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.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Quinn. I want to put on the record that I have enjoyed working with you immensely on Transport and Communication. You made great a contribution.

Of course, the electorate will have the final word, but in between those four years, they are paying approximately $127 million a year for us to be here and do some legislative work, wordsmithing, and speak on their behalf, advocate and hold the government to account.

Do you not think it’s important that we fulfill our constitutional duty, especially on something that is as controversial as this? You were on the front lines and saw how controversial it was. You said in your speech that you were torn when it came to this bill.

So why would we fold as an institution at the feet of the government so quickly? On far less in the past, we have sent legislation back and insisted. Don’t you think that after all we’ve heard from so many witnesses on such a controversial issue, we should — not overrule the elected body; we should await the final democratic decision of the electorate — but don’t you think we have a legislative responsibility on behalf of all of those voices to insist at least one more time?

Senator Housakos: Please, her position is clear on it, and so is the position of many others. I guess everybody else who thinks there’s potential for censorship — haven’t they read this bill either? The truth of the matter, colleagues, is that a compelling case has been made that this bill has left out many important voices in this country. We are the last vestige of hope for these people to be defended.

Again, we had unanimous consent that this bill needed to be fixed by all groups. A concerted effort was made to fix it. The most important elements and amendments in this bill were ignored by the government. I’m pleading and asking this chamber to send it back one more time, to do our due diligence and to tell the government and insist that these are worth reconsideration.

Senator Housakos: I always say: Have faith in Canadians’ choices and in their abilities. That is why it is so unfortunate that the government bungled this by turning it into an internet regulation bill rather than a broadcasting reform bill.

Minister Rodriguez, along with former Senator Dawson and the government leader, Senator Gold, love to say that when it comes to regulating user-generated content, “Users are out, platforms are in; trust us.”

Colleagues, there are no platforms without users. I’ve said this a thousand times, and I had to learn it myself during the study: Platforms are just an empty shell. They’re just a service that is provided to Canadians who want to use it. That could be individual journalists, media companies and even us politicians. When we export using these platforms, what we do here, we use them as a forum to communicate with as many people as possible in order to propagate our work. What is wrong with that? At the end of the day, are we going to call these platforms and say, “You owe us part of your revenue because we’re content producers”?

Where do you draw the line? When does a government step in to pick who wins, who loses, who gets punished for their success and who gets rewarded for their failure? When you regulate these platforms, you regulate content and you regulate the users.

That’s what this debate is all about. We know that this bill is about regulating the platforms. As I said, platforms are user‑generated content producers and digital-content producers — which are, again, Canadians.

Basically, the government is saying that it will regulate bookstores but not the books or authors. How ludicrous is that? The government is saying, “We’re going to regulate the platform, but — trust us — users won’t be affected whatsoever. We’ll ask the platforms for a desired outcome. Obviously, the only way to have the desired outcome is to force users to manipulate their algorithms in order to give us the outcome we want. But don’t worry; trust us.”

Most of us work with governments in good faith, but those of us who have been here for a long time recognize that unless you get it in writing, you will always be disappointed down the line.

I go back to the goodwill gesture on the part of the Canadian Senators Group to include an observation in the bill. Senator Quinn, I’m telling you that 6, 9 or 10 months from now, when we don’t get the outcome we want from the CRTC or Canadian Heritage, nothing in this bill gives us any remedy to solve this problem and the outcome will be very dangerous.

The amendment that this chamber put forward to protect digital creators in this country and to protect consumer choice in controlling their own feed was not perfect. Many of you know that it wasn’t perfect. However, I accepted it because I believed it was better than what we now have in the bill and what we had in the original bill. The fact that it was a non-starter for the Trudeau government makes it worthy of more pushback and insistence from this chamber.

At every turn in this debate — in our committee and in the other house — we’ve seen the government push back and not accept any concrete, written, black-and-white amendments that would protect user-generated content. That, in itself, has raised flags and concerns on the part of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are wondering about their livelihoods and businesses — and their way of life, for that matter, because today digital communication is a way of life.

I will reiterate my grave concern for digital creators in this country as a result of this legislation. These are people from across Canada and from all walks of life. I’ve said it before, but it bears being repeated: All regions, ethnicities, linguistic and religious backgrounds have found incredible success on the internet, and they’re pleading with this chamber for their concerns to be heard and to gain some sense of security. Unlike this government, they’ve embraced innovation and the lack of barriers. They’ve done it without any government help or intervention.

Again, I will repeat the people I’m fighting for because it’s worth repeating. Darcy Michael comes to mind, for example; I mentioned him earlier. Jennifer Valentyne comes to mind; I mentioned her many times. Vanessa Brousseau is a proud Indigenous woman who expressed concern, as did other Indigenous groups, about their voices being heard and being heard in an unfettered fashion. These are the people for whom I’m so vociferously fighting every step of the way on this piece of legislation. I know they’re watching because they communicate on a daily basis. They’re hopeful that this institution will provide some added value to these stakeholders across the country.

