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.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading to Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms). This bill enacts substantial changes and reforms to the Criminal Code and to the Firearms Act dealing with firearms. The Minister of Public Safety introduced this bill at first reading on May 30, 2022. The bill made its way here on May 18 of this year and was sent to our Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs on June 21. Our committee held 12 meetings on Bill C-21 and heard 66 witnesses.

Led by our chair, Senator Dean, the process was thorough and extensive. We covered the issues well. Our committee reported back with no amendments, but with an extensive list of observations. I feel that our work is done — and that it was done well. This important bill takes its rationale from crime statistics as well as the increasing number of guns in this country. In his second reading speech introducing the bill on June 9, 2022, Minister Mendicino cited a 2022 Statistics Canada report which, in his words, shows:

Gun violence is up 81% since 2009. Gun homicides are up. Handgun violence, specifically, is up, and this is the number one type of gun used in homicides. Alarmingly, domestic violence, intimate-partner violence and gender-based violence are all up in connection with the presence of guns and gun violence. . . .

Others cite the rise in the number of guns itself as justification for the measures in the bill. For example, Senator Yussuff — in his sponsor speech here — noted an increase in the prevalence of handguns in Canada. Between 2010 and 2020, he noted, the number of handguns increased by 74% to 1 million handguns owned by approximately 275,000 individuals in this country.

There is a theory here about the increase in guns, and it goes as follows: The more guns we find in society, the more harms we find that involve guns, and that harm is found not just in gun crime, but in other harms such as suicide, misuse and accidents. As a corollary to this theory, reducing the number of guns will reduce these harms. Fewer guns mean fewer harms.

If we need proof of this theory, all we have to do is look south of the border to see the magnitude of killings and deaths attributable to the abundance of guns and the ideology of gun ownership run wild.

We in this country will never accept the gun dystopia which is the United States of America. Bill C-21 tackles the central issue of limiting the availability of guns in several ways. There is a handgun freeze: Bill C-21 would implement a national freeze on the sale, purchase, transfer and importation of handguns. This is not the handgun ban that some people were seeking, and none of the handguns owned by legal licence holders will be confiscated; however, over time, this freeze will limit the numbers of handguns in this country.

Then there is the problem of assault-style weapons. In 2020, by order-in-council, the government prohibited a list of approximately 1,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms. This bill adds another measure to deal with the assault guns by prohibiting future assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market. Again, this approach does not go as far as some would like since it does not deal with the other makes and models currently held by Canadians. The government proposes to set up a council to identify these firearms, which might then be subject to a ban. So again, looking down the road, these measures should help to reduce the number of assault-style firearms in this country.

Then there are the so-called ghost guns: the firearms or firearm parts that can be manufactured, which have proliferated in recent years. Bill C-21 will create new offences aimed at the use of 3-D printing for the manufacturing and trafficking of firearms and will classify ghost guns and other illegally made firearms as prohibited.

These provisions relating to handguns, assault-style weapons and ghost guns, if all implemented, will limit the number of guns in this country going forward.

Two other parts of the bill are extremely important. Bill C-21 addresses intimate partner violence and gender-based violence by enacting red flag and expanded licence revocation laws. The new red flag law would enable anyone to apply to a court to remove firearms for up to 30 days from a person who may pose a danger to themselves or others. A longer-term prohibition of up to five years is possible if there continue to be reasonable grounds to believe that the individual poses a risk.

In addition, a firearms licence could be revoked from someone in cases of domestic violence or criminal harassment, i.e., stalking, when a protection order has been issued against a licence holder or when a red flag order is issued.

There is much more in Bill C-21, but for me these are the key points.

Of course, this bill is very far from perfect, and I was surprised and very disappointed to see some of the serious missteps the government made along the way. We heard last week and in committee about the lack of adequate consultation with Indigenous groups and others, such as chief firearms officers in the process of drafting the bill. We heard about unresolved issues, including those involving handgun shooting sports. Many of us recall the introduction of amendments in November 2022 involving a long list of assault-style firearms, which were to be prohibited. This resulted in a storm of protests from hunters and farmers who claimed that hunting guns were also on that list, and thus, the government ended up withdrawing this list that they had put forward in February of this year. This was a setback in the effort to limit assault-style weapons in this country.

