Hon. Fabian Manning rose pursuant to notice of March 7, 2023:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the life of Gordon Pinsent.

He said: Honourable senators, I note that this item is at day 15, and I am not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, I move the adjournment of the debate in my name for the balance of my time.

(On motion of Senator Manning, debate adjourned.)

(At 3:53 p.m., the Senate was continued until tomorrow at 2 p.m.)

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 79 of “Telling Our Story.”

For generations, the history and culture of Newfoundland and Labrador has been passed down through both story and song. Many of those are of a serious and profound nature, detailing a way of life our people have endured for centuries on that beautiful rock in the Atlantic Ocean. Then there are those songs and stories that are more lighthearted, such as the one I am going to tell you today.

One of our province’s most successful recording artists was a man by the name of Dick Nolan. In due course, I will be pleased to expand on Mr. Nolan’s long and distinguished music career, but today I want to tell you about one of his most popular and, indeed, signature songs titled, “Aunt Martha’s Sheep.” Written by Terrance White and Arthur Butt of Perry’s Cove and later rewritten by Ellis Coles, Nolan released the song in 1972 and the album went platinum, selling more than 100,000 copies. With our province’s population hovering around 500,000 people at the time, you can easily understand why the song became a fan favourite for many years and still is today.

The song tells the tale of boys from the picturesque town of Carmanville, Newfoundland, who decided they were going to steal a calf from Aunt Martha’s barn and cook up a scoff. Now, for those of you who do not know what a scoff is, it is a big, hearty meal.

Later on that evening, the boys crept up over Joe Tulk’s hill and headed into the barn, but they ran into a problem. The old cow got angry when they woke her from sleep, so they had no other choice: they had to steal the sheep. As you would expect, when Aunt Martha discovered what had taken place, she became pretty angry herself. The very next morning, she sent a telegram off to the RCMP telling them about her loss and asking the police to catch the robbers no matter what the cost.

In the meantime, it was getting up around midnight and the boys were up at the cabin and “had the sheep a’cooking” and everyone was feeling pretty tight. “The smell of mutton and onions no man could ask for more,” when lo and behold, the “. . . Mountie walked in the door.” He said:

 . . . sorry, boys, your party I really don’t mean to wreck.

I smelled the meat a’cooking and I had to come in and check.

Now, the boys were not too worried about the arrival of the RCMP, so they welcomed the officer, and said, “. . . come right in and join us, sir, we’re having a piece of moose.” So he came right in and sat right down, and the boys gave him a piece of the sheep. After the officer had a taste, he said to the lads, “This is the finest piece of moose I knows I’ll ever eat.”

They had a grand old evening, and at about two o’clock in the morning, the officer bid farewell, with a promise from the lads that if they got any clues on the stolen sheep, they would phone him right away. He then looked at them and said that if everyone was as good as the boys, he was sure Aunt Martha wouldn’t have lost her sheep.

After the officer left, the boys finished off the piece of mutton they had in the oven to roast, because, friends, the boys may have stolen Aunt Martha’s sheep — “. . . but the Mountie ate the most.”

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

When I spoke to this bill at second reading, I began by noting the government’s claims as to the objectives it has for this piece of legislation. The government believes that its bill will address the problems that have been faced by traditional media over the last decade. We heard the minister say that he wants to build a fairer news ecosystem where legacy and traditional media can receive the support they need in order to remain viable. Senator Harder, as the sponsor of the bill, has repeated those same arguments, of course.

Both Senator Harder and the minister have repeated the assertion that, since 2010, about one third of journalism jobs in Canada have disappeared, and Canadian TV stations, radio stations and newspapers have lost around $4.9 billion in revenue. At the same time, they argue that online advertising revenue has grown considerably.

There is no question that the changes that have occurred over the past 15 years or so have had a very serious and negative impact on traditional media in Canada. What is less clear are the reasons for those changes. Nor is it clear that Bill C-18 is, in any way, a remedy for the problem.

When Professor Dwayne Winseck of the School of Journalism and Communications at Carleton University testified before our committee on May 10, he pointed out that the causes for the decline in traditional media are multi-faceted. In response to a question I posed to him at committee, he said:

. . . I do not believe that Facebook and Google caused the crisis of journalism. . . . A decade ago revenue started to fall. . . . The crisis of journalism is multifactorial. It depends on where you want to start. Basically, per capita newspaper circulation begins to decline in the 1980s and 1990s. Revenue peaks around 2005-2006 and then starts to go down afterwards. And why? Because of the global financial crisis. These companies were ill prepared because of consolidation, and they were debt addled exactly as advertising started to plunge and the internet giants began to emerge.

So Professor Winseck emphasized this: Google and Facebook are not the cause of the crisis in journalism.

Yet then Professor Winseck went on to state that he does not believe this bill will do anything to address the monopoly concentration that he argues has occurred over the past decade and a half. Professor Winseck argues that this foundational failure in the bill will harm Canadians by not paying sufficient attention to what he believes should be the equitable distribution of whatever fruits are born out of this legislation to support smaller, upstart news entities that could liven our news ecology. He argues that this failure in the bill is a problem.

Other witnesses took a somewhat different perspective, though they tended to arrive at the same solution when it came to their analysis of the bill. Peter Menzies, a former vice-chair of the CRTC, told our committee on May 2 that “bill C-18 ultimately helps neither those that are struggling to survive nor those looking to enter the market . . . .” Mr. Menzies agreed that there has been tremendous dislocation in the news market in Canada and around the world during the last number of years. He noted that about 473 newspapers have died in Canada, but in his view, new entities have stepped in to take their place. He noted:

Up to 700 websites owned by licensed commercial broadcasters, many of which look very much like an online newspaper, have launched.

He argued that this has occurred without state subsidies: “. . . 216 web-based news and commentary platforms have been launched by innovators and entrepreneurs.” These include many diverse news and commentary platforms.

This is a somewhat different perspective from that held by Professor Winseck, but where these and many other witnesses seemed to have agreed is that Bill C-18 will not solve the problem it has supposedly been drafted to address. Minister Rodriguez has repeated many times that this bill is important to protect the free and independent press, but it seems clear from the witness testimony that we heard at committee that the bill will likely fail in that regard.

