Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, this item stands adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Plett. After today’s interventions, I ask for leave that it remain adjourned in his name.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Thank you, senator, for your question.

The poll cost $3,400. I did pay for it from my Senate budget. That has to be the best $3,400 I have ever spent. I can’t believe that you can actually consult Canadians for a fee of $3,400 on a bill like this. You can ask substantial questions. Whatever the result is, in any case, what a deal that was, that $3,400.

Senator Dasko: Senator, how can the government ensure that this country remains the most welcoming country in the world? Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, it’s great to see some Senate vacancies being filled last week. I offer congratulations and a very warm welcome to our new colleague and to the colleagues who will join us in a couple of weeks.

Coincidentally, my question is about Senate vacancies. At this point, my province of Ontario has four vacancies, which is by far the highest number of vacancies of any province. Ontario is Canada’s most populous province by far, and even with a full complement of 24 senators from Ontario, my province is underrepresented in this chamber relative to our population.

When can we expect the Prime Minister to act on filling the vacancies to ensure that Ontario is adequately represented in the chamber of sober second thought?

Hon. Donna Dasko: Will Senator Miville-Dechêne accept a question?

[Translation]

Senator Dasko: Thank you for your comments. I appreciated them.

You expressed doubt about the value of a commission. Clearly, the two times they have run the election, debates have been problematic. Do you feel there should continue to be at least one major English-language and one major French-language debate televised and online? Because it’s not just television; there is online access too. Do you feel that’s an important thing for the future of elections or just not at all?

[Translation]

Hon. Donna Dasko: Senator Tannas, would you take another question? My question may overlap slightly with Senator Batters’ question, but I wanted to very specifically focus on this.

When Stéphane Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer, appeared at committee, he did express frustration about changes to the Canada Elections Act appearing in this bill. You’re focusing on the privacy element. I wanted to ask you specifically: Why didn’t you just simply remove this clause related to the Canada Elections Act? Why didn’t you amend it so that it be removed from this bill if, in fact, one of the important issues here is changes to this act appearing in this bill? Why didn’t you suggest, “Let’s take this out of this bill altogether because it doesn’t belong here” instead?

Thank you.

Senator Dasko: Thank you. You have correctly made the point that there are two separate issues here. One of the issues is the fact that these omnibus bills, as you’ve just said, are intolerable. I would guess that many of our colleagues would agree with this observation.

Would you be willing to put forward an amendment removing all reference to the Elections Act in Bill C-47, given the fact that we may not need more study of the particular issue, which is omnibus bills: good or bad? Many of us would agree we don’t need to study this topic. We would probably agree that this is not good. Would you be willing to put forward an amendment to that effect? Thank you.

Senator Dasko: Senator Woo, will you take a question?

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, the online news act, at third reading.

The news media business in Canada is in trouble, and Bill C-18 is designed to be part of the solution.

Many news organizations, particularly newspapers, are in dire straits. A 2021 Statistics Canada report surveying newspaper publishers in Canada revealed that operating revenue of Canadian newspaper publishers declined to $2.1 billion in 2020, down 22% from just two years earlier, in 2018.

Declines in revenues have led to closures and job losses; over 469 news outlets have closed from 2008 to 2022, including over 300 community newspapers, and one third of journalism jobs have disappeared since 2010.

Just yesterday, Bell Media announced the elimination of 1,300 jobs, mostly affecting their news operations, including nine radio stations and foreign bureaus.

The other side of this picture is that the internet has increased its share of advertising revenue as that of newspapers and other media has declined. Government background documents estimate that Google’s and Facebook’s revenues from digital advertising were $9.7 billion in Canada in 2021, which was 80% of the total digital ad revenue of about $12 billion.

Bill C-18 aims to fix the balance. The rationale behind the bill is that news organizations are not getting fair compensation for the news they produce from the digital platforms that distribute this news to the public.

Bill C-18 requires that major digital platforms make deals with news businesses to pay these businesses for information that is shared on their platforms.