Nevertheless, Bill C-21 is very worthy of our support. I’m very impressed that the bill has gained approval from such a wide range of experts, academics, health researchers, activists and law enforcement agencies. Here are some examples of the supporters: the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Coalition for Gun Control, Danforth Families for Safe Communities, Families of Dawson, the National Association of Women and the Law, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, PolySeSouvient, Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale and Women’s Shelters Canada. These are just some examples of the many stakeholders who support this bill.

For example, Dr. Wendy Cukier, speaking for the Coalition for Gun Control, which represents over 200 health, crime prevention, policing and women’s organizations, stated, “We are asking that you pass this legislation in its current form. . . .”

Dr. Najma Ahmed, Professor of Surgery and Trauma, University of Toronto, speaking for the Canadian Doctors for Protection from Guns, stated, “Canada needs Bill C-21. It will save lives. . . .”

Nathalie Provost, spokesperson for PolySeSouvient, which represents survivors of the December 6 femicides at École Polytechnique, stated:

. . . today we urge you to pass Bill C-21 without amendments as quickly as possible. It is a good bill. It is not perfect and not complete, but it freezes handgun sales and helps protect women from domestic murders. It will save lives.

She also said, “. . . we feel that the bill must be passed for Canada to move forward. We value the bill very much . . .”

Also Dr. Natasha Saunders, Staff Physician, Hospital for Sick Children, speaking for the Canadian Paediatric Society, stated, “As an organization, we support the passage of Bill C-21 . . .”

Colleagues, I also want to note the endorsement of Bill C-21 among law enforcement officials. I must admit that I was surprised by this initially and expected more criticism from them, but Deputy Chief Bill Fordy, whom we’ve heard about before in earlier remarks, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, or CACP, told our committee that:

The CACP supports Bill C-21 in principle and believes this law is introducing essential provisions to the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act.

He also said:

. . . I think it is helpful rather than hurtful. I think the stronger language around prohibited firearms is helpful. I think the efforts to reduce domestic violence are helpful, and as the previous witness referenced, the fatality attached to some of those incidents.

He is the chief law enforcement witness that we had at committee. He represents the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

His sentiments were echoed by other law enforcement witnesses, including Fiona Wilson, Deputy Chief Constable, Vancouver Police Department, who stressed that the bill is positive and gives the police additional tools in many areas.

However, on the other side, I think everyone in this chamber understands that well-organized groups have lobbied hard against it. Senator Coyle has mentioned some of the groups.

In my case, I’ve counted over 2,000 pieces of correspondence since we got the bill in May in the Senate. The vast majority of the correspondence is from groups opposed to this bill. Their presence on social media is huge.

How representative are these opposing views? It turns out these views are not very representative at all. I decided to commission a public opinion survey about key aspects of the bill. The national survey found that the vast majority of Canadians, in fact, support stricter gun control. There is no doubt about it — 73% of Canadians support “freezing the sale, purchase, transport and importation of handguns.” Meanwhile, 85% of Canadians support prohibiting new assault-style firearms from entering the Canadian market.

Over 90% each support the red-flag provisions — that is, allowing firearms to be removed by court order from a firearm owner who may pose a danger to themselves or others. And 96% of Canadians support the ability to remove a firearms licence from someone in cases where there’s been domestic violence or criminal harassment.

A majority of Canadians across all regions, both genders — men too, but particularly women — and all age categories support all four of these measures. Colleagues, these are not the elites that we have heard about; these are the views of ordinary Canadians.

Let’s be very clear about it. Canadians are saying yes to stronger gun controls and yes to the key provisions of Bill C-21. Also, by approving Bill C-21, this country will take another important step away from the destructive gun culture and away from the ubiquitous gun violence of our neighbour to the south.

Colleagues, I will be voting for this bill. I hope you will too. Thank you very much.

Hon. Donna Dasko: My question is directed to Senator Gold. As you may know, Canadians hold the most positive views towards immigration of any country in the world. However, a recent survey conducted by the Environics Institute in September shows:

. . . a significant jump in the proportion of Canadians who believe the country accepts too many immigrants, marking a dramatic reversal from a year ago when public support for immigration numbers stood at an all-time high . . .

One year ago, attitudes were more positive than they had ever been. Let’s be clear, this is not about where immigrants are coming from, who they are or how they might contribute, but about the numbers that are coming.