First of all, there were serious questions that were raised at committee in relation to who will benefit from this bill. According to testimony from government officials, Bill C-18 is forecast to generate about $215 million for eligible news businesses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, had a somewhat higher estimate of close to $350 million. As the PBO points out, about three quarters of that amount, or about $240 million, will go to the largest broadcasters, with the CBC, Bell Media and Rogers Media being the largest beneficiaries. Whatever remaining sum of money ends up flowing to smaller eligible media and Indigenous news outlets, that amount will have to be spread across the country to multiple news businesses.

Personally, it leaves me to wonder what level of funding will actually end up being available for smaller media in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When we asked that question about likely provincial breakdowns, officials could not tell us. They didn’t have any answers to our questions.

When the bill was reviewed at committee, Senator Carignan proposed a very reasonable amendment to exclude state broadcasters that already receive government subsidies from benefiting from the provisions in Bill C-18. But the majority of senators on the committee rejected that amendment. That means there will be less money for smaller news businesses and for Indigenous news outlets. Evidently, the Liberal government favours that outcome over giving yet more subsidies to state broadcasters.

That is unfortunate because even if we take the most optimistic number from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and then look at the likely per capita share for Newfoundland and Labrador’s smaller news businesses, the amount comes out to less than $2 million — a paltry sum for those news outlets struggling to survive in today’s market.

In the face of this reality, it is scarcely surprising that many witnesses were very skeptical that Bill C-18 will actually be successful in building the fairer news ecosystem that the minister claims to want. The potential of less than $2 million for smaller news businesses in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be the most optimistic scenario.

The minister was absolutely unable to explain, when he appeared at our committee, what will happen if some of the big digital news intermediaries, such as Meta, Google and perhaps others, simply stop linking to news in Canada. Meta witnesses who appeared before our committee were quite clear that they would not participate, while Google witnesses noted that their company has not yet made a determination. The non-participation of just two large platforms would reduce the amount of funding for eligible news businesses by up to 30%.

Senator Simons asked the minister a very direct question on this at committee. She asked what happens if on July 1 the platforms have disengaged from the Canadian news market and have ceased to share Canadian content. A fair reading of the subsequent exchange between the minister and Senator Simons is that the minister simply refused or could not answer the question.

Once again, Senator Carignan proposed an amendment to at least try to address part of this problem by removing hyperlinks as part of the definition of news content. This might have assisted in perhaps keeping platforms, which, after all, are at the heart of the government’s funding model, within the funding regime. But, once again, the majority of senators on our committee — ironically including Senator Simons — said no, but I am encouraged by her speech here today about what will happen when it comes time to vote.

Colleagues, that should worry us all because it leads me to believe the government has no idea what will happen if the bottom drops out of the bill’s funding model.

With the passage of this bill, many small news outlets in this country are on a journey to the unknown — a sad reality indeed. In that sense, the bill is a plunge into darkness, and I fear it is a plunge into darkness in another sense as well.

There is little question that the bill has serious trade implications for Canada. Last year, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, issued a press release in which she expressed concern:

. . . about Canada’s proposed unilateral digital service tax and pending legislation in the Canadian Parliament that could impact digital streaming services and online news sharing and discriminate against U.S. businesses.

Earlier this year, the U.S. embassy also stated, “We have concerns it could impact digital streaming services and discriminate against U.S. businesses.”

True to form, the government has responded by saying that it would not be intimidated. Not being intimidated is all well and good when one has a sensible strategy to deal, but based on the witness testimony we heard, it is far from clear that Bill C-18 constitutes such a sensible strategy. In fact, Bill C-18 is creating the very crisis, I believe, which the government now has no strategy to address.

During my critic briefing on this bill, officials were asked what the likely hit will be on Canadian businesses should U.S. initiate trade retaliation. Officials responded that the hit would likely be equivalent to whatever the U.S. believed U.S.-based digital news intermediaries had lost or were losing as a result of Bill C-18. In other words, whether the amount is just over $200 million, as the government forecasts, or whether it is $330 million, as forecast by the PBO, U.S. trade retaliation will potentially wipe out all those gains. Once again, one is left wondering what the end net benefit of this bill will actually end up being.

I have to admit that I was extremely surprised and disappointed as several senators on our committee who profess a great knowledge and understanding of the media world here in Canada — much better than I do — did not do much to address many of the issues and problems that our witnesses raised during our committee meetings.

There are additional concerns with this bill which relate to the implications that this legislation has for journalistic independence. In their brief on Bill C-18, the Internet Society – Canada Chapter issued a warning about the implications that this bill could have for journalistic independence. Their brief stated:

The Online News Act will make news organizations dependent on direct cash-flows from online platforms; it will give those platforms, under CRTC supervision, intrusive oversight powers over news organizations’ business operations; it will undermine journalistic independence . . . .

This, of course, assumes that online platforms will actually participate in the regime that the bill creates, but if they ever do, concerns about the implications of this have been systematically ignored.

Further concerns were raised about the powers granted to the CRTC to compel the provision of any information it deems necessary from any news organization.

Phillip Crawley, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer of The Globe and Mail, raised this specific matter with our committee, asking that the information-gathering powers of the CRTC be “. . . limited to information necessary to confirm the eligibility of news organizations, or to investigate a complaint. . . .”

Here again, Senator Carignan proposed a very reasonable amendment to limit the authorities of the CRTC in exactly that way. But once again, the majority of senators on our committee defeated the amendment.

At the end of the day, none of the minor amendments adopted at committee have addressed any of the bill’s fundamental flaws. Friends, we did not change the water into wine; we just muddied the water more.

Based on witnesses’ testimony, there is absolutely no assurance that Bill C-18 can deliver support for eligible news businesses that the government claims it will. Those who will lose the most as a result of this will be the smaller news businesses in Canada. That is the sad reality of this piece of legislation. But all Canadians will lose if Bill C-18 fails to deliver on its objectives and if all that results from this bill are unfulfilled expectations and yet another trade war with the United States.

