We eliminated about 35% of the Indian Act already.

That was before the self-government treaty that this bill will bring into law, a law that will add a very important element that has long been missing and is long overdue.

Again, I can do no better than to quote Chief Bear:

. . . when we looked at changing it to a self-government treaty, that was when we talked about the acknowledgment of the Whitecap Dakota people as Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Honourable senators, I am sure you have heard me and other senators complain in the past that this government too often expects us to rush bills through. Bill C-51 is a bill that we only got this week, but we cannot ignore that it has been two centuries in the making and we cannot ignore that with this bill we are righting an historic wrong, and in doing so we have the chance to make history. Thank you.

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation/Wapaha Ska Dakota Oyate and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

First, I want to send my best wishes and hopes for a speedy recovery to Chief Darcy Bear, who suffered a medical emergency at committee last night. I was encouraged to hear that Chief Bear, though hospitalized overnight, seems to be doing well.

It was a frightening moment for all concerned, I’m sure, and a reminder to all of us that life is delicate and time is precious. It also pleases me to know that the committee kept its wits last night and finished the necessary work on Bill C-51, a landmark piece of legislation that is long overdue and that Chief Bear has been so instrumental in bringing to fruition.

As he said in his opening remarks last night, “it has been a long journey,” and indeed it has, tracing in many ways all the way back to the War of 1812, more than two centuries ago.

As I mentioned the other night and as Minister Miller acknowledged in his remarks to the committee, the specific process leading to the treaty and this bill began in 2009 under the Harper government. Minister Miller, echoing the words of Chief Bear, said that too has been a long process, but to their credit the Whitecap Dakota First Nation used that time to work steadily and relentlessly toward this moment.

As Chief Bear said:

. . . as far as self-government goes, Whitecap First Nation has been, over time, had our own election code, our own First Nation land management code and our own membership code. We eliminated about 35% of the Indian Act already.

That was before the self-government treaty that this bill will bring into law, a law that will add a very important element that has long been missing and is long overdue.

Again, I can do no better than to quote Chief Bear:

. . . when we looked at changing it to a self-government treaty, that was when we talked about the acknowledgment of the Whitecap Dakota people as Aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Honourable senators, I am sure you have heard me and other senators complain in the past that this government too often expects us to rush bills through. Bill C-51 is a bill that we only got this week, but we cannot ignore that it has been two centuries in the making and we cannot ignore that with this bill we are righting an historic wrong, and in doing so we have the chance to make history. Thank you.

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

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

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

Hon. Senators: Question.

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. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I want to briefly take part in this debate on Bill C-18 in order to offer some clarification on two of the amendments that I presented and that were rejected by the government.

At this stage, I accept the elected members’ decision, even though I do not accept the justification for this rejection. My role as a senator is to propose legislative changes that seem necessary to me, but I’m not about to lead a one-woman crusade against the will of a majority of MPs. I note, however, that the Senate has three former journalists among its ranks and that, at the end of the day, not one of them supports Bill C-18 in its current form.

I want to clear up any lingering misunderstandings over the amendments that I proposed, which sought to enshrine into law the concept of an exchange of value, monetary or otherwise, between the platforms and the media.

After months of study, consultation and discussion with experts and stakeholders, it became clear to me that there was a flaw in this bill.

It was the witness Konrad von Finckenstein, former chairman of the CRTC and an independent voice, who first brought it to our attention: The bill didn’t specify what had to be negotiated between the media and platforms such as Google and Facebook, resulting in very different expectations on both sides. Mr. von Finckenstein suggested to the committee that the objective of the negotiations be stated in the bill.

Of course, I’m perfectly aware of the imbalance of power between news outlets and internet giants. That’s obvious.

Nonetheless, I believed it was necessary to explicitly state in the bill that the negotiations and the arbitration had to focus on an exchange of value, monetary or otherwise, between the two parties, and not be a wage subsidy for newsrooms.