Senator Gold, is this shift in opinion a reflection on immigration policy or is it, as is sometimes said, a failure to communicate adequately to Canadians the benefits of immigration?

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: Thank you very much, Senator Kutcher, for your wonderful comments. I share your Ukrainian heritage, and I very much value what you have said today, especially your emphasis on the positive. Of course, we are now in a terrible situation that’s facing Ukraine. Both of us spoke last night to Senator Omidvar’s bill with respect to the seizure of Russian assets. I appreciate your mention of the Holodomor — this is an example of Soviet terror on Ukraine.

This is supposed to be a question, so I’ll ask it this way: One of the places that I find tremendously inspiring is the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg. That’s my hometown. There is a wonderful exhibit there about the Holodomor, as well as the Holocaust, and many other stories of terror.

Would you encourage all of our colleagues to visit the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in my hometown of Winnipeg? Thank you.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that question, Senator Dasko.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Senator Omidvar’s timely bill, Bill S-278, An Act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act (disposal of foreign state assets).

This important bill would amend SEMA to allow for a legal pathway to seize and repurpose the state assets, including central bank reserves, of perpetrators that breach international peace and security and, specifically, to seize these assets without a judicial order. These assets can then be redirected to the victims who have suffered at the hands of these perpetrators.

I commend Senator Omidvar for her far-sighted leadership in advancing this legislation. This bill rests on the belief that foreign leaders and nations who violate international human rights through violence or oppression or corruption or war must be held accountable for their actions, and that asset forfeiture can be a powerful option to help achieve this and to assist the victims of these terrible actions.

In 2021, Senator Omidvar’s Senate public bill, Bill S-217, achieved all-party support and passed the Senate committee stage. In June of 2022, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the government essentially incorporated her initiative into its own legislation as part of the budget bill. Bill C-19 thus allowed the government to go beyond freezing the assets of corrupt foreign officials by permitting them to be seized and redirected to the victims of persecution and oppression.

As currently drafted, SEMA can permit the seizure of individual assets through a process involving the courts, but not state assets. Senator Omidvar’s new bill, debated here today, extends this by creating a legal path for state assets to be seized.

Colleagues, why are we contemplating such extraordinary actions as the seizing of state assets of a foreign country? We are contemplating extraordinary actions because we are faced with extraordinary circumstances, and, in particular, here today, we are discussing the illegal and immoral invasion by Russia of the free, independent and democratic nation of Ukraine.

As a matter of justice and based on our values and our interests, we must take action. The funds seized under this act and similar actions by other Western nations can assist Ukraine in rebuilding after the devastation of war.

Let’s think about the destruction that Russia has perpetrated with its illegal invasion of Ukraine, first, the lives lost. According to The New York Times and based on American government sources, as of August of this year, approximately 70,000 Ukrainians have died, and between 100,000 and 120,000 have been wounded. Russia’s military casualties, these officials said, are approaching 300,000, including 120,000 deaths and 170,000 to 180,000 injured troops.

There is evidence of multiple crimes and violations committed by Russia and Russian troops. A paper recently prepared by investigator Rodrigue Demeuse for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly examined these violations and presented evidence in three areas.

First, there are violations of international humanitarian law, the so-called laws of war, established by the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention and others. Russia has violated these laws. It has deliberately killed civilians and used arbitrary detentions, torture, forced disappearances, human shields. It has used sexual violence, especially against women, but also against men. Russia has targeted and destroyed civilian infrastructure, for example, by bombing a maternity hospital in Mariupol in 2022. Russia has denied humanitarian assistance and perpetrated the forced deportation of civilians, including children.

Second, Russia has also violated international human rights law, based on several international treaties and covenants. These include violations of the right to life, freedom, security, expression, assembly, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to education, the right to health care, food and water rights, environmental rights and many others.

Third, there are breaches of international criminal law. Here, there is the crime of aggression committed when Russia invaded the sovereign and independent nation of Ukraine with no justification, which is a clear violation of the UN Charter. There are also war crimes, crimes against humanity, and there is even evidence of genocide.