I talked about algorithms. I talked about the impact it will have on user-generated content, and then there’s Canadian content. We went through this review of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which, of course, is at the pinnacle point of culture in this country, and we didn’t open up the element of CanCon and the definition of CanCon. How ludicrous is that? How irresponsible as legislators?

By the way, the Broadcasting Act in this country hasn’t been opened very often. Every 30 years or so, the government has the courage to look at it. Yet, we went after the digital platforms. We went after user-generated content to, by all means, help our traditional broadcasters, which are huge corporations in this country, and there’s still no clarity on the definition of CanCon.

We’re not listening to the ordinary Canadians who feel their livelihoods are being threatened. We’re not even listening to Margaret Atwood. We’re not even listening to icons of Canadian culture. Did you hear what she said about Bill C-11? Did you hear what she said? She called it “creeping totalitarianism.” So if you don’t believe Leo Housakos and my view on this being potentially a censorship bill, is Margaret Atwood also being partisan?

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for Senator Harder — I mean, Senator Gold. You’re interchangeable.

Hon. Leo Housakos: I have a question for Senator Harder — I mean, Senator Gold. You’re interchangeable.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Your Honour. Now that we’ve had the very liberal interpretation of the Rules, here come the facts.

Honourable colleagues, now, all of a sudden, Senator Gold has embraced his position of government leader. For seven years, he and his predecessors were running away from that wonderful, powerful position — which is, of course, a legitimate one in the Westminster parliamentary system and legitimate in our own chamber, but he has been running away from it for a variety of reasons.

The truth of the matter is that this chamber has become a majority chamber appointed by the governing party. The reason you have not taken steps over the last eight years to make changes to how time allocation is applied, Senator Gold, is very simple: It is because you have had a very cooperative opposition throughout this time.

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Dean take a question?

Senator Housakos: Would Senator Saint-Germain take a question?

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: You can laugh and find it funny, but one day you will find yourselves in opposition and you’ll realize there is a job to be done. Let me tell you, we passed the vast majority of government legislation quickly — especially through 2016-17, when we didn’t have a majority of Trudeau-appointed Liberals sitting in this chamber. This happened because there was a cooperative opposition.

You can laugh all you want. Throughout that process, Senator Plett always negotiated with Senator Gold and his predecessor, Senator Harder. However, there comes a point in time when the opposition draws a line in the sand. You’re absolutely right; it’s well within the right of government to use time allocation. I’ll repeat that it is a legitimate tool of the Westminster parliamentary system.

Senator Gold, I thank you for highlighting my wonderful ruling back in 2015. You’re absolutely right; I said in the ruling what I say today, consistently, that it’s a legitimate tool of the government — except at that particular point in time we had an honest, transparent and accountable government that named the government leader in this chamber, the deputy government leader and a government whip.

More important to the Rules, Senator Gold, this chamber had a governing Conservative caucus. All of us who understand Westminster parliamentary rules around the world know that it is our political parties that form governments and elect our prime ministers. By the way, our legitimacy comes from those prime ministers who appoint us to the Senate through the process of political parties.

Thank you for that ruling, but read it in context and in its entirety.

Second, in your liberal interpretation of the Rules — vis-à-vis the negotiations that Senator Plett referred to in terms of trying to find agreement between government and the opposition — the word “government” is nowhere in those Rules that were drafted in 1991. The Rules were prescriptive and clear: A political party is required to trigger time allocation. This is not something we’re making up, Senator Gold.

Unless something has changed in the past hour that I’m not aware of — I did check before I came in here — on the Senate website, Senator Gold, you remain identified as “unaffiliated.” I’m pretty confident that anyone watching the televised proceedings today will also see a banner under Senator Gold’s name that says “unaffiliated.” It doesn’t say “government leader.” Yes, you went to deep lengths and, yes, we moved points of order that questioned the ill-thought-out approach of the government playing peekaboo with this chamber, with modelling the government leader as a representative.

You created that context where you have become nothing more than someone who receives information and doesn’t share any with this chamber. I think the words you used are some “passive taker of information.” We didn’t force that upon you. It’s the Prime Minister who forced it upon you and this chamber in the 2015 election when he played partisan politics with this institution. And that’s a reality.

Some have acquiesced to that political agenda. We’ve played along because we understand we lost three successive elections, and it was incumbent on the opposition to make this place work, so we gave a little bit. But there are certain limits.