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications had an opportunity to send to the government a sensible message on all of these concerns. I believe we had a duty to exercise sober second thought on this bill; however, the majority of senators failed to do that, and it is Canadians who will now live with the consequences. In our democracy, the majority rules, and I fear that it is Canadians who will now have to live with the consequences of the decision to pass this bill. I wish that it could have been otherwise. Thank you.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 78 of “Telling Our Story.”

Celebrating the unique heritage and culture of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is something the people of our province take great pride in. We have been blessed with sons and daughters who have devoted their entire lives to this passion. Many of these people have been and continue to be involved in the Newfoundland and Labrador Folk Arts Society, whose mandate is the promotion and preservation of the traditional folk arts of the province. Active since 1966, the organization presents educational and cultural events that provide artists with the opportunity to showcase their work, and the society creates opportunities to engage our youth and the general public in the transmission of our intangible cultural heritage.

The society is responsible for the longest continually running live music event in the city of St. John’s, known as Folk Night at the Ship Pub, which began in 1974. What a wonderful way to spend a Wednesday evening in the oldest city in North America, listening to some of our traditional musicians and our many up‑and-coming artists.

Another popular event the society brings to us on an annual basis is Young Folk at the Hall, where support is amplified for young artists between the ages of 7 and 18. This event, held at the infamous LSPU Hall, has been the birthplace of some of our province’s greatest artists and performers.

The Folk Arts Society’s signature event is the annual Newfoundland and Labrador Folk Festival, which this summer will celebrate its forty-seventh year of production. This year’s folk festival will be held on the weekend of July 7-9. From the start of the festival at the Ship Pub on Duckworth Street in the City of Legends, it will then move to the beautiful Bannerman Park, where the best of our province’s music, arts and crafts will be showcased. Mix all that with our sweet summer air, open jam sessions, traditional dances, a warm and welcoming atmosphere, and you have all the ingredients for the creation of a precious memory that will last a lifetime.

Folk festivals of the past have seen performances by some of our best, including Ron Hynes, Anita Best, Shirley Montague, Jim Payne and Fergus O’Byrne, just to name a few. And who could forget the Cape Shore’s own John Joe English, Gerald Campbell and Patsy and Bride Judge? Great times and wonderful memories.

This year’s festival will continue the tradition of bringing back home some of our favourite traditions from the past and introduce new ones to celebrate our ever-changing and welcoming province. The festival will also showcase performers and artists from outside our province, including Quebec, Acadia and beyond. The Réseau Culturel Francophone de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador will present to us as well. From traditional Newfoundland and Labrador folk music to many new and different genres of music, there is something here for everyone. From the Traditional Stage all the way to the Main Stage, attendees will have the opportunity to hear and see it all. If you enjoy music, dance, recitation, storytelling and learning about a proud and historic past coupled with the acceptance of a changing and diverse future, the St. John’s annual folk festival is where you need to be.

May I offer a little tidbit of advice, though. If you are approached and asked if you would like to have a “scoff,” that means you are invited for something to eat, but if you are invited for a “scuff,” that means you are invited to dance or, as we say in Newfoundland and Labrador, you are being invited to “step ‘er out.” Either way, the best thing to do is say yes.

This year, the very talented and popular folk group Rum Ragged will take to the Main Stage and close out the festival on Sunday night. I am being somewhat biased but I am confident it will be a great time. Then we will all gather together and sing the “Ode to Newfoundland” because:

As loved our fathers, so we love

Where once they stood we stand

Their prayer we raise to heav’n above

God guard thee Newfoundland

Thank you.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 77 of “Telling Our Story.”

The territorial limit between Quebec and the Labrador portion of our province is the longest interprovincial boundary in Canada at over 3,500 kilometres long. A dispute over that boundary and who rightfully owned Labrador, Quebec or Newfoundland began in 1902, when the Newfoundland government granted a lumber company a licence to harvest trees on both sides of the Hamilton River, now called the Churchill River.

The Quebec government considered the southern part of the river to be part of Quebec and complained to Canada’s Secretary of State. Newfoundland refused to cancel the licence.

Two years later, Quebec asked Ottawa to submit the controversy to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. This reference to an outside impartial body was appropriate, since Canada and Newfoundland were separate members of the British Empire, and neither could have settled the issue through its own courts.

In March of 1927, the Privy Council settled the boundary in its present location and ruled in Newfoundland’s favour.

In the course of our history, Newfoundland has made at least four separate attempts to sell Labrador to Canada. The only reason that there was no deal was that Canada would not pay the price that Newfoundland was asking.

The first offer was made in 1922, during Sir Richard Squires’ first term as prime minister. A year later, in 1923, William Warren, the newly elected prime minister of Newfoundland, made another approach to Canada.

On December 27, 1923, The Daily News reported that the selling price of Labrador was rumoured to be around $60 million.

Another prime minister, Walter S. Monroe, saw little potential in Labrador. He told the House of Assembly, “This country will never be able to develop it.”

Sir Richard Squires became prime minister of Newfoundland again in 1928. Newfoundland’s financial situation was deteriorating rapidly. Squires and his colleagues, once again, turned to Ottawa in the fall of 1931. Newfoundland’s finance minister at the time, Peter Cashin, met with Canada’s then-prime minister, The Right Honourable R.B. Bennett, and made him a formal offer to sell Labrador for $110 million.

While interested and sympathetic to Newfoundland’s plight, Prime Minister Bennett advised the Newfoundland government in a letter later that week that due to financial problems brought on by the Great Depression, it was impossible for Canada to do a deal at that time.

When Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, its boundary in Labrador was confirmed in the Terms of Union — now the Newfoundland Act — enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1982.

It is not difficult to imagine the consequences if Canada had accepted any of the offers from Newfoundland and had bought Labrador.

