Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Patterson, for the question and for your ongoing interest, of course, and concern for the northern part of our country and the rural part of our country.

We have not yet begun the study on passenger rights legislation which, of course, is in the omnibus bill before the chamber. We have scheduled a couple of meetings. We have already invited officials from the department, we have invited the minister, as well as a former executive from the airline industry and an advocate for passenger rights.

You are right. Our committee did look into this issue a few months ago. As we all know, one of the many things broken in this country is our air industry and our aviation industry. It is a complete mess. We also know the government took a shot at passenger rights legislation. It has failed and that’s why we brought the minister before our committee.

We also made it clear to the minister that we didn’t want to be found in a situation where the Senate receives a bill right before the summer and are forced to do a perfunctory study on this important issue facing Canadians. Of course, we find ourselves exactly in that dilemma. We received it in an omnibus bill and have limited time to study it. We also have in the queue Bill C-18, for which there’s a magical deadline that the government has imposed on our committee, which also has limited our capacity to give the attention that passenger rights deserve and particularly the effect it has on northern regions of the country.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you for that helpful answer, Senator Housakos.

I know I don’t need to overemphasize to you the complete reliance on air travel by communities in my region, where there are no roads or rails or other transportation options for our 25 communities.

I would like to ask you if you would consider hearing from northern voices on this important issue. I’m pleased to hear you have the Minister of Transport invited. He’s the one who made these shocking changes without much or any consultation. I am wondering if you would also consider hearing from Nunavut communities or even First Air and Canadian North when you do this study.

Senator Housakos: I do take the recommendations very seriously, senator. I wholeheartedly agree that it is an essential element that needs to be looked at carefully. We need to study this in a very robust manner so that we don’t fail a second time when it comes to implementing this legislation, and I do agree that the more you hear from stakeholders the more likely we are to get it right. I will take it to our steering committee and I will take your recommendations; feel free to email me with specific witnesses and ask our steering committee to acquiesce to this demand. I think there is enough time and a willingness to be able to study Bill C-18 and simultaneously look at this important issue before we rise.

Senator D. Patterson: Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you for the question, Senator Patterson. It is a very timely and legitimate one.

I do have concerns, and all Canadians should have concerns because at the end of the day, we saw the CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada come out and acknowledge — and it’s interesting that right in the middle of the heated debate on Bill C-11, she acknowledged, for all intents and purposes, what many of us have been saying for a long time — that traditional broadcasting is declining quickly. The announcement she made is that there is a plan over 10 years for CBC to transform into a digital platform rather than a cable broadcaster.

However, if you look at the licensing obligations of CBC/Radio-Canada, they are a national cable broadcaster supposedly responsible for providing national regional news and local news serving rural and remote regions of the country. Clearly, they’ve been subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars over a number of decades to provide that service. As they cut their obligatory licensing responsibilities, they are taking funds from taxpayers and putting it in a digital world, developing their digital platform, which is clearly not their mandate. I am concerned, and Canadians should be concerned.

I am also concerned why the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, isn’t taking steps to reel CBC/Radio-Canada in and to remind them of their licensing obligations. I’m equally concerned as to why the minister and the ministry have not imposed the fines and penalties that CBC is due to be imposed upon when they breach their licensing responsibilities.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(a), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to meet on Thursday, December 8, 2022, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(a), I move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to meet on Tuesday, December 6, 2022, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 12-18(1) be suspended in relation thereto.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Tannas, for your important and timely question.

As you know, our committee is currently seized with government legislation — we have before us Bill C-11 — and, as always, government legislation is our priority.

I say your question is timely because one of the biggest criticisms we have been hearing on Bill C-11 is the inclusion of user-generated content. The government keeps claiming that this legislation is one of the driving forces to give more voices to under-represented people in this country.

However, the opposite seems to be being achieved, particularly when it comes to digital creators. We’ve heard from many of them, including those typically under-represented voices who are doing a number of interesting things right now using the internet. They’ve been telling the Senate committee that Indigenous creators and cultural communities are getting opportunities they have never had before thanks to digital platforms. But numerous digital creators we heard from also told us that the government should really just stay out of the way of marginalized and Indigenous Canadians’ and allow them to continue to use those media to prosper and grow.

But your point is very well taken. They brought up on a number of occasions that the biggest problem that Indigenous communities in the North and Canadians in rural Canada are facing is the lack of connectivity. Of course, the cost of connectivity is significantly higher as compared to the rest of the world.

So your question is relevant. The bill is in the queue. Unfortunately — or fortunately — we have a number of pieces of government legislation that we’re dealing with. But I hope to get to this bill, because I agree with you and the stakeholders in question with whom you’ve met that instead of our government in Canada putting so much time and energy in living in the past — because Canada, once upon a time, was a world leader in communication; that was a time when I was a young boy. Today in 2022, we have fallen behind the digital curve. I think the government should refocus its efforts toward increasing connectivity in rural and Northern Canada and allow the under-represented voices to continue to use the internet and the digital market to grow.

I wish I could give you a better answer in terms of the timeline, but I will take it to our steering committee and I will write back to you on this issue.