We’ve all heard Senator Gold and his predecessor Senator Harder say it in media interviews and in this very chamber that they are not affiliated with any political party. Just one example comes from Senator Gold at exactly 2:45 p.m. on June 15, 2021, when being questioned about a former Green Party member, who had espoused some pretty anti-Semitic views, crossing the floor and being welcomed to the Liberal government caucus. Senator Gold, you responded by saying:

At the risk of being pedantic, I represent the government in the Senate. I’m not a member of the Liberal Party.

As for the decision of the party to accept that member and under what circumstances, those questions should properly be directed to the Liberal Party.

Do you remember that? Of course, it isn’t just that she wasn’t welcomed into the Liberal Party, as I said, but she became a Liberal caucus member, a member of the government. But you took no accountability for that. Regardless, there you have it in his own words, colleagues.

Senator Gold in his role as government leader or Government Representative, depending on the day, is not affiliated with the Liberal Party or other political party recognized by Elections Canada. I’m not making this up. And that is the base requirement — the most fundamental requirement — for Senator Gold to be able to play a role in advocating time allocation. It’s clear in the Rules. It’s not ambiguous, not open to Liberal interpretations, not open to Conservative interpretations, just independent factual interpretations.

If that changes here today, or if there ever is a ruling that changes that, I fully expect that a communiqué will immediately go to the Senate Communications Directorate and Senate broadcasting to have Senator Gold, Senator Gagné, Senator LaBoucane-Benson and all identified properly on the website and the televised proceedings of this institution being accountable and transparent to the public that you represent the government.

Even after that, it doesn’t even give you the right to time allocation. You have to have the biggest Liberal caucus, along with your $2 million budget on behalf of the government, to be able to allocate time, Senator Gold, and with agreement. This is the rule — if you have agreement. You don’t have the right to have an agreement because you are not the government leader in the chamber to negotiate. But if you have agreement, rule 7-1(1), Your Honour, states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that —

— and I highlight —

— the representatives of the recognized parties have agreed to allocate a specified number of days or hours . . .

And, without agreement, rule 7-2(1) states:

At any time during a sitting, the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of the recognized parties have failed to agree to allocate time to conclude an adjourned debate on either . . .

I’m not a lawyer, but that’s pretty clear.

In accordance with the rule governing time allocation, the only role for the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government under our current structure is to inform the chamber of the decision of the current Leader of the Opposition as to whether he wishes to impose any time allocation.

The rule clearly states, whether with agreement or without agreement, that the Leader or the Deputy Leader of the Government may state that the representatives of recognized parties have agreed or have failed to agree to allocate time. It does not state that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the Government is part of making that determination. But the recognized political parties have to do that.

If that were the intent of the rule, it would read, “having come to an agreement with,” or “failing to come to an agreement with.”

None of that wording is there. The wording of the rule purposely distinguishes between the representatives of the government and the representatives of recognized parties. Yet it does not say the agreement or lack thereof must be between government and recognized parties. It clearly leaves the government on the proverbial sideline of that decision, making clear the current wording of the rule — only the representatives of recognized parties can come to an agreement on time allocation. That’s the rule.

For clarity’s sake, Your Honour, we have the definition of “recognized party” in Appendix I, in case anyone has any ambiguity:

A recognized party in the Senate is composed of at least nine senators who are members of the same political party, which is registered under the Canada Elections Act, or has been registered under the Act within the past 15 years. . . .

That’s pretty clear, right? We respect, at least, Elections Canada’s laws. At least most of us do.

Continuing with Appendix I:

A recognized parliamentary group in the Senate is one to which at least nine senators belong and which is formed for parliamentary purposes. A senator may belong to either one recognized party or one recognized parliamentary group. Each recognized party or recognized group has a leader or facilitator in the Senate.

You will notice that the definition even makes the distinction — and this is important — between recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups.

Colleagues, again, we did that in cooperation in order to accommodate a very political agenda that has been imposed on this parliamentary institution.

That’s important because, again, the rule governing time allocation mentions only representatives of the recognized parties — i.e. those affiliated with a political party as recognized by the Canada Elections Act.

Last I checked, the ISG — Independent Senators Group — the CSG — Canadian Senators Group — and PSG — the Progressive Senate Group — are not recognized by Elections Canada. You can apply if you would like to, but you’re not. Only government can allocate time in our Westminster model, and governments are formed by political parties elected in the House of Commons. And, of course, by extension, the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, gives us our legitimacy by appointing us in this chamber. Political parties — nowhere in the rule are representatives of parliamentary groups mentioned.

As I said, we’ve had seven or eight years. We’ve opened the Parliament of Canada Act. There didn’t seem to be any urgency at the time to change that. We’ve had eight years to change the way time allocation has been operating in this chamber. There is no ambiguity around this.