The immense natural resources of Labrador, including the hydroelectric energy at Churchill Falls and on the lower Churchill River, the vast mineral deposits in western Labrador and the enormous nickel, copper and cobalt discovery at Voisey’s Bay would all have become the property of Canada and the Province of Quebec. Some may consider the idea unthinkable, but the historical truth is that this nearly happened.

Canada’s refusal to pay Newfoundland’s asking price on at least four different attempts is the reason that, today, I — along with my colleagues Senators Marshall, Petten, Rivalia and Wells — can proudly say that we are from Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to say a sincere “thank you” to Canada for that.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Today, I am pleased to present Chapter 76 of “Telling Our Story.”

Colleagues, through previous Chapters 42 and 43, I informed you of some unique facts of my province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, I want to add a few more to that list.

I am sure that many of us here in this chamber and throughout the globe, for that matter, would wonder how we could live and work without wireless communication. It has changed our world drastically, and we can debate at some other time the pros and cons of that change. But for today, I want you to know that on December 12, 1901, Guglielmo Marconi raised a 150-meter-long antenna, which was attached to a kite, over Signal Hill in St. John’s, Newfoundland. This antenna received the world’s first transatlantic signals ever sent via radio waves.

Another fundamental change in the past century is how we travel around the world. Once again, our province played a pivotal role in the origin of aviation.

At 1:45 p.m. on June 14, 1919, John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown lifted off Lester’s Field in St. John’s aboard their modified Vickers Vimy airplane. It was not an easy flight. They battled heavy fog and only barely missed the top of the trees during takeoff. They lost radio contact after a short time in the air, and with a failed generator, they soon lost their heating source and the ability to communicate through their intercom system. They ran into a major snowstorm, and it is said that Brown had to climb onto the wings and clear the engines. I guess the action of de-icing had its beginning here also.

Through it all, the pilots persevered and beat the odds. At 8:40 a.m. on June 15, 1919, after less than 16 hours’ flying time, they made landfall in County Galway, Ireland, making their endeavour the first non-stop transatlantic flight. A small amount of mail was also carried on the flight, making it the very first transatlantic airmail flight as well. It all began on that rock we know and love as the island portion of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Royal St. John’s Regatta is the oldest annual sporting event in North America, with documented proof of boat races taking place in 1816. It is known as the largest garden party in the world, drawing crowds of up to 50,000 people to the shores of Quidi Vidi Lake each year. Regatta Day is also the only civic holiday in North America that is determined by the weather, more specifically which way the wind blows and how much of it blows. Safety is paramount.

Then we have the biggest little street in North America known far and wide as George Street in downtown St. John’s. People from all over the world have made their way to these two city blocks that hold the most pubs per square feet in Canada. You will not need to have Google Maps on your phone to go enjoy a night of bar-hopping on George. There is a great variety of music and restaurants, and the place is rich with some of the best entertainers our province has to offer. If you are musically inclined and want to join in the festive mood, you may end up on a stage singing along with one of our local musicians. If memory serves me correctly, my good friend Senator Gold is fully aware of the opportunity to take the stage on George Street — the locals are still talking about his performance there a few years ago.

Around the year 0, the Beothuk people migrated from Labrador to the island of Newfoundland, becoming our first inhabitants. Their extinction is a sad part of our history that I will tell you about at a later date.

In 1907, Newfoundland was given dominion status by the United Kingdom, thus making Newfoundland its own independent country. It remained a dominion until the rest of Canada decided to join us in 1949. The details of that story I will leave for another day also: stay tuned. Thank you.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, which deals with the subject matter of those elements contained in Subdivisions A, B and C of Division 21 of Part 4 of Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

(Pursuant to the order adopted April 27, 2023, the report was deemed referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Fabian Manning moved the adoption of the report.

Hon. Fabian Manning, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, presented the following report:

Thursday, May 11, 2023

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the honour to present its

SIXTH REPORT

Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Tuesday, October 4, 2022, to examine and report on Canada’s seal populations and their effect on Canada’s fisheries, respectfully requests funds for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, and requests, for the purpose of such study, that it be empowered:

(a)to engage the services of such counsel, technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary;

(b)to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and

(c)to travel inside Canada.

Pursuant to Chapter 3:05, section 2(1)(c) of the Senate Administrative Rules, the budget submitted to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the report thereon of that committee are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

FABIAN MANNING

Chair

(For text of budget, see today’s Journals of the Senate, Appendix B, p. 1663.)

Senator Manning: I’m not finished yet.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, today I am pleased to present Chapter 75 of “Telling Our Story.”

As you are all aware, 75 is a very significant number in this place, and selecting that number for this particular chapter is not a coincidence.

In the past, I have spoken in this chamber about the productive and successful lives of many of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians — those who have chosen to live and work in the province, and those who have journeyed beyond the rock to make their mark in the world. Today, I am adding another person to that list.

George J. Furey was born on May 12, 1948.

Senator Manning: I’m not finished yet. I have one more line.

I will conclude with an old Irish blessing that we are very familiar with back home in Newfoundland and Labrador: Your Honour, may you be in heaven a full half hour before the devil knows you’re dead.

Senator Manning: Just last week, during a state visit to the Kingdom of Morocco, which I had the pleasure to participate in along with Senator Ravalia, Senator Coyle, the Usher of the Black Rod and others, our Speaker once again represented our great country with the highest degree of competence and class. His work ethic, communication skills and strong adherence to moral and ethical principles were easily recognized by all the people we encountered during our visit.

I would like to take a moment to add a few personal comments. I knew of Senator Furey a long time before I arrived here in the Senate. The St. John’s law firm that he was part of was also my father’s law firm for many years. I had met the Speaker occasionally throughout that time period, but it was not until I arrived in Ottawa in 2006 as a member of the House of Commons that I had the opportunity to spend time in his company and learn some very valuable lessons along the way.

Now, some of you may be asking how a hardcore Liberal and a diehard Tory get along so well. Well, believe it or not, we have never allowed our political colours or our differences of opinions on certain government policies to come between our friendship: 99% of our chats are about our families, the history of our province and the hopes and dreams we both share for the place we are so fortunate to call our home.