This didn’t come from me. That is what the government and its spokespersons told us. That is what they stated publicly, and this realistic reference to an exchange of benefits is included in the Australian code, the model on which Canada has mostly based its legislation.

No one, and definitely not Google or Facebook, made me move this amendment. Rather, it is a logical consequence of our debates, our research and the witnesses we heard from.

I won’t deny that I was hoping this clarification — an explicit and pragmatic recognition of the two-way relationship between the media and these platforms — could reduce tension and enable a more constructive dialogue among Facebook and Google, the government, and the media.

What I want most of all, of course, is for quality journalism that’s independent, accessible and financially healthy to continue to exist in Quebec and in Canada so that we, as citizens, can be informed and critical.

That’s one of the requirements for a healthy democracy. In these times of technological change, the fair, equitable, realistic solution isn’t obvious.

As I’ve said, I sincerely hope the government’s gamble will pay off. Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, honourable senators, and Senator Gold, thank you for reordering the Order Paper because I stepped out there briefly, on C-18, but if I knew that all it took for me to delay Bill C-18 was to step out, I wouldn’t have come back. You will all have to bear with me for a few more minutes as I speak on behalf of the opposition on Bill C-18.

Senator Gold — and Senator Harder has said this before — Bill C-18 is not a silver bullet or a magic bullet, but I am afraid that Bill C-18 must be the last bullet that goes into the heart of journalism, which is already in the ICU in this country.

Of course, I am fine with the objectives of Bill C-18. We all understand that journalism is going through a major transformative period, as all industries are in our country because of digital platforms. It is not unique to journalism. The retail industry is going through it. The taxi industry is going through it. Transportation, the way we communicate as politicians with citizens — there has been a major transformation because of these new digital platforms.

Some in the journalism world have transformed very well and are doing very well, and some are not. At the end of the day — as I have said over and over again in previous speeches — there’s The Globe and Mail, there’s Village Media, there’s Western Standard, and the list goes on and on of successful news outlets that have adapted and are using these new highways. And I repeat that digital platforms are not broadcasters and they are not journalists; they are nothing more than the highway that provides the unique opportunity for all these industries to, in a transformative way, reach out to bigger markets.

These platforms have given opportunities to Canadians to expand and sell Canada to the world and also give Canadians a view of the world that was difficult to get before these platforms.

As much as all of us believe in democracy and understand that we need vibrant journalism for democracy to flourish, I also believe the government has no business in the newsrooms of the nation. I don’t care if the government is Conservative or Liberal. We need to have not just robust media, but independent media, without any direct or indirect influence from civil servants, regulators or government officials.

That’s where I part company with the government’s public intention of what they say and what I’m afraid this bill can actually do. I believe, at the end of the day, when this bill is implemented with its regulations and gives complete authority to the CRTC and Canadian Heritage, it will do more damage to media and to newsprint particularly that, like I said, is already in the ICU.

Print media has been suffering now for well over a decade, and the government has waited towards the end of their mandate in government to do anything about it, which in itself raises questions.

I also question the authenticity of this government that has a tradition of standing and supporting the oligarchs and supporting the oligopolies of the broadcasting industry. Minister Rodriguez, the Prime Minister and their government have said time and time again that the Conservative opposition is standing up for giant tech companies and big corporations, and that is not that case. We are standing up for those Canadian citizens that want choice and competitiveness in news and communications. It is the government that is actually standing up for these corporate giants. It is the government that is standing up for these oligopolies and monopolies that the regulators, to whom we are giving the keys to news media, have established in this country. I am not making this up. We know who Bell Media, Rogers and Quebecor are; they have become huge, successful giants in the country because of government regulation. The people who have, in exchange, not gotten competitiveness and better prices in all aspects of telecom in the last 30 years are Canadian citizens, and that’s a fact.