It is clear that the destruction brought by Russia in Ukraine has been massive. The humanitarian losses, including deaths, injuries and displacements, will deeply affect the physical and mental health of the Ukrainian people for years to come. And the physical damage done to the country poses a huge economic challenge. One study from the Kyiv School of Economics estimated infrastructure losses as of March 2023 to be US$143 billion or 70% of Ukraine’s GDP. Housing damages were estimated to be US$54 billion. Damage to roads, bridges and airports accounted for US$36 billion in losses. In March, the World Bank estimated the cost of the country’s future reconstruction at roughly €380 billion.

Of course, Western allies and friends of Ukraine, including Canada, have provided enormous military, financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine since the February 2022 invasion by Russia. This support, I believe, will continue into the future.

Last week, I was a member of the Canadian delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Copenhagen, where the topic of Ukraine was absolutely top of mind, not least because Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy addressed our plenary session via video. I sensed strong and continuing support for Ukraine among these parliamentarians from NATO countries, and this reassured me greatly. However, there was also a disquieting sense that this terrible war could continue well into the future. In that scenario, nobody really knows what will happen.

Still, colleagues, the bill before us aims to make Russia accountable and to pay for its crimes and its destruction. The seizure of state assets is the core principle of this bill, which provides for our Governor-in-Council to seize these assets if any of the conditions outlined in SEMA have been met. The conditions involve the violation of international law and conventions, such as serious breaches of international peace and security or gross human rights violations, which clearly describe Russia’s actions.

After the Russian invasion, the United States and other Western nations moved quickly to freeze Russian assets held abroad, including the property of Russian oligarchs and Russia’s central bank assets held in foreign accounts. These assets are currently valued at approximately US$350 billion, including US$300 billion of Russian state assets and about US$58 billion of privately held Russian assets, this according to papers by Zelikow, Anderson and Keitner from 2022. An international debate is now under way concerning the viability and legality of seizing and transferring these assets to Ukraine, either to fund current needs, which is considered to be very important, and/or to fund post-war reconstruction. This is according to a paper written by Michal Szczerba in 2023.

On October 4, just a couple of weeks ago, Secretary of State Antony Blinken weighed in on this debate to confirm that Americans are indeed examining the legal issues. Secretary Blinken urged European countries to move forward and seize and transfer Russian assets. As he said:

My own view is you broke it, you bought it. And so the Russians having broken it, they ought to pay for it. . . .

Certainly, Canadians are on side with this important initiative. In a national public opinion survey commissioned by myself and Senator Omidvar and conducted by Nanos Research just two weeks ago, we found that a strong majority of Canadians support Canada seizing the Canadian assets of foreign states that are violating human rights and using these assets to help victims.

The survey shows that 81% of Canadians support Canada seizing the state assets of the Russian government that are held in Canada and using those assets to help victims of the war against Ukraine. Similarly, 78% of Canadians support Canada seizing the state assets of the Iranian government that are held in Canada and using those assets to help the victims in Iran whose human rights are violated.

The poll shows that support for these actions is high in all regions of the country, among both men and women and across all age groups. It’s true that Canadians may have few Russian state assets, as we have heard, but by moving ahead with this legislation, this country can help create the momentum that is needed in the world, and we can lead by example.

As a third-generation Ukrainian Canadian, I’m especially motivated to support this bill. I’m especially pleased that my friend and esteemed colleague Senator Omidvar has devoted her efforts to this worthy and important cause, and since she’s had success before, I’m confident she will have success this time as well.

Finally, I’m especially proud of Canada’s and Canadians’ vast and steadfast embrace of Ukraine in its time of need, however long it takes. Thank you, colleagues.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Omidvar, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dasko:

That the Senate call upon the Government of Canada to implement the eighth recommendation of the first report of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, entitled Catalyst for Change: A Roadmap to a Stronger Charitable Sector, adopted by the Senate on November 3, 2020, during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament, which proposed that the Canada Revenue Agency include questions on both the T3010 (for registered charities) and the T1044 (for federally incorporated not‑for‑profit corporations) on diversity representation on boards of directors based on existing employment equity guidelines.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Senator Gold, Bill C-18, the Online News Act, received Royal Assent on June 22 of this year, and regulations were gazetted on September 2, with consultations closed on October 2.

Canadians are no longer able to view or share news content on Facebook and Instagram, including news articles and audiovisual content that parent company Meta has blocked. Search engine Google has threatened to do the same, and a report yesterday in The Globe and Mail suggests this may happen soon.