Though there was one such morning when I thought that George was going to come over and join our blue team, but then I woke up from my sleep and realized that it was just a dream.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the clock is ticking on your time with us. I wish I could move an amendment this afternoon to extend the age requirement that is causing you to leave us in a few weeks when you celebrate your seventy-fifth birthday, but that I cannot do.

What I can do, though, is to sincerely thank you for your steadfast representation and loyal service to the people of our home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the people of Canada, including all of us here who have had the privilege and honour to serve with you in the Senate of Canada. In your absence, the Senate will indeed be a different place, but I believe I speak for all of my Senate colleagues when I say you will definitely be missed.

On behalf of all my colleagues, I wish you and your lovely wife, Karen, a future full of great health and happiness as you enjoy the years ahead surrounded by your loving family.

On behalf of my wife, Sandra, and our family, thank you from the bottom of our hearts for a friendship we will cherish for as long as we live. Someone once said that a good friend knows all your stories while a best friend helps you create them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for helping me create some great ones along the way.

Senator Manning: I hope you are not eating up my time. I will start again.

George J. Furey was born on May 12, 1948, in the beautiful town of Avondale, Newfoundland and Labrador. That was less than a year before Canada joined Newfoundland.

George was one of eight children, with four brothers and three sisters. In the words of George’s son, Andrew, in his book entitled Hope in the Balance, George’s mom, Mary, had a will that was bigger than the judgment of those around her. Her family was her greatest passion.

When George was just six years old, his three sisters went to the Belvedere orphanage in St. John’s, which was, at the time, run by the Sisters of Mercy. George and his brothers went to the Mount Cashel orphanage where his mom got a job working as a cook for the Christian Brothers’ private residence next door to the orphanage. Mary Furey’s family would survive and prosper.

George later attended Memorial University of Newfoundland and Labrador where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree, along with a Bachelor of Education degree, in 1970. These were followed by a Master of Education degree from Memorial University in 1976. During his career as an educator, George was a teacher with the Roman Catholic school board in St. John’s, a supervising vice-principal of the Port-au-Port Roman Catholic School Board and a supervising principal in the town of Dunville with the Placentia-St. Mary’s Roman Catholic School Board.

After a successful career in education, George attended Dalhousie Law School and completed a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1983. He was called to the Bar of the Law Society of Newfoundland & Labrador in 1984 and subsequently named a partner in the St. John’s law firm of O’Brien, Furey & Hurley. While in his second year of practising law, he successfully challenged the Criminal Code language on sexual assault and proved that, with the advent of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, certain Criminal Code provisions were unconstitutional. In 1989, he was named senior partner at the firm O’Brien, Furey & Smith and in 1993 was appointed to the Provincial Police Complaints Commission and subsequently appointed as Queen’s Counsel in 1996.

On the advice of then-prime minister Jean Chrétien, George was appointed to the Senate of Canada on August 11, 1999. He served on many of the standing committees in the Senate, such as Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and as Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

On December 3, 2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed Senator Furey to the position of the forty-fifth Speaker of the Senate of Canada, the very first person from Newfoundland and Labrador to hold this position. For 24 more days, he will also hold the title of the longest-serving member of the Senate.

I, like many of you, have witnessed our Speaker perform his duties here in Ottawa, in the chamber, throughout our great country of Canada and around the world. He has done so with a high degree of humility, dignity and professionalism, along with a great sense of humour. A few weeks ago, here in Ottawa, during the visit of U.S. President Biden, our Speaker was nothing short of a class act. I feel confident in saying that I believe the words and the eloquent delivery of his speech on the floor of the House of Commons made us all feel very proud to have him represent us during this special event.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act regarding violence against an intimate partner. While I am speaking as the official critic, as I said at second reading, I support the bill and I believe it has the potential to make a significant impact in the adjudication of intimate partner violence cases and custody arrangements.

I want to also add my comments to welcome many people who have joined us here tonight who have been working on this piece of legislation for years. I offer my sincere thanks for your efforts, your resolve and your determination to seeing that this day finally comes to reality.

Intimate partner violence is an issue I have been working on since 2017. I have spoken with many victims and survivors and have heard harrowing stories, some of which I have shared with you in this chamber. As my honourable colleagues know, as a result of my consultations, I tabled Bill S-249, An Act respecting the development of a national strategy for the prevention of intimate partner violence.

The statistics speak for themselves, and they paint a grim picture of the lack of seriousness with which intimate partner violence has been treated historically by all governments. It may be difficult to believe, but currently, Canada has no national plan or strategy to deal with violence against women. Announcements have been made, sympathies continue to be tweeted out on the anniversaries of tragedies like the Polytechnique shooting and consultations have reportedly begun for a new plan, but advocates for change have grown tiresome of the promises. The time is now.

Bill C-233 is one important tool in the toolbox, but I truly hope to see Bill S-249 advance expeditiously so we can begin implementing a comprehensive national strategy to tackle this complex societal problem.

To remind my honourable colleagues, Bill C-233 has two key provisions that seek to mitigate the prevalence and harm associated with intimate partner violence. First, it requires a justice, before making a release order for an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device.

There has been some criticism of the electronic monitoring device provisions and the possibility of creating a false sense of security for victims. I had the opportunity to participate in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s first meeting on this bill, and I asked the sponsors about this. They responded that, in their work with victims and women’s shelters, they have found that the monitoring option, while not perfect, does help ease the stress that a complainant will feel, and it can instill a sense of peace of mind in the victim.

While I believe the technology is likely not perfect, I also believe there is value in giving victims the opportunity to assess whether their abuser is in the vicinity. That way, they can take matters into their own hands and alert the police and find a safe place to protect themselves and their family. We know that regaining a sense of control for victims can serve as a powerful instrument in the rebuilding of their lives.

The second major provision is the amendment to the Judges Act. Bill C-233 adds the topics “intimate partner violence” and “coercive control” to the list of continued educational seminars for judges. This part of the bill is called “Keira’s Law,” named in the honour of Keira Kagan, a four-year-old girl from Ontario who is believed to have been killed by her father in a revenge-driven murder-suicide.