Bill C-18 lays out the framework behind these deals. If voluntary deals are made between digital platforms and eligible news media within certain timelines that meet certain criteria, digital platforms would be exempted from the required portion of the act, which is to enter into a formal negotiation process that could lead to final offer arbitration. The CRTC will take the role in developing a code of conduct to guide the bargaining process and determine if agreements reached meet the conditions for exemption, among other roles it will take on.

Bill C-18 is a complex bill, and it needed fulsome study. We had a good process at committee, but I feel we needed to do more.

Bill C-18 came to this chamber at first reading on February 2. We heard the sponsor’s speech on February 7 but did not hear the first witnesses at our Transport and Communications Committee until April 25. From February 7 to April 25 is a very long time at second reading during sitting weeks, which, in my view, should have been spent studying the bill at committee. Our 10 meetings might easily have expanded to 13, 15 or even more meetings. Let’s compare our 10 meetings to the 31 meetings we had on Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, and I’m not saying we should go there, but that bill was a similarly complex communications bill. I feel we needed more time on Bill C-18.

I want to focus on some of what we learned at committee and where I see issues going forward that we were not able to examine.

Our nine meetings with witnesses — of course, we had one meeting for clause-by-clause consideration — focused primarily on the views of stakeholders. From our 60 witnesses, we learned that Bill C-18 has widespread support, particularly across the newspaper sector, including large and small organizations, as represented, for example, by News Media Canada, but it also has significant support among broadcasters such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. It has strong support among online publishers and multicultural media.

However, the two digital platforms, Google and Facebook, which would now qualify as the operators responsible for making deals with news organizations under the act, are aggressively opposed. During the period of parliamentary review of the bill, both companies launched “market studies” which involved blocking access to news on their platforms to some of their users and subscribers. While market studies are legitimate, and I can say this from 30 years in this industry, the timing of these studies was provocative, to say the least, and is rightly seen as a shot across the bow at the government and at the news industry in this country. Minister Rodriguez described these actions as threats, and even the Prime Minister weighed in, accusing the companies of using bullying tactics and saying that the federal government would not back down.

When both tech giants appeared as witnesses at committee on May 3 and were asked how they would respond if the bill were to pass in its current form, Google Vice President of News, Richard Gingras, did not want to speculate. He replied:

We’ve been clear on the considerations we have, which is to do with whether we need to assess how we use links or whether we need to assess whether it is logical for us to continue to provide a service like Google News . . . . I have no certainty right now as to what we might do.

Facebook, however, was categorical. Rachel Curran, Head of Public Policy for Meta in Canada, stated:

Because the legislation ignores the realities of how our platforms work, the preferences of people who use them and the value we provide news publishers, we have no choice but to comply with it by ending the availability of news content in Canada if Bill C-18 is passed as drafted.

We have two very large, very powerful, very angry foreign‑owned tech giants required by law to negotiate with way smaller Canadian firms. What could possibly go wrong?

Some have debated whether the company’s threats to leave are real or, in fact, a bluff. But if they are real, there is reason to be concerned. That is because we also learned at committee about how many news publishers rely on these platforms for their own business operations and successes.

Jeff Elgie of Village Media told us:

. . . we benefit greatly from the traffic back to our sites that we, in turn, are able to monetize and form new audiences, subscribers and followers that we would otherwise be challenged to reach. . . . Google and Facebook combined generate almost 50% of our traffic on an ongoing basis. . . . You will find similar numbers across our entire industry, legacy or new.

If that traffic were to be lost, the business would be over.

This sentiment was echoed by journalist and commentator Jen Gerson, who stated at committee that independent media, start-up media and media trying to build its brand in the marketplace are reliant on social media to build a brand, develop an audience and get a network across. The loss of Facebook, she believed, would be serious.

The policy framework behind Bill C-18 emphasizes that news organizations are not getting fair compensation from the platforms, but how will these realities figure in the negotiation process?