And before anyone jumps to their feet to say this must have been an oversight, a lot of time, effort and resources have gone into changing the Rules of the Senate over the years. These particular rules did not slip our attention. It was not by accident that representatives of recognized parties were singled out when it comes to making an agreement on time allocation. If you don’t wish to take my word for it, how do you explain that we did distinguish and include the leaders of recognized parliamentary groups as it pertains to speaking times during debate on motion of time allocation? So we had the debate.

Rule 7-3(1)(f), Your Honour, states that during debate on the motion without agreement:

(i) the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition may each speak for up to 30 minutes, and

(ii) the leader or facilitator of any other recognized party or recognized parliamentary group may speak for up to 15 minutes . . .

So there we referred to leaders of recognized parties and recognized parliamentary groups. In other words, they are not interchangeable in this place. That was decided a few years ago with everyone’s participation.

Therefore, when the rule states that the agreement, or lack thereof, must come from the leaders of the recognized parties in our current composition, that leaves only the representative of the Conservative caucus. That was not our choice. That was imposed on this place by the current Prime Minister. He might not like it today. The Government Representative today might like to be the government leader. You might even like to have a Liberal caucus today of 60 members to go with the $2 million budget, but you don’t have it.

It does not include the Government Representative by virtue of your own insistence. You did this. Your government did this; we didn’t.

If we’re still not satisfied with the intent of the wording of this rule and whether there is some ambiguity there for the rule to be interpreted, I’ll refer you to the then-government leader’s testimony at the now-defunct Modernization Committee on May 23, 2018. Senator Harder was addressing, amongst other things, possible ways to make proceedings in the chamber more efficient through the establishment of a business management committee. Obviously, that was not the direction that the Senate went, but it was clear that the notion of time allocation was on our minds. Again, it’s not like this one slipped by without consideration.

Senator Harder did testify at that time whatever approach we took must safeguard “. . . every senator’s individual right to debate, scrutinize, propose amendments and oppose.“

That would certainly explain the wording of the rule on time allocation in protecting the opposition’s role in determining it, especially when you consider that Senator Harder went on to say that the rule should also safeguard “. . . the government’s ability to have a say in the process of debate . . .” as it prepares to identify its own priorities. The duration of the bells, the deferral of votes as well as allowing members of the government leadership to sit as ex officio on committees — increasingly, he said nothing about the Government Representative playing a role in time allocation.

All of that is to further establish that the rule governing time allocation that singles out the representatives of recognized parties as the sole participants in any agreement was and is deliberate.

I have one final note, and it also comes from Senator Harder’s testimony at the Modernization Committee. Senator Harder spoke about the changes to the Parliament of Canada Act to reflect the new rules the Senate was establishing for itself, rightfully pointing out that any such changes would require the consent of both chambers of Parliament. Senator Harder said:

Because the Senate is a self-governing body, it is not for the government to unilaterally come forward with its own view of amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act that could affect the inner workings of the Senate.

Senator Harder stated that he agreed with our eminent former colleague Serge Joyal that any changes should come from the Senate itself and sent to the House to include in any legislation.

Senator Harder then cited the Leader of the Government in the House, the Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, from his own committee testimony on February 24, 2016, Your Honour. Minister LeBlanc stated:

I would be amenable to suggestions that Senate colleagues would have or whatever process you, Madam Chair, or your colleagues think is appropriate. . . .

You’ll appreciate that it’s not up to somebody who is serving in the House of Commons to come and suggest to senators how you may want to change or adjust your own Rules. . . . I would be happy to work collectively or collegially to ensure that if the government brings in a bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, we at the same time fix, amend, modernize or correct whatever you or your colleagues think might be important . . . .

Colleagues, Your Honour, our rule on time allocation is clear. It was put in place with the agreement of the Senate and in accordance with the reality of there no longer being a government caucus or a government leader who identifies as being affiliated with the governing party. This isn’t a holdover rule that hadn’t had time to change. We’ve made changes to reflect that it is no longer a chamber of political caucuses only.

If the government is allowed now to invoke time allocation, we are allowing the government to set the rules in this chamber with no barriers. I don’t just think it’s out of order; I would go so far as to say it is a breach of our privilege and a breach of the principles in this institution, which is we respect the rules of Parliament.

Even if you and everyone else in this chamber believes the government leader should be allowed to invoke time allocation regardless of their affiliation or lack thereof, that is a rule change that should not be decided in this manner. There are proper procedures. We can send this to the Rules Committee to be properly studied and allow that committee to report back to the chamber and follow the rules of Parliament.

In doing this now, the government is placing the Speaker as well, as my honourable colleague Senator Plett said, in a very untenable position. It is not his role to write or to overturn the Rules, Senator Gold, especially at the whim of someone from the other chamber — the Prime Minister — who is enforcing rule changes in this institution.