Keira’s father had been abusive toward her mother, yet the courts would not acknowledge that there was any increased risk for Keira’s safety. The evidence demonstrates that despite an overlap in risk factors for domestic violence and child abuse, judges often overlook this link when considering custody cases. Two weeks prior to Keira’s death, her mother, Jennifer Kagan-Viater, brought a motion to suspend or supervise Keira’s father’s access to their daughter because she worried that Keira was at risk. The judge dismissed the motion. Two weeks later, Keira and her father were found deceased at the bottom of a cliff in Milton, Ontario.

On February 9, 2023, the three-year anniversary of Keira’s death, a report was released by the Domestic Violence Death Review Committee following the conclusion of their review. The report confirms that Keira’s death was likely a murder-suicide at the hands of her father. The report further showed that despite repeated warnings, risk factors and multiple court hearings, the system failed to protect Keira. On the same day, the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario announced that an inquest will be held into Keira’s death. The inquest will examine the circumstances surrounding the death, and a jury will make recommendations aimed at preventing further deaths.

I have no doubt that these developments are the result of the tenacity of Jennifer and Philip Viater. The work they have done, in the face of tragedy, to advance this cause and bring public awareness to this dangerous lack of understanding is truly commendable and inspiring. They have spent three years pushing forward on legislative proposals and a public awareness campaign with the goal of ensuring no other family will have to endure such a senseless and preventable tragedy.

Jennifer and Philip testified on this bill at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee alongside Jo-Anne Dusel, the Executive Director of the Provincial Association of Transition Houses and Services of Saskatchewan. Ms. Dusel has worked on the front lines with thousands of victims and survivors of intimate partner violence. In her testimony, she highlighted the problem, stating:

To this day, it appears that too many judges do not recognize the harms to children when one parent has abused the other. Yet, when victims of intimate partner violence raise this issue in family court, it can result in less parenting time for the protective parent. Even when judges accept the occurrence of abuse, they often see it as incident-based, as in a one-off that won’t happen again, as having been in the past, or they mutualize it as a high-conflict relationship.

Colleagues, while it may seem common sense to many of us that an abuser is an abuser, this is clearly not universally recognized. When I asked about this gap in understanding and why these critical risk factors have been traditionally ignored, Ms. Dusel pointed out that judges do not have an ongoing mechanism to receive information on new research or risk factors as they are being identified. Therefore, the risk factors are likely not being ignored as much as judges may not be aware of them.

Philip Viater, a family lawyer himself, added:

Judges don’t seem to be aware of the risk factors, and risk assessments are virtually non-existent. When I raise risk factors in court, I can tell you that I’m often met with pushback, saying, “Well, who is to say that we agree with these risk factors?” There seems to be a lack of training there.

Colleagues, this is why the continuing education portion of this bill is so imperative. The stakes could not be higher. We are talking about children being in the unsupervised care of a known abuser. I am looking forward to the swift passage of this bill, and appreciate the cooperation among the caucuses in both houses in order to move this private member’s bill through Parliament as quickly as we have. I believe it speaks to the urgency of these proposals.

When Ms. Kagan was at committee, I asked her if she could tell us a little more about her daughter Keira. To honour Keira and her family, I think it is important to share her words with you tonight:

Keira was a lovely child. In many ways, she was a normal four-year-old. She loved to play, loved to be with her friends and was very spunky and fierce. She had an opinion, and people were going to know it. She often said she wanted to change the world; she wanted to make an impact. We raised her with the values of helping those more vulnerable and really trying to make a difference in the world, as crazy as this world is right now.

She was a brilliant little girl, and I have no doubt that had she been given the opportunity, she would have reached her potential and done great things.

The spirit of Bill C-233 belongs to Keira, in my opinion. While it is sad and unfortunate that she is no longer with us, let us all come together and pass this bill so the impact and changes that Keira wanted to make in this world will be realized.

Thinking of Kiera tonight, I am reminded of a quote from another very special person, Mother Teresa, who once said, “I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

In Kiera’s memory, colleagues, I am pleased to support Bill C-233, and I hope you will do the same.

Senator Manning: Thank you, Senator Cormier. I didn’t get the last couple of words of your question, but I think I got the gist of what you’re asking.

There’s no doubt in my mind — I live in a small, rural part of Newfoundland and Labrador and I’m very concerned about the impact of any legislation on those small publications. I hope that through the committee process we will hear from publishers such as those you touched on and the impact that the internet has had on them so far, and then we’ll hear what they think about Bill C-18. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with several people involved in publishing across the country already on Bill C-18 — small, medium and large — and there’s a variety of opinion, as always. We’ve served on the committee for some time now and had the opportunity to hear from everybody.

My concern on the House side is that they cut off debate and moved on. At least in the Senate on Bill C-11, whether I agree at the end of the day with what happens to the bill, I do agree with the process of taking our time to listen to others, to listen to the people who are affected and hopefully improve the bill if it needs to be improved, move amendments if they need to be moved, but to make sure that at least the small players in this game don’t get swallowed up.

Senator Manning: Yes.

Hon. Fabian Manning: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada.

The purported purpose of this bill is to regulate what the bill terms “. . . digital news intermediaries to enhance fairness in the Canadian digital news marketplace . . . .” “Fairness” is the word that the government employs most in relation to this bill. The government argues that regulation of digital news intermediaries is necessary to allow for the Canadian digital news market to be sustainable.

To accomplish that supposed objective, this bill does many things. It creates a framework for digital news intermediary operators — online platforms — and news businesses to enter into agreements respecting news content that is made available by the digital news intermediaries. It empowers the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission — CRTC — to maintain a list of digital news intermediaries and then enables the CRTC to exempt them from the terms of the bill if the CRTC is satisfied that an intermediary has entered into agreements with news businesses that, again, in the commission’s opinion, satisfy certain criteria of fairness that the CRTC itself will adjudicate.