If we had those extra committee meetings I mentioned earlier, we could have invited more experts to dig deeper into the policy framework to understand how it works and its possible contradictions, and we might have been able to offer solutions. For example, how does the need for commercial deals, which must be negotiated privately, square with the regulatory requirements such as the transparency demands? We know that those transparency demands will increase. It seems pretty clear to me. What will be the impact of this policy on the internet, and what will be the impact on innovation? Does the long list of requirements that must be met for exemption, which go beyond fair compensation, create an undue burden on the commercial negotiation process as claimed by witness Philip Palmer of the Internet Society?

There were some other concerns: Our committee didn’t look at advertising or consumer behaviour even though the movement of advertising and consumers onto platforms, social media and search engines is central to these developments. How will news consumers be impacted by this policy? These are all important issues going forward.

As I said earlier, our committee did excellent work in the time we had, passing nine substantive amendments in one meeting. These have already been described by Senators Harder and Housakos, so I will not attempt to go through them.

I am pleased the amendment I proposed, which would remove the ability of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, to designate news businesses as eligible, was accepted. The news businesses should decide for themselves if they wish to apply and be part of this framework.

Colleagues, I love the news media, and it is painful to see what’s happening to the news today. I deplore the threats of the tech giants. I feel that despite its flaws, Bill C-18 is our only hope at this particular moment in time to help this industry, which is vital to our democracy. If all the pieces fit together and if all the players do their part, it could be a wonderful thing. It could be a wonderful assistance to this industry. That is why I intend to support it today.

Thank you.

Senator Dasko: I will.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Your Honour, I’m so pleased and proud that you are our new Speaker.

Honourable senators, in a national survey I commissioned in 2021, violence against women was seen by Canadians as the most important issue facing women in this country.

As we continue to search for ways to deal with this significant problem, I rise today to highlight one of the most simple, yet innovative, approaches in recent years. It was created right here in Canada three years ago, and just this year, it received a Governor General’s Innovation Award.

What is it? It’s a simple hand signal, a gesture, that can be used by women and others in distress situations to signal that they are in grave danger. I will explain the signal in a moment, but first let me describe the origins of this simple invention.

It was created by the Canadian Women’s Foundation, or CWF, a national foundation headquartered in Toronto, which funds vital community programs across the country that advance gender equality, address root causes and assist women in need. I often think of the foundation as a kind of United Way for women, since it raises funds from donors and distributes them to those in need. But, in fact, CWF is one of the largest women’s foundations in the world. Since 1991 it has raised more than $100 million and funded almost 2,000 programs right across Canada.

In 2020, prompted by reports of increased domestic violence during the pandemic, the foundation began working with an ad agency to develop a way for women who might be in distress at home to send messages about their situation to outsiders, especially via online video. Together they researched movements, gestures and international sign languages to find something unique that would not cause confusion across languages and cultures. They came up with a simple hand gesture that involves using one’s thumb under one’s fingers as a metaphor for being trapped.

Launched in April 2020, the Signal for Help has been taken up in over 45 countries, won numerous international awards and gone viral on social media. It has proven its worth well beyond the pandemic, and it is helping to save lives.

Here is an example. On November 4, 2021, a motorist in Kentucky contacted police with a licence plate number after observing a girl in a car who was using the hand gesture, which the motorist had seen on TikTok and recognized as a distress situation. Police caught up with the vehicle and arrested the driver, who was charged with unlawful imprisonment and possession of sexual matter concerning a minor. The 16-year-old girl in the car had been reported missing from North Carolina. That girl’s life might have been saved by the motorist who knew what the signal meant and took appropriate action.

Colleagues, I could provide other examples, but let me conclude by saying that an important goal is to increase awareness of the signal: palm up, thumb in, fingers over. Now we can all be part of the solution. Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: I do have a serious question. Thank you.

My question is to the Government Representative in the Senate. Senator Gold, CBC reported this week that more than 600 women’s shelters across Canada will soon lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding. According to a national survey I commissioned in late 2021, 83% of Canadians think that violence in the home is a very important problem facing women, and almost as many — 77% — say that violence against women in society at large is a very important problem facing Canadian women. Indeed, violence against women is seen as the most important issue facing women in this country by both women and men.