At the end of the day, Senator Gold, the Prime Minister has appointed a majority of senators in this chamber whose rhetoric fits the government’s. They articulate the government positions, they vote overwhelmingly for the government positions. We fund right now the leadership of the government in this chamber even though it has denied for seven and a half years that they are the government until, of course, today you have embraced government, so I don’t understand why this peekaboo charade continues to go on in this institution.

If it does — if there is a genuine willingness for independence — let’s show it and make sure that we don’t trample over the basic written Rules because this is a place of lawmaking, Your Honour. And if we as a place of lawmakers don’t respect our own Rules, how in the world are we going to have any legitimacy as an institution in the eyes of Canadians?

Thank you, Your Honour.

Senator Housakos: Thank you, colleagues. I echo all the words that were expressed so eloquently by Senator Wallin. None of us are taking positions based on partisan politics; we’re taking positions in defence of Canadians. I have said that throughout the course of the debate on Bill C-11. I have not hidden my intentions in regard to Bill C-11, protecting freedom of speech and protecting what Canadian digital-first creators can post and view on the internet. I would rather be having a debate on the content of the bill this evening, as I’ve had throughout every process, instead of having a discussion on time allocation with a government leader who has professed to not be a government leader but a government representative.

Throughout the process, he has said that he doesn’t represent the government, that he’s just an independent — you’ve said this on a number of occasions. You have a shocked look every time I say that you have denied being a partisan government leader; that you are a representative of the government and you don’t represent the Liberal Party of Canada in this chamber. You have said that. You have said you’re not the government leader, yet now we have you calling for time allocation by using a rule that only a leader of a Liberal caucus governing party in the chamber should be using.

Now, to be clear, because I want to be specific on this particular motion, I don’t oppose it. I think it’s a wonderful tool. I said it when I was the Speaker in the past, and I said it when I was a member of a majority governing caucus — many of you are not members of a majority governing caucus, but in a very lucid way you’re all supporters of this Liberal government. You show it with your rhetoric and your speeches and, most importantly, you show it with your voting pattern. There is nothing wrong with that.

Back to the point that Senator Plett and many of us have been trying to make throughout the evening, we’re okay with the government saying they’re the government. We’re okay with Liberals saying they’re Liberals. It’s not an insult. I know these days it’s a little bit tough to acknowledge that you’re a Liberal, but at the end of the day, it’s a party that has had a long history in this country. I don’t see why we have this peekaboo process that we’re going through and this smoke and mirrors of saying, “We’re not one day but we are another day.” At the end of the day, when Canadians are going to judge you, they judge you on your vote. That’s a reality, government leader, and we can’t deny it.

There’s always frustration when we bring it up. I think the most important part of our work here is to be transparent and accountable to the Canadian public; to say where you stand on issues and vote clearly.

We’ve been transparent. Bill C-11 is a terrible bill, and when we get the time allocation — unfortunately, we’ll have a short period of time — we will again express clearly why it’s such a terrible bill. We’ve had witnesses and testimonies about what a terrible bill it is. I understand the government doesn’t want to talk about it because the government wants to make sure that bills like these that are not popular get swept under the rug and get moved along as quickly as possible. That’s when governments use time allocation.

Senator Saint-Germain, the truth of the matter is you use the word “democracy.” Democracy in this chamber is not about voting. I hate to break it to you. If you look at the last two or three elections, this chamber represented the democratic makeup in none of those elections. In 2015, there was an overwhelming majority Liberal government, and this chamber did not represent that reality for a few years. It still functioned to the best of our ability because of compromises of the opposition. In 2019, there was a minority Liberal government. In 2021, this current government won with 32% of the vote, the lowest percentage in the history of the country. So, this chamber, with 75% appointed senators from the governing party, do you think every vote we take on government legislation represents democracy? Please. It represents the will of the government.

That’s one important aspect of the Senate. They appoint a government leader to make sure the legislation moves along, as well as a deputy government leader, now modelled as a legislative — I don’t know what the title is. But we know one thing: You are ex officio. You come to committees, at clause-by-clause consideration, and you defend the government position. And you do it very well, Senator Gold. There is nothing wrong with that. Just like most of the senators whom Prime Minister Trudeau has appointed feel an obligation to support his agenda — and I believe most of you feel compelled as well because you share those political values. But democracy, Senator Saint-Germain, in this chamber, is expressed in debate, not by voting. Voting is just one small element where the government, at the end of the day, wins the day regardless of the numbers. But it’s in debate that democracy happens.

I learned that the hard way because in 2008, when I was brought here, I was sitting in a majority Conservative caucus, like many of you are right now, appointed by a prime minister, and there are many of you with the same view of the world. I was very frustrated for a few years with Senator Mercer, Senator Dawson and Senator Fraser, and I kept asking myself how come they only have 30% of the house here and they’re telling us what we have to do and what we can’t do. We’re the government. Let’s have a vote. Enough. Let’s move on. That’s not democracy.

I learned over time by speaking to guys like senator Lowell Murray and senator Serge Joyal — have you ever heard of them? They were giants of parliamentary democracy and they explained to me, “You know what, senator? I know you’re up there in the third row, and there are 60 Conservatives, and you’re fed up, but we’re articulating on behalf of stakeholders, Canadians and, more importantly, we recognize the principle in democracy that power corrupts, but absolute powers corrupts absolutely.”

It is, of course, natural for Prime Minister Trudeau to be sitting in Langevin Block, as did Prime Minister Harper back in 2014, and ask, “Why are those guys delaying my stuff over there? Giddy up. Let’s get on with it.” But you know why they were delaying things back then? It doesn’t matter if it was bills like Bill C-377, on which you referred to my ruling when I was Speaker, or stuff that we’re doing here on behalf of stakeholders. We’re talking on behalf of millions of Canadians who come and express themselves. If there’s any value in this institution, it’s when every day of the week there are a few hundred or a few thousand Canadians who think that there are people in here advocating for them.

You don’t measure that. The barometer for that kind of democracy isn’t because you have 70 votes, Senator Gold. We might have 15 votes, but we represent millions of voices. So the argument about how we need to get on with democracy — democracy comes in many forms, particularly in an unelected chamber. I remind everybody that we are on very thin ice with the Canadian public and have been for a long time because they always question the value of this institution.

Bill C-11 is one of those bills that we cannot pretend there was consensus on. We cannot pretend there was clarity. To this day, there is a lot of uncertainty, and this place has an obligation, not on a partisan basis — yes, Senator Gold, the other place is a hyper-partisan place, but it’s incumbent on us to not be hyper‑partisan. I know you feel we are because we keep insisting that the government listens to reason, but we’re not doing it because Pierre Poilievre asked us to. We did it because of the thousands of people I meet on a daily basis.

I’m going to Toronto this weekend. I’m doing round tables on Bill C-11. I invite you to come with me and meet the groups of Canadians. These are not card-carrying members of the Conservative Party. They are young Canadians concerned about expression, freedom of speech, what we’re going do with algorithms, how they’re going to be manipulating the platforms they’re using to communicate, why all of this is being done, and the cost and impact it will have, and we’ll have those debates in the few hours you’ve allocated for us this week.

Colleagues, another element here that’s important is that every time the government leader rises and speaks, he uses words to refer to the Trudeau government as “curative” and “progressive.” Maybe you don’t even realize you’re doing this, but when you were referring in your remarks earlier, you were talking about the action of the Trudeau government as curative, as doing God’s work, essentially, on Bill C-11, and we need to carry on. I invite you to go back and listen to it. In the same breath, you were talking about how the opposition was obstructive and abusive of our powers.

If that’s the starting point of a fair and open debate in an institution like this — when the government is calling us abusive, when the government is saying that we’re obstructionist and we’re partisan — those are the terminologies you’re using in your allocation when you’re speaking to us. Yet the government is curative and wonderful, and we’re obstructing democracy in its finest form. That’s when the frustration builds. This is the kind of discussion we spend more time on than we do on the actual content of the bill, government leader. This is where, of course, frustration kicks in.

I just want to reiterate that I don’t have a problem with the premise of the motion as long as it’s done in an honest and transparent way. Register as a government leader. Build your government caucus. You only need nine; I think you’ll find nine people who will admit they’re Liberal. Thank you.

Senator Housakos: He’s afraid.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Of course I have a question. I wouldn’t get up on my feet without having a question.

Senator Saint-Germain, at the end of the day, we’ve had many instances as a chamber where we put forward amendments, and the amendments put forward — that we supported as well — by your colleagues in your committee were watered-down amendments to protect user-generated content compared to the ones that were defeated.

So my question is: Why wouldn’t the Senate just insist one more time to the government to listen to those — as you pointed out — thousands of user-generated content creators and witnesses and tell the government that we insist on these reasonable amendments as proposed by the ISG senators and supported at committee by all of us and tell the government it is in the interest of the voices of reason in the country that they support those amendments?

Senator Housakos: Again, government leader, the tradition and history of this place are that the government leader, especially on bills and motions as important as this, indulge the Senate and take questions. I take exception with a number of the things you said in your speech. If you don’t give the opposition an opportunity to address them with questions and answers, again, it creates that frustration that we have in this place.

I just want to deal with a couple of issues. You brought up how the opposition uses adjournments in order to stifle things. Every group in this place, when they want to stifle something, slow something down, take their time with it or negotiate it, take an adjournment on motions. It is nothing new. The government does it, the opposition does it, and, of course, since 2016, all groups do it.

The other thing is that I love the fact that you’re actually starting to pay attention to Pierre Poilievre’s videos. But what I take exception with is that you think it is somewhat partisan that Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, is publicly involved in a public debate opposing a government bill that Rachael Thomas, the critic on Bill C-11 in the House of Commons is on video —

I am asking a question, Your Honour, but I would like to give him some context. Colleagues, again, there is a tradition in this place of allowing some context in questions and answers.

The government leader said that Pierre Poilievre and Rachael Thomas in the other place were out there campaigning against Bill C-11. Are you equally offended when Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Rodriguez put out their videos or when they defend in the public arena and talk about how Bill C-11 is a good thing? Are you equally offended?

Senator Housakos: Thank you, senator.

[English]

I listened to the story being told by Senator Saint-Germain and even earlier by Senator Gold about how, “Thank God for the ISG — the Independent Senators Group — that we had such robust witnesses come before the committee; we had so many witnesses; we had so many meetings; we had so many amendments,” and so on and so forth.

But the truth of the matter, colleagues, is at the end of the day, if it wasn’t for our filibuster, if it wasn’t for our fighting at every turn at committee and in this chamber, we would have had a vote. If I would have listened to my colleague and the very capable deputy chair, we would have had a vote on this bill a year ago, because it was so urgent to pass.

I was asked every month —

Hon. Leo Housakos: I would like to thank Senator MacDonald for his subamendment and his continuous support of user-generated content and digital-first providers.

We’ve heard a number of interventions this afternoon and this evening on Bill C-11. I just want to respond to a number of issues that are of deep concern.

In his intervention, Senator Cardozo talked about how the opposition and those who are opposed to the bill are somehow lining up with multi-billion-dollar digital corporations and platforms and so on and so forth. I’m starting to think that many of our interventions have probably gone unheard or are not really understood.

For those of us who are concerned, the concern that we have is not lining up with the digital giants. It’s the government, actually, who is lining up with multi-billion-dollar corporations. I said in my second-reading speech, my third-reading speech and in committee that we believe the whole purpose of this bill — and the government has said it outright — is to align traditional broadcasters in this country with digital platforms. Those of us who participated in the in-depth study at the Transport Committee, we understand clearly that digital providers are not broadcasters, far from it. They’re just platforms that actually help broadcasters and communication messages arrive to certain destinations more quickly, on a larger scale and in larger volumes. That is the actual reality of what digital providers like Facebook, Twitter, Google and all the other digital providers do.

We felt from the beginning that Bill C-11 is an attempt not to align broadcasters but, actually, to save the broadcasting industry, which we all acknowledge their business model is struggling. It is struggling because times have changed. What better testament of the fact that times are changing than having the CEO of CBC herself, a day after we passed the bill in this chamber or the day before, going public and saying how in a few years, CBC will be out of cable broadcasting and transforming their operation into digital platforms. That’s why you get organizations such as Quebecor running QUB radio, which is a full-fledged digital radio operation. They’re doing that because they’re starting to recognize the world is changing, and young Canadians are going toward that direction.

Senator Cardozo, let me tell you where I’m standing. I’m standing with user-generated content producers.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Will Senator Cardozo take a question?

Hon. Leo Housakos: On debate on the amendment as proposed by Senator Tannas — again, I thank Senator Tannas for always gracefully trying to find compromises in this place. There also comes a point in time when we, as legislators, have heard such an outcry from so many Canadians regarding particular government legislation — like Bill C-11 — that I think we have an obligation, both constitutional and moral, to ensure those voices are heard.

I want to remind members of this chamber that our committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, did a very robust study. We did a deep dive into Bill C-11, despite pushback, as many of us know, both from the government and, on many occasions, from the other side. There was an unwillingness to hear from all witnesses.

Throughout the process of the study, we saw how digital-first creators in this country were cajoled, intimidated at times and threatened, both at committee in the other place and in the media. You can’t deny that, Senator Gold; you can’t. It’s all on the record. Witnesses came before the committee, and they have corroborated this. I’m not making it up. Read the report, colleagues, because we had 140 witnesses come before our committee. We heard close to 70 hours of testimony. In addition to the 140 witnesses, we had 67 additional written briefs. This was an unprecedented, in-depth study where we heard from many people. The outcome, as we all understand, is far from unanimous when it comes to Bill C-11.

Digital-first creators are a growing industry. It’s millions of Canadians — individuals from all walks of life — who find the digital platforms that they are currently propelling their work, art and communication from as an essential part of their lives. It is an essential part of our lives. They have concerns that need to be addressed in this bill and in the law.

I have now been in this place long enough to know that when successive governments are not keen on proposals being put forward by this chamber, they send us off to put observations in bills. They give us vague letters, commitments and promises in this place about how they are committed to looking at something and ensuring that the voices in the Senate will be heard.

I remember a few years ago when we passed an important bill — by MP Todd Doherty on PTSD — that I had the privilege to sponsor in this place. We all supported that bill unanimously, if you remember — great intentions. I learned a lot. What I learned is that, from now on, when you put forward private members’ bills asking for a framework or particular initiatives from government, you’d better have a timeline.

Guess what has happened since we unanimously passed the call for a framework on PTSD? Absolutely nothing. Three years later, first responders are still suffering. Of course, the argument will be that you can call in the minister or the deputy minister. Senators, we can cry after the fact. The truth of the matter is we did some goodwill legislative work on that bill. We have first responders in this country who are still calling me — their parents, wives, husbands and children — and they are in pain.

Let’s learn from our previous experiences. Let’s not keep doing the same thing over and over again. When you do the same thing over and over again, that is the definition of insanity. That is when things don’t get fixed in this town, and then all we do is go back to these stakeholders and we give excuses for why things haven’t been fixed.

This is our time. This is our moment to stand up for the millions of people who came to our committee. The government claims it rejected the amendment that would have scoped out user-generated content because they want to afford the CRTC flexibility through the consultative process on the regulatory framework. They’re sacrificing clarity in the law itself to supposedly ensure clarity in the consultative process. Does that make any sense to anybody here?

The government also cited that they considered a loophole that, should the amendment pass in it, it would allow platforms like YouTube and TikTok to profit from carrying events like the World Cup or the Eurovision Song Contest without then investing in Canada’s cultural landscape. That is the government’s example.

When these platforms carry these events, or carry something like Major League Baseball, they do so under rights agreements with rightsholders. It is not user content but content uploaded by the provider themselves under licence, and is covered by section 4.1(2)(a). In other words, the use is already subject to the law and not impacted one iota by this Senate amendment.

Senator Gold also contradicts himself in his assurance that user-generated content isn’t scoped in by stating any content that is uploaded by users that contains music isn’t in the scope of the regulation. He said that in his speech.

The Weeknd is an artist that I just discovered during this study, which my kids are very much into — he, The Weeknd. I always thought the weekend was Saturday and Sunday, and for us senators Friday, Saturday, Sunday as well, but that is another story.

When kids do dance challenges to a song by The Weeknd, the government explicitly wants that to be in scope, which is precisely what the music label said they did not want to be in scope.

Even in explaining their reasons for rejecting the most consequential and meaningful Senate amendments — which, again, thousands of digital-first providers requested us to put in — this government is once again contradicting itself.

Furthermore, all of this is nonsense, because amending section 4 as the Senate has done has no bearing on the government’s ability to collect money from platforms. Section 4 isn’t about financial obligations; it’s about programming obligations.

It is actually section 11 that establishes the regulatory power to mandate financial obligations on companies like YouTube and TikTok, and is separate from the content regulation provisions found in section 4.

For the government to state that amending section 4, as Senator Gold said yesterday, in the manner that we have in any way prevents them from establishing financial obligations is completely hogwash, or I should say wrong, and nowhere near a justification for rejecting the Senate amendments to protect user-generated content and protect Canadian creators and their livelihoods.

Colleagues, streamers, bloggers and the new digital world is creating billions of dollars of revenue for the government, billions of dollars of investment for arts and culture in Canada. Again, our committee heard unprecedented testimony about how arts and culture in Canada in 2023 is at an unprecedented level — robust growth. If anything, there are not enough artists, actors, producers and Canadian capital to keep all our artists in this country busy making films and documentaries.

We’ve never seen more choice before than we now have on platforms when it comes to independent journalism and bloggers because they no longer need permission from the CRTC. They no longer need permission from Canadian Heritage. They no longer need to get money from the Canada Media Fund or the National Film Board of Canada. They get it from different sources because there is unlimited potential and possibility when it comes to these platforms.

Colleagues, again, I want to wrap up by saying, as much as I appreciate the intent from Senator Tannas — I think there is goodwill there, as this institution and this body has always shown in my years of being here with two successive governments now — at the end of the day, please forgive me — and this is not a partisan comment — I just do not trust when government says, “Trust us, we’re going to take care of it,” or, “No, no. You don’t need to put it in the bill.” I’ve been had many times before, Senator Tannas. We both have been here for a long time. I have seen this movie before.

Colleagues, we have a constitutional right — an obligation — to stand up and to tell the government to please reconsider this. We’ve heard this before. We have millions of Canadians that want it in black and white in this law.

Thank you very much.

Senator Housakos: Oh, so Senator Cordy and Senator Massicotte.

Senator Housakos: Certainly.