The bill allows for regulations to be made by the government on how the CRTC is to interpret these criteria. The bill establishes a bargaining process between businesses and digital news intermediaries that the CRTC will oversee. It permits businesses to complain to the CRTC about the way digital news intermediaries are conducting themselves. And, of course, the bill then authorizes the commission to impose, for any contraventions of the legislation, penalties and conditions on the participation of news business in the bargaining process.

The bill also establishes a mechanism for the recovery, from digital news intermediary operators, of costs related to the administration of the legislation.

Colleagues, what this bill does is inject the CRTC into yet another dimension of how the internet and broadcasting have functioned over the past 30 years. This time, the CRTC is to be injected into how Canadians get their news and into who benefits from that consumption of the news.

The Senate recently reviewed Bill C-11. Many witnesses, among them former chairs and commissioners of the CRTC — people who possess considerable knowledge and experience — told us about the limited capacity of the CRTC to take on the new roles envisioned for the commission under Bill C-11.

Now the government is proposing, under Bill C-18, to give the CRTC an even broader role and more power when it comes to the negotiation of revenue-sharing arrangements between online platforms and news businesses. Bill C-18 would impose a board on all parties. That board would, of course, be appointed by the government to conduct the arbitration that is provided for in Bill C-18. It is scarcely surprising that many people question how such a board will credibly adjudicate between very different points of view and in a manner that is seen as legitimate by all parties.

I would argue that the absence of legitimacy is a major problem with this bill, given the scope of authority that is proposed for the CRTC over what are bread-and-butter issues for multiple news outlets — often small news outlets — and the platforms themselves.

The role of the CRTC will also extend to how consumers, or the Canadian public, access and consume news. What I fear is that the task that the CRTC will assume will be so difficult that the government may end up inadvertently undermining the legitimacy of the CRTC itself. That is, of course, not what the government intends. But as with all ill-thought-out good intentions, that may nevertheless be the result.

Despite all the claims by the government that it widely consulted on this bill, there is certainly no clear consensus to suggest that the role proposed by the CRTC will be seen as legitimate by all parties.

I want to focus my remarks today on what I see as some of the core problems with the concepts that underscore the bill.

The first challenge concerns what the ultimate objective of the bill actually is. When I listen to government justifications for this legislation, I hear a lot of buzzwords and phrases.

Minister Rodriguez has said that the bill is important to protect a free and independent press. He says that the bill is about ensuring that Canadians have access to fact-based information. He also said this is about strengthening our democracy. He states that the bill will build a fairer news ecosystem.

We hear those words — “news ecosystem” and “fairness” — a lot from government spokespeople. Not surprisingly, Senator Harder repeated those same themes when he spoke to the bill in the Senate Chamber. Using the same words as the minister, Senator Harder said:

The aim of Bill C-18 is to create a news ecosystem that promotes the creation of high-quality news content and reflects Canada’s diverse voices and stories.

He says that the bill will provide “. . . a legislative and regulatory framework that is flexible, modern and encourages market fairness.” There is that word “fairness” again.

By my count, Senator Harder uttered the word “fair” or “fairness” more than 20 times in his remarks on the bill. He referred to the importance of the government ensuring, through the CRTC, “fair negotiations.” He said that the government had to ensure that everybody gets their “fair share.” He spoke about the need for news businesses to get their “fair compensation.”

Many iterations of that word “fair” were used in Senator Harder’s remarks. The minister also continuously repeats the fairness mantra.

I’ve been around politics for a long time. Excuse me for being a little bit cynical. When a politician uses a word like “fair” that many times, people are wise to check to see if they still have their wallets.

What this is really about is money. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the question of who gets access to revenue streams generated from online advertising is the major focus of this bill. Accessing that revenue stream is what the bill is really all about.

Through this legislation, the government proposes to set up a system where the digital platforms will be required to pay news businesses for posting links to the news content that they have produced. Senator Harder argued the government’s case for doing this by saying that the business model of digital platforms is to capture billions of dollars in advertising revenue by posting these links. But then, he argues, they pay none of that advertising revenue to the originators of the news.

The platforms, of course, see it differently. In their view, what the bill will do is to require them to pay the publishers simply for hosting links to their websites and for bringing more people to their websites. In effect, what they see is a de facto tax for putting the link to the news site on their platforms.

Whether we support the point of view of the government or the platforms, there is no dispute over the fact that with Bill C-18, the government has come down on the side of the legacy news media.

The government argues that the reasons for doing so are grounded in the devastating impact that the internet revolution has had on the legacy news media. Minister Rodriguez himself referenced the allegation that since 2010, about one third of journalism jobs in Canada have disappeared and that Canadian TV stations, radio stations and newspapers have lost approximately $4.9 billion in revenue, even as online advertising revenue has grown.

The bill is in large measure about trying to put the genie back in the bottle and reverse the undoubtedly negative impact that the advent of the internet has had on traditional broadcasters.

Sue Gardner, who in 2021-22 was a visiting professor at the Max Bell School of Public Policy, described this in a recent article as being the equivalent of a government 100 years ago requiring carmakers to pay permanent compensation to companies who had heretofore made buggy whips.

Those buggy whip manufacturers have been following the business model of buggy whip makers for many centuries. Then came along the automobile, and buggy whip makers suddenly found their previous profits badly impacted. Government intervention might make good sense for buggy whip makers, but does it make good sense for society as a whole?

I don’t want to minimize the struggles that traditional news organizations are going through. I know many jobs have been lost. I have seen this in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador. But I do believe we need to ask ourselves whether heavy-handed government intervention to support an out-of-date business model really makes sense.

If this is what we are doing, then words like “ensuring fair negotiations” and “ensuring that everybody gets their fair share” are really just a cover. What the bill is really about in that case is about justifying government intervention. That intervention will occur through the CRTC to redirect revenue flow.

That brings me to what has been the government’s rhetorical cover for this bill, namely, the argument that it is essential for our democracy to sustain the old way of doing things.

In this regard, Senator Harder’s remarks on Bill C-18 stress the vital services that traditional news broadcasters are said to perform in Canada. He said that “. . . a free and independent press is one of the foundations of a safe, prosperous and democratic society.” Certainly, no one in this chamber would disagree with that premise.