Women’s shelters play a vital role in assisting women fleeing violence across this country by providing a place to go where they can find support. Senator Gold, can you explain to us the government’s intentions and plans with respect to funding these shelters? Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: I have a question for Senator Plett, if he would take it.

Senator Dasko: Thank you for the enthusiasm. Senator Plett, you have today offered high praise for the six amendments that were rejected by the House of Commons. You have lauded them, and you said that you insist on the entire amendment package.

However, senator, you did not support the bill with these amendments in it at third reading. I ask you, how can you urge us to insist on the 26 amendments when you yourself did not support them at third reading of the bill?

Senator Dasko: Given that the new, permanent director was expected to be announced by March 30, are you able to confirm today the date on which the announcement of this person will be made? Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: My question is for the Government Representative in the Senate.

Senator Gold, members of the Canadian Museums Association are in Ottawa over the next two days as part of their 2023 Hill Day to speak with parliamentarians and others. The association includes many representatives from my city of Toronto, which is the home of fabulous galleries and museums.

However, people I know in the museum community are greatly concerned about the continuing turmoil at the National Gallery of Canada. As the search for a new, permanent director continues, my question to you today builds on the question posed to you by Senator Bovey last December, and that question is: Can you confirm that the new, permanent director will have two essential qualifications — an advanced degree in art history or in contemporary expression, and a career in directing and running a major gallery or museum? Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Will Senator Manning take another question?

Senator Dasko: I’m asking Senator Manning what his response to that fact is. It’s not as if the traditional media are actually disappearing out of Canadians’ lives. Just a response. Thank you.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, two days ago, thousands of friends, admirers, dignitaries and citizens of Mississauga and beyond gathered there to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, Her Worship Mayor Hazel McCallion, who passed away on January 29 at the age of 101.

Hazel McCallion presided as Mayor of Mississauga for 36 years, from 1978 to 2014, easily winning 12 elections and serving until age 93. She built her city of Mississauga from three small townships, cow pastures and sleepy meadows into one of this country’s largest, most livable and successful communities.

Mayor McCallion was a character, a force, with a big personality, and I was so happy that I got to know her. She got her start in politics after she and her husband, Sam, moved to a small community west of Toronto named Streetsville, which eventually became incorporated into Mississauga. Stints as Mayor of Streetsville and city councillor led to her first and successful run for mayor against a popular incumbent in 1978. She had been in office only a few months when a Canadian Pacific train carrying toxic chemicals derailed, accompanied by explosions and chemical spills. McCallion oversaw the successful evacuation of 200,000 Mississauga residents, gaining considerable praise and fame, and there was no looking back.

Her admirers named her “Hurricane Hazel,” a nod to her ability to get things done, including massive development, transit systems and infrastructure. She was a practical achiever and a superb communicator.

As a pollster, I always admired her extraordinary approval levels, higher than those achieved by any prime minister or premier that I had seen. At one public meeting where satisfaction with city services in Mississauga was being discussed, she was informed that her approval level was 95% and that 2% of citizens disapproved. “Two percent disapprove,” she said, “and I know them both.” Yes, she could count her detractors on the fingers of one hand.

Hazel McCallion received countless honours during her lifetime, including an Order of Canada, an Order of Ontario, an honorary doctorate of laws from the University of Toronto and more. This was how I got to know the mayor when Equal Voice, which promotes women in politics, honoured the mayor with our EVE Award. The Royal York was filled for her speech that day in 2007, and every time I saw her after that, she went out of her way to tell me how much that award meant to her and how much it meant to be seen as a role model for women in politics.

That she was. One thing is sure — she reminds us that women in politics have diverse styles and views, that successful women do not have to fit into one mould and that you can be true to yourself. I loved her feisty iconoclasm. She was Hurricane Hazel, and for me she was the perfect storm. Thank you.