Another thing I question with this government’s hypocrisy is they say, on the one hand, they want more diversified news, to help local and regional media, to help ethnic media, to help Indigenous media and so on and so forth, so they are putting Bill C-18 out to help all these dying news outlets. Well, why don’t you start with cleaning up your own house? Why don’t we start with government media buying? We know the government is one of the biggest media-buying agents in the country. I used to be in the business of communications. If you want to help these diversified news outlets across the country, take the pie that’s already there — there’s at least $150 million of direct media buying that the government has that we can see easily, not to mention some of the indirect media buying that the various departments exercise. If you see what percentage of that goes to small, local print media or ethnic media or Indigenous media across the country, you’ll be mesmerized. It is not more than 2.5% or 3% in total of that budget. When you see what percentage of that goes to the big broadcasters — the large media outlets — it is the vast majority.

It is typical of this government. The oligopolies keep becoming smaller, but their pockets keep becoming bigger. Bill C-18 is also supposed to help journalism. On the eve of passing this bill, Bell Media thought it was wise to let go of 1,300 journalists. We have seen, again, over the last decade that journalists are the ones who have been paying the price in radio and print media. We’ve seen the debauchery that has gone on in Postmedia across the country for many years now — and now we see Bell Media. What are they doing? They gave a pink slip on the eve of passing this legislation that’s supposed to help save journalism in Canada, but 1,300 journalists were sent home.

Who is going to benefit from all of this additional revenue that the government is giving these oligopolies and gatekeepers? I guarantee you it will be the executives at the CBC, Bell Media, Rogers and Quebecor; I know I’m not very popular with them, and I know they are not going to give me the front page regarding my speech. But this has to be said because, at the end of the day, I’m not here to please these oligopolies. I’m here to speak on behalf of Canadian consumers.

If the government wants to gain my confidence, and put to rest my suspicions, why don’t they start — for example — by not taking a media outlet to court and bypassing their paywall? If we listen to the government and the minister, the whole idea behind Bill C-18 is to stop the content of journalists from being stolen and disseminated. Colleagues, we have copyright laws in this country that protect journalists, as well as protect copyright and intellectual property. If those copyright laws are not solid enough, let’s strengthen them — that’s our job.

The truth of the matter is that when the government takes the work of Blacklock’s Reporter, which is a successful media outlet — it is a modern day way of media outlets operating, and you see it now with La Presse in Montreal and, like I said, The Globe and Mail. These are just small examples of paywall print media that have transformed the way they are doing business in a successful way. If you are not respecting those paywalls, that is stealing intellectual content. When our Canadian government is before the courts right now — basically because they don’t want to pay for the content of a particular news outlet — it raises suspicion about the intention behind what the government is trying to do.

Another problem I have with this bill — and I have articulated this many times — is that we are suddenly supposed to trust the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. The CRTC is the agent that has created these oligopolies in Canada, and created these huge broadcasters — because that’s what they are: regulatory broadcasting agencies. That’s their job; they were mandated by successive governments — Conservative and Liberal. Let’s see the end result in broadcasting in Canada. They have created these giants that offer less service for more money. If you look at what Canadians pay for all of the services these oligopolies offer, you realize that we are all paying significantly more than any other nation on earth.

Now I’m supposed to trust that same regulator — the CRTC — who has no experience in dealing with news, and no experience in dealing with print media. However, they have experience in creating oligopolies. Am I going to trust them with the objective of saving print media and diverse media in this country? They are the ones who have a track record. Are they going to be able to do this successfully?

I have deep reservations that this is the only thing we are attempting to do here: a shakedown of a business model that has given Canadians unique opportunities to, like I said, promote their products. We’ve seen it as politicians, and the news media have seen it as politicians. We are trying to, essentially, take the traditional way of doing things — that no longer applies to the modern world — to create parallels because we have a government that likes to choose winners and losers. We like to determine who receives the bigger piece of the pie despite the fact that, perhaps, their business model doesn’t work. If somebody else’s business model does work and is successful, we are going to take a little bit out of their pocket, and put it into somebody else’s pocket to see what comes. We have seen, time and time again around the world, that this doesn’t work. You need to allow the free market and consumers to choose.