[Translation]

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Thank you for the question, Senator Wallin. You are absolutely right; it is very concerning. As you — an active member of the committee — and all of us on the committee have seen, the outgoing chair of the CRTC came before the committee.

Actually, his testimony created a storm and raised a lot more questions than he actually answered. If anything, he confirmed that what the government has been saying is the opposite of how he reads the legislation in terms of acknowledging that he will have the authority, under this bill, to force platforms to manipulate algorithms. This is, of course, of great concern to independent content providers and should be of concern to all of us.

We have taken steps to bring the CRTC chair back to the committee — at his request but as well at the request of our steering committee.

You are absolutely right. It has become evidently clear that his mandate is ending in the next little while, and the government is in search of a new CRTC chair. If one is to be logical about this, the most important part of this bill is the regulatory aspect of it, which is squarely on the shoulders of the incoming chair of the CRTC and the board.

I agree it would be irresponsible on the part of Parliament to pass this bill without getting all of our Ts crossed and Is dotted, and hearing from someone associated with the most important part of this legislation.

I know there are members of steering who wanted to pass this bill last week. We continue our discussions in terms of trying to maintain our course of having a robust, wide-ranging study. I hope that steering will agree to do that.

I will personally take to steering that we consider having the incoming CRTC chair testify, along with the minister, before we return here for final approval.

Senator Housakos: Thank you for that question as well, senator. We have. It was brought to the attention of the steering committee by Senator Klyne that we had not done enough due diligence in terms of reaching out to Indigenous voices on this bill.

There are a number of potential witnesses that steering has instructed the clerk to reach out to and bring before our committee. I don’t have the list before me, but I can assure you that we will not move forward until Indigenous voices are consulted in a robust manner.

Senator Housakos: Senator Woo, I know you’re more preoccupied with the machinations of leadership in this place. I’m preoccupied with democracy and making sure all stakeholders are heard.

I can assure you, as chair, that all Canadian stakeholders who want to express themselves freely on any side of the debate will have an opportunity to do so. If you feel otherwise and you want to put parameters or leadership wants to put parameters, of course, the committee is at the whim of this chamber.

Senator Housakos: Senator Woo, it’s the chamber’s will to decide these things. Again, you’re making it sound like you’re asking some kind of question I have an answer to. Bring that up with your leadership group. As you know, they are the ones who determine the timeline. You’ve been here for a while. You have a lot of clout, it seems, with leadership in this chamber. I’m sure you will be able to get it done.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Woo, you seem to have missed in my previous answer that I’m committed to one thing — making sure that every stakeholder in the country who wants to come and speak on behalf of the bill, in favour or against, has an opportunity to do so. I know that is not your particular preoccupation, but that is my preoccupation and I am steadfast in defence of that. I will not have the fiasco reoccur that we saw over in the House of Commons where witnesses were chopped off and were not allowed to go before the committee — both witnesses in favour of the bill and against the bill.

We are a genuine chamber of sober second thought, and all I’ve been hearing from this place is independence and the newfound wonders of it, but yet we seem to be working under very clear political pressure here to get a bill out by a particular timeline that leadership or the government wants. I don’t aspire to those particular principles. That is more, I think, your preoccupation. I’m clear — I don’t want to burden you with the same answer — that every witness who wants to be heard will be heard.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Woo, your partisanship has no bounds. At the end of the day, why weren’t you ripping your shirt in indignation when you’ve had committee chairs who are in favour of government legislation? You take exception to chairs of committees — the few chairs of committees that the opposition has in this chamber — who oppose government legislation.

I will repeat what I said yesterday in answer to a question. In this chamber, every senator is equal, regardless of their position. We have a privilege and obligation to articulate on bills, policies and motions as chairs of committees. For the information of this chamber, the significant difference between this chamber and the House is that even our own Speaker is not an arbitrator; he is a barometer of consensus. He can participate in debate and can also vote. That precedent and existence of our rights and obligations should be respected by all senators.

When I articulate my position against a bill, I do that as a senator. I can assure you, as chair of our committee, that all procedures and rules have been respected. Free debate and questioning of all witnesses have been encouraged to the point where I will stand firm that every stakeholder who wants to appear before the committee to articulate for or against will have that right. I hope that every senator on the committee will respect that privilege — yourself included, Senator Woo. That’s called democracy. If you provide any indication of where there’s been a preference by the chair in terms of stifling opposition or favour to this bill, I would love for you to point it out to this chamber.

Senator Housakos:  — obviously, you communicate with a lot of people. It’s called democracy. And, of course, when they receive these emails, they have the right to sign on if they agree with the content. They have the right to do whatever they think is appropriate. It’s called, again, democracy. I don’t think I have anything to apologize for. I think this is common practice in public discourse to be able to communicate your position and points of view with people.

Senator Housakos: For starters, section 4 of the bill is very concerning to me, as it has been a concern to you.

Ultimately, when you have the chair of the CRTC coming before our committee and publicly stating that this bill doesn’t take away from him the right to force platform providers to push algorithms toward a particular direction, that in itself, as far as I’m concerned, controls what people see and what people get to post. At the end of the day, I think there are many witnesses who have come before the committee and are very concerned about how algorithms are being used, both in terms of platform providers and in the future. This bill hasn’t been clear when it comes to these particular issues.

If you’re telling me that these concerns have not been addressed at our committee, I disagree. I’ve heard a number of stakeholders and witnesses address those concerns. I will continue to fight those concerns. If we’re a regular member of the committee, a chair of the committee or if we’re a part of this chamber in a leadership position, nothing takes away our right to express ourselves on a particular issue, and I will continue to do so.

[Translation]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Yes, it is very clear. First, it is important to understand that there are some differences between the Senate and the House of Commons. A committee chair, like the Speaker of this chamber, is not a referee. They are a regular member of the chamber. I do not know whether most senators are aware of this or not, but the Speaker has the right to vote and express their opinion on political issues.

The chair of a committee has the same rights, privileges and responsibilities. The chair of a Senate committee has the right to vote, to express their opinions and to ask questions. They also have the right to be against a bill. That is nothing new or out of the ordinary. That is the way things have worked for years. If senators want to change that rule or procedure, then let me know, but for now, I am upholding the tradition and rights that have applied here for a very long time.

Senator Housakos: It’s not complicated. The work of the chair is by nature procedural and concerns the rules. As chair, I have a duty to enforce the rules and ensure that the committee operates fairly and justly. From day one, this committee has worked well, independently and transparently, and we will stay the course.

However, a chair cannot be prevented from taking a position on a bill. That has never been the case. Personally, the problem I see at the moment is that people are opposed to my point of view on the bill and not my work as chair of the committee. The work is about respecting procedure and the rules. Moreover, I have the right and the obligation to speak to a bill, as does the chair of any other committee of this institution.

[English]

Hon. Leo Housakos: Senator Simons, firstly, what I said at the committee was that I found the testimony interesting. I didn’t say I agreed with it. Second of all, I think you’re talking about an email that went out to stakeholders and party membership of the Conservative Party of Canada, asking them to sign a petition.

I don’t know how the gentleman would have gotten on that particular list. He’s probably a member of the party, and that’s how he got on the list. So, at the end of the day, when you have 680,000 members, as the Conservative Party of Canada currently has — an historic number, the largest number of any political party in the history of the country —

Senator Plett: Wow. How many do the Liberals have?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, Senator Black, for the question, and thank you for the notice you gave me of the question.

Yes, we have been discussing at length the inclusion of user-generated content in Bill C-11. Just yesterday, we heard directly from digital creators themselves, and we will hear from several more over the next few weeks. They have expressed their concerns that regulating user-generated content will put those digital creators at a possible huge disadvantage.

One of our witnesses testified yesterday that, as it stands right now, there is no gate keeping on a platform like YouTube. Anyone, including 4-H, as you have properly pointed out, can post their content, and they do not need government assistance to do so.

Mr. Justin Tomchuk testified that the internet is a level playing field for all Canadians who want to participate. As we continue our study of this bill, I’m concerned that, instead of removing barriers for marginalized voices and not-for-profit organizations like 4-H, we will be imposing barriers that are not currently there and creating an unequal playing field.

Senator Black, I want to thank you for your question and for raising this important point. I think our committee will agree that we should call 4-H to appear before our committee as we continue to call on independent digital and content providers. I also think it is imperative that our committee continues to drill down on this piece of legislation because — as we have gone through our pre-study and now our study — we are finding out there is a lot of light that needs to be shed in a lot of dark corners of this particular bill.

Also, given the fact that there was a lack of witnesses and scrutiny on the other side, where it was very politicized, it is imperative that we continue to do our due diligence. Thank you, senator.

Senator Housakos: I want to remind my colleagues on the Transport Committee — and on all committees — that when senators do their work at committee, they have the right to put forward motions. They have the right to amend motions. They have the right, in a fulsome way, to debate those motions.

I can assure my Deputy Chair of the Transport and Communications Committee that I will continue to respect those principles as chair. As I said, very often in a democracy, a parliamentary setting or a committee, the majority — you have come to the assumption that 8 out of 12 wanted to pass the bill yesterday, and, well, we want to do the work and respect the motion before this committee, and do it in a wholesome way. I will allow even the minority voices to ask the questions they want to ask and to request the documents they want to request, and I assure you that we will respect the motion of the chamber. We will respect the date line of the chamber. But we will also allow for democracy — at least at the Transport and Communications Committee — to function.

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Absolutely not. There is absolutely no willingness on the part of the committee to refuse the will of this chamber. The motion has been embraced. We left all the work aside, and we dove right into it at the first available moment. The first meeting that we had, colleagues, last night, we dove right into preparing a work plan.

I do appreciate that sometimes the majority laughs when the minority asks important questions, but yesterday there were a couple of motions put before us in order to do the work as diligently as we can. Senator Quinn has a motion that he put before the committee. You may laugh, but he requires certain documents, and I agree with him. Maybe it’s just a minority of senators who might agree with him, but he has the right to request those documents. We have the right, democratically, at committee to pursue our work.

She asked the question; I want to give a robust, lengthy answer. Senator Lankin, I appreciate that sometimes some of us —