My first questions concern Google. Has the government engaged with Google, including at the ministerial or departmental level, regarding Bill C-18? Did Google participate in the consultations? Most importantly, is the government contemplating changes to the legislation or other responses to deal with these latest developments?

Senator Dasko: In September, the polling firm Leger surveyed Canadians about aspects of Bill C-18 and found that 59% of Canadians want Meta to lift its ban on Canadian news on its platforms. More specifically with respect to Meta, is the government still attempting to engage with Meta? Has the government engaged with Meta regarding that company’s decision to block Canadians from viewing or sharing news content? Or has the government basically given up on Meta?

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: Senator Woo, will you take a question?

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.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the message sent back to us from the House of Commons concerning the fate of Bill C-22, which establishes the Canada disability benefit. This important bill seeks to reduce poverty and to support the financial security of working-age persons with disabilities through the Canada disability benefit.

Notably, Bill C-22 is framework legislation, whereby the details and elements of the benefit will be developed through regulations and in consultation with the disability community, the provinces and the territories after the legislation is passed.

We learned from testimony at our Social Affairs Committee — for example, from Krista Carr of Inclusion Canada — that 40% of Canadians with a disability live in poverty, and we also learned from the bill’s sponsor, Senator Cotter, that 23% of those who are working age live in poverty. Let’s compare that to the 7.4% of all Canadians who lived in poverty in 2021, and we can understand the great need to take action.

The bill had first reading in the other place a full year ago on June 2, 2022, and it was sent to committee in the other place on October 18, 2022. A total of nine amendments were passed there before arriving here in February and at committee on March 22.

The bill arrived at our Social Affairs Committee with pleas from several major organizations representing those with disabilities, and from the government, to proceed without change. These pleas were accompanied by a substantial email campaign carrying the same strong message.

As committee work proceeded, it became clear, however, that the bill did, indeed, contain flaws and omissions — and several strong advocates came forward to urge that these flaws and omissions be addressed through amendments. Committee members were torn. Should there be amendments or no amendments? Would amendments delay the benefit, or even place the entire bill at risk?

Colleagues, we often receive admonitions to move quickly on legislation; this is not news to anyone. But I have to say that the pressure to review this bill without change was especially strong.

In the end, committee members did present amendments, and six amendments did pass at committee, which deal with vital issues including the following: a specification that the benefit cannot be clawed back by insurance companies; a guarantee of an appeal process; and a recognition that four additional factors — the additional costs associated with living with a disability; the challenges faced by those living with a disability in earning an income from work; intersectional needs; and Canada’s international human rights obligations — must be considered in establishing the benefit. An amendment to the preamble recognized that persons with disabilities may face additional barriers because of their gender, racialized or Indigenous status or other intersecting statuses. Two amendments concerned the timeline and the coming-into-force provisions.

As we know, the government and the other place have accepted five of these six amendments.

I am deeply disappointed that the amendment designed to prohibit clawbacks of the benefit by insurance companies was not accepted. I felt that it was a strong addition to the bill, but it was turned back for reasons related to jurisdiction, which Senator Gold has just explained, so I will not delve into that now.

I am very pleased that the five other amendments were accepted, including an enhanced change to the amendment concerning the appeal process — I think that’s a very positive change.

Before closing, I want to mention two points that particularly caught my attention in the debate on Bill C-22: In her third‑reading speech, Senator Seidman drew our attention to clause 12 of Bill C-22, which calls for a review of the act — after its first anniversary, third anniversary and at each subsequent fifth anniversary — by a committee of the Senate, the House or both. Senator Seidman further drew our attention to a recent article by Charlie Feldman, former Parliamentary Counsel for the Senate, which identified provisions in many federal statutes that call for review by Parliament. Mr. Feldman found 51 such provisions in legislation in the period of January 2001 to June 2021, but he also discovered that many statutory reviews never happened, and others are many years behind schedule. Only 17 of the 51 had resulted in a report.

Colleagues, I know that we’re not looking for more work to do, but it strikes me that vital and necessary work involving statutory review of legislation is not being done, and Parliament needs to step forward.

