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: Senator Gold, I’ve been now in this place for 15 years, and excuse me if I am a little skeptical of taking any government at face value. I as a legislator would like to see things in the law in black and white.

You pointed out as well that we should just have faith that this is going to be done and that we are here to make sure that we overlook and carry out our responsibilities, as you said in your speech, as legislators to make sure the government does what they say. Don’t you also agree that we are passing a law here that has not been supported by a regulatory framework? We’re leaving it to the CRTC, as you said in your speech. They will be carrying out public consultations in order to set the regulatory framework. What happens in case this regulatory framework isn’t consistent with the commitments you highlighted in your speech? What are our options as parliamentarians at that point with this bill to do a follow-up in a thorough way?