But he also implied that it is largely the traditional broadcasters who deliver for Canadians that fair and unbiased information. Senator Harder implied that unless government supports traditional broadcasters, we will see greater misinformation and disinformation. Specifically, he said:

We have seen how the spread of misinformation and disinformation around the world can damage societies. A robust, questioning media is one of the most effective antidotes to these disorders.

With all due respect, I believe it is a fallacy to argue that traditional media is somehow our antidote to misinformation. Everyone in this chamber has witnessed mainstream media feeding frenzies that result whenever hot-button issues suddenly emerge at the top of the news cycle. A groupthink takes hold. Suddenly the entire parliamentary press is reporting the same story in much the same way. No one wants to be seen as out of step. Investigative journalism has gone out the window.

When this happens — and it happens all too frequently — I have rarely seen any of the mainstream media outlets swim against the tide. When the feeding frenzy is at its peak, I have rarely seen media ask many serious questions that might suggest that perhaps somebody has it wrong. As I just said, investigative journalism has gone out the window.

The idea that government intervention through Bill C-18 is pivotal to create a healthy mainstream media better able, in Senator Harder’s words, “to hold . . . leaders accountable” puts the emphasis in completely the wrong place. The traditional media are not the guardians of objective truth.

I think many Canadians see it the same way. When we consider Canadian news viewing habits, we are seeing a decline in confidence in traditional broadcasting. The average audience for CBC’s supper-hour newscast is just over 300,000 people. That’s less than 1% of the Canadian population. I’m sure many senators opposite watch the CBC religiously, and on this side, I may be the only one, but I do too most times. I too watch it from time to time. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have good memories about what the CBC was and about the services it did provide, particularly to the rural communities throughout our province, especially in the Labrador region of our province.

But the public’s view of that is changing. Despite Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner’s assertion that online news outlets aren’t news, clearly most Canadians don’t see it that way. Canadians are looking for greater and real diversity in their news. I think that it is confirmed if we seriously consider how many people are watching traditional mainstream news broadcasts in general.

CTV News has around four times the viewership of CBC, but even their viewership is less than 4% of Canadians on most nights. Much of that likely has to do with the availability of greater variety of alternative news sources. But some of it undoubtedly has to do with skepticism concerning some of what is being reported in the mainstream media.

With all due respect to my colleague Senator Harder and to the government, if we really want to counter disinformation, I think the best antidote to groupthink in the media is to celebrate diversity in news sources. I would argue that diversity of opinion that we have now as a result of the internet revolution is a far greater antidote to misinformation than what we will get from bills like the one we have before us.

There is no question that the diversity of opinion on the internet inevitably risks simultaneously greater dissemination of disinformation. But for the informed and critical consumer of information, this should not be a danger. What we should be encouraging as a society is both critical thought and the critical consumption of diverse information. What we should not be doing is acting from a presumption that more government intervention to empower certain news media over others is the solution to our problems. Yet, I fear that — cloaked in a language of fairness and countering disinformation — this is the precise purpose of where the bill is leading us.

Colleagues, this bill requires a fulsome review in committee before we can agree to pass it.

I have only talked about some of the issues and concerns I see with the bill. There are others. In particular, what happens if the platforms simply refuse to cooperate with the legislation? What if they simply de-link all previous Canadian news sources? Is that a possible outcome? Are there other negative outcomes that the government is simply choosing to ignore? We know and have heard that the United States has again signalled, as it did in relation to Bill C-11, that the passage of the bill will have trade implications. Once again, the government seems determined to ignore those concerns.

Like the previous bill, Bill C-11, which we reviewed, Bill C-18 is complex, and its implications are multi-faceted. I hope senators agree with me that the committee reviewing this bill must hear from witnesses on all sides of the issue in order to fully understand the potential implications.

I believe this is essential, since, once again during House debate, the government cut off hearing from witnesses in an attempt to rush the bill through the legislative process. It did not work on Bill C-11, and I highly doubt it will work on Bill C-18.

The irony of the government doing that — even as Senator Harder tells us how important this bill is for democracy — should not be lost on anyone. As we did on Bill C-11, the Senate can — and should — ensure that witnesses who are prevented from appearing in the House are heard in this chamber. Personally, I am skeptical that this bill will be good for the country at the present time. I am concerned about the implications of certain sections of the bill, but I am prepared to listen to all witnesses on all sides of this issue.

I share the concerns of many when it comes to ensuring that our smaller and remote communities in particular have access to quality local news. I fear that Bill C-18 either would not be a solution to that problem or would create so many other problems that the supposed cure may not be worth it. But, as I said, I want to hear from multiple witnesses on all sides and hope the senators opposite will be prepared to do that as well. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Manning: Certainly. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Senator Manning: Thank you, senator, for your question. First of all, my faith in the online world and social media is very limited. I am not on any social media myself because maybe I’m too opinionated or whatever the case may be, but I decide to keep my views to myself most of the time.

With regard to government-appointed officials — and I’ve served in different positions — I don’t necessarily agree with all appointments, as I’m sure you don’t either. My concern with this here is that the variety of opinion that we received on Bill C-11 — we received many people who came before us who had concerns with the opportunity that we will be giving to the CRTC to regulate, to organize, to decide who will be the winner and the loser here. That concerns me and concerned the witnesses we’ve heard on Bill C-11.

We have to try to make it — again, I talked about the word “fairness” being used — as open and transparent as possible. We hear a lot of that too. I think we have to try at least to be as open and transparent as we can with the legislation to make sure that the people out there who are most affected at least believe they have been treated fairly. There’s that word “fair” again. Those words are important, but it’s very important to the people who are involved in the industry out there.

That’s why I’m very interested in beginning the process at committee. I believe in my time here in the chamber — and I’m sure you’ll learn the same thing as you go — it is the committee where the work is done. It’s the committee where we educate ourselves, where we find out from across the country how people think about a piece of legislation and how they offer improvements and amendments to it. Then it is up to us to either take their advice or just sit back and not do so. But at least we have the opportunity to do so.