A second point caught my attention: It was Senator Cotter’s comment — also at third reading — that an appeal process might be considered a matter of natural justice in legislation such as Bill C-22, whether an appeal is stated in law or not. This is an extremely interesting and important observation, which raises questions for me about the circumstances and conditions, in government or elsewhere, where appeal processes might be available to complainants as a matter of natural justice. I look forward to hearing and learning more about this. These are considerations for another day, however, but I thank both colleagues for these interventions.

Most importantly, the debate on Bill C-22 allowed us to learn more about and to understand some of the real challenges of life: the needs and concerns faced by those who live with disabilities. I am grateful to all of our witnesses, all of my Senate colleagues and the many folks who contacted me to express their views about the legislation before us.

I feel we have done some very good work on Bill C-22, and this chamber should be proud of our contribution. I urge acceptance of the message. Thank you.

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.

Hon. Donna Dasko: Honourable senators, before I begin my comments today, I wanted to congratulate Senator MacAdam. I also wanted to say that today is also a special day for me. This is the fifth anniversary of the date I was appointed to the Senate along with my dear colleague Senator Dalphond; I want to recognize you too. I would say to her that I have appreciated every single day here — or just about every day — in this chamber, and it is a great privilege to be here. I just wanted to mark that.

This is not the topic of my discussion tonight, however fascinating it might be. I rise today to add my voice to Senator Simons’ inquiry on the challenges and opportunities that Canadian municipalities face and to the importance of understanding and redefining the relationships between municipalities and the federal government.

In the course of this inquiry, we have heard from honourable senators that over 80% of Canadians live in our urban areas, that they are engines of economic growth and that municipal governments are on the front lines of dealing with the vital issues of the day. We’ve heard from colleagues with personal experience in municipal politics and intergovernmental relations, and we’ve heard creative ideas for reform. There’s much food for thought.

Today, I want to focus mainly on issues related to the topic of civic governance, particularly as it concerns my city of Toronto. Today in Toronto, in the middle of a mayoral election, polling shows that the top issues for voters are housing, the cost of living, city infrastructure and taxes, crime and gun violence and transit and traffic. Good governance and cooperation between Toronto and the other levels of government are parts of the solution.

Nevertheless, a series of events in recent years has highlighted the vulnerability of my city to decisions taken at the provincial level. By extension, every municipality in this country is similarly vulnerable to the provincial decisions I will describe, given the disadvantageous constitutional status of cities in this country.

Let me explain: In 2016, the City of Toronto redrew its city ward boundaries, increasing the number of wards from 44 to 47 in advance of the 2018 municipal election. This decision was based on an independent consultant’s nearly four-year review, which highlighted the city’s unprecedented growth — particularly in the downtown core — and concluded that an increasing number of wards was needed to achieve effective representation where every vote would have equal weight — known as voter parity. The recommended 47-ward option would achieve voter parity by the 2026 election, as the consultants had told us, and the 2018 election was thus set in motion.

The new Government of Ontario had other ideas, however, none of which were shared with Ontario or Toronto voters during the provincial election campaign leading up to election day on June 7, 2018 — five years ago tomorrow, Senator Dalphond. Rather, it was announced after that election in July, and implemented in September of that year, that the number of wards would be cut from 47 to 25 for the October 22 municipal election. What a shock it was to the city with 242 candidates now fighting for half the seats with one month to go, and what a blow that was for democratic representation and civic autonomy.

But there’s more. Fast-forward to another June election in Ontario, this time in 2022, and yet another blow to civic democracy: Again, with no mention of it in the provincial campaign itself, the newly re-elected provincial government passed Bill 3, known as the Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act, which gives special powers to the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa to organize the political and bureaucratic structures of city hall, hire and fire top city officials, write the budget and more.

As well, another piece of provincial legislation, Bill 39, gives the mayors of Toronto and Ottawa the ability to put through bylaws in areas — get this — related to provincial priorities with the support of only one third of city council. As Toronto councillors and many others in my city and elsewhere have said, this bill clearly invalidates the will of voters and reduces the democratically elected city council to a tool for an agenda of another level of government. It is, without question, undemocratic.

Colleagues, if Canada’s largest city can be subject to these actions by a provincial government, any city in this country can find itself in the same situation — I’m thinking of Edmonton, and others. As creatures of the province, under our Constitution, municipalities have no inherent powers other than the ones given to them by the provincial legislature. We often focus on the deleterious impact of this situation on fiscal arrangements, which disadvantage Canadian municipalities. But we can see from my Ontario examples how civic governance — and, indeed, democratic structures themselves — are also at risk.

Our constitutional arrangements are at the root of the problem. However, the courts have consistently supported these arrangements — even the controversial decision of the Ontario government to cut the number of wards in Toronto in half during the 2018 municipal campaign. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled 5-4 that Ontario was within its constitutional rights to do this. That is a very close decision, but still, that’s what the courts said. And the constitutional situation of the cities vis-à-vis the provinces is highly unlikely to change in the near future since the provinces have no desire to give up control.

Even outside the drama of the Ontario situation, the so-called normal status of municipalities is fraught with disadvantages. As noted by University of Toronto Professors Enid Slack and Tomas Hachard, municipalities have a semblance of authority in several policy areas but have little power to make changes unilaterally. They have inadequate revenue sources and inadequate fiscal flexibility to meet their responsibilities. There’s often unclear and overlapping jurisdiction among the three levels of government, and much of Canada lacks appropriate regional governance structures, which hinders cooperation.

Even though cities are involved in an increasing number of policy areas — climate change, health care, economic development, immigration and public safety, to name just a few — their role in politics and policy-making is underappreciated, and their voices are under-represented.

In a 2022 paper entitled A Seat at the Table: Municipalities and Intergovernmental Relations in Canada, Professor Tomas Hachard of the Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance at the University of Toronto outlines a series of reforms that would work to include municipalities in federal and provincial policy‑making and collaboration to improve policy outcomes.

These reforms include, first, beefing up the capacity of municipalities to participate effectively in intergovernmental relations through investment in staff, municipal associations and increased regional coordination.

The second reform is increasing municipal involvement in provincial policy-making. With the range of issues involving municipalities, it’s not enough to silo them into one provincial ministry. Future models might involve a council for provincial-municipal relations or a set of intergovernmental councils focused on specific policy issues.

A third idea is eliminating unfunded mandates where governments are tasked with responsibilities they cannot afford through, for example, explicit or implicit downloading of costs to municipal governments. This seems to happen to municipalities all the time. In Toronto right now, for example, the city is picking up costs of immigration settlement and highway maintenance, which fall outside of their areas of jurisdiction. Ending unfunded mandates might be achieved through agreements that require consultation on the fiscal impacts of legislation and promises that resources will be provided to take on new responsibilities.

Hachard’s fourth proposed reform is strengthening trilateral relations. Again, recognizing that so many issues cross jurisdictions, trilateral agreements can be helpful in policy areas such as economic development, mental health and so many others.

These four reforms would give municipalities the voice they need and help achieve positive outcomes for citizens.

Still, it takes goodwill on the part of policy-makers and politicians to embrace such ideas and, essentially, it takes goodwill for provincial politicians to give up control. When it comes to my great city of Toronto and its future relations with Queen’s Park, I’m not sure that will happen. With the prospect of a new mayor, with different priorities and different approaches from our provincial government after the municipal election on June 26, it’s hard to be optimistic about future cooperation. I sure hope that I will be proven wrong on that score.

I began with comments about the issues which concern people in my city: housing, the cost of living, city infrastructure, taxes, crime, gun violence, traffic and transit. Good governance and cooperation across three levels of government are a big part of the solution. Politicians have to understand that it’s not a zero‑sum game. By sharing power, working together and giving municipalities a voice, the result is good politics, good policy and a stronger democracy. Thank you.

Senator Dasko: I will.

Senator Dasko: Senator Omidvar, that is an excellent question. I don’t have a great answer because I have not studied this in an international scene. But I think everybody in this room is aware of the battles and struggles, especially between our municipalities and our provincial governments.

In our chamber, we have municipal politicians, former mayors and those who have been intimately involved with municipal politics, and they have worked these corridors. They know what the issues are, and these are truly difficult issues to deal with.

My point here is you can win if you get along with the other levels of government. You don’t have to fight them. It can be a win-win game. When I see politicians, for example, federal and provincial, in the province of Ontario, they can get along quite well, or they can fight. It depends on the political situation, but I’ve noticed that it is possible for the two levels to get along very well, and that is to the benefit of everybody, including them.

We’re not going to change the constitutional situation of this country with respect to jurisdiction. I think we’re stuck with what we have, but we can do a much better job, and I think that’s the point I would like to make. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)