Last but not least, over the last couple of days, we’ve had discussions about the role of this institution — actually, we’ve had these discussions for years. Here is an opportunity where we can, once again, exercise our constitutional right to the government, and send this message: There was no obstruction and no malicious intent — from the opposition — with this bill that came to us. We’ve passed it, as Senator Harder knows, in a relatively quick fashion through the Senate because we do want to achieve what the government is ultimately trying to achieve. But, at some point in time, when we see a bill that has received that many amendments from government-appointed senators, and that much concern from government-appointed senators — as did Bill C-11 — it’s an indication that the government is not doing something right. They’re clearly not consulting sufficiently with stakeholders. They’re clearly not even consulting sufficiently with their own parliamentarians before they bring legislation to this chamber.

Once upon a time, colleagues — and I’ve spoken about this in the past — the Westminster model required parliamentarians to be part and parcel of the political process, and engaged in the process of building legislation. Many of you who are concerned with communications and telecommunications legislation — including Senator Miville-Dechêne, Senator Simons and Senator Dasko, as well as so many of you who I have had the pleasure of working with on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications — would have been valuable to this government in their national caucus, providing valuable information at the embryonic stage of building legislation. That’s what used to happen — once upon a time — in the bad old Senate, and there was no need for senators, who were government appointed, to tear their shirts in indignation throughout discourse on a bill because they would have done that where it had to be done.

Over the last couple of days, I have heard Senator Gold mention how the Government Representative here lobbies vigorously on your behalf regarding amendments in this chamber. Once upon a time, we didn’t need the government leader to lobby on our behalf because every Wednesday morning, we would have the Prime Minister and the ministers of the Crown before us, and we would be able to make our case ourselves. All of you, as parliamentarians, deserve to have that right and privilege. It has been taken away from you, and it has been taken away from the institution at the detriment of building better legislation.

I insist that this is an opportunity, Senator Miville-Dechêne, to send a message to the government that we are not a rubber stamp, and we are tired of working under time guidelines. An emergency on their part essentially means poor management of the legislative agenda, and it always constitutes an emergency on the part of this institution. That doesn’t help build good legislation either, colleagues. In the last couple of days, we have heard from a colleague who said, “We have to be very careful that this institution doesn’t become a de facto opposition to the government.” Well, I encourage you all to look at the voting patterns over the last five or six years in this chamber. Let me tell you, there is no risk of this institution becoming a de facto opposition to the government. I hope this will remain the case: That same enthusiastic spirit of independence in support of government legislation will occur when there is a new government in a short period of time. You never know; somehow I have a sneaking suspicion that might not be the case.

I have said all I have to say on Bill C-18. Again, I wish this bill luck. I wish the industry luck. However, I hope, at some point in time, the government understands that you can’t force things on the marketplace. Consumers are the people who should have the final say of what choices they make, what they watch, what they read, what they post and what they invest in — in terms of news or anything else.

I will insist that we send this bill back to the House. In the House of Commons, they always threaten us by saying that they have risen, and they can’t come back — and that if we do this, the legislation will die. You have heard it all before: — We’re going to delay it. Getting controlled by government in this place has been going on for 156 years. Now they have passed hybrid sittings over there. They can work as legislators from their bedrooms and kitchens. Some of the legislation that they send over here indicates they spend a lot of time building legislation from their bedrooms and kitchens.

Thank you.

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell?

The Hon. the Speaker: The vote will be held at 2:14 p.m. Call in the senators.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

The Hon. the Speaker: I see two senators rising. Do we have agreement on a bell?

The Hon. the Speaker: Those opposed to the motion, please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: I think the “yeas” have it.

And two honourable senators having risen: