Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I was very surprised by Senator Housakos’ point of order and Senator Carignan’s speech on the issue of respect. It is very rare on this side of the House — well, it doesn’t happen.

During Question Period, from where I sit, I always hear, generally speaking, noises and comments that show a consistent lack of respect for Senator Gold’s answers.

I’m telling you this because from where I am, I see everything. If there was some disrespect in the exchange that you’re talking about — which I doubt — that is something we see every day in QP, absolutely.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: First of all, Senator Housakos, journalists do have a choice of whether or not to post their articles online.

I know that you believe very strongly in the principle of individual choice. However, we are talking here about a complete paradigm shift. That means that if media outlets don’t allow their articles to be shared, then they lose a lot of readers. It’s a bit of a paradox because the survival of journalism depends in part on really solid content, the kind of journalism that is different from what circulates on social media.

We know that stand-alone, isolated media outlets will not be able to reach enough people. They are therefore obligated, in this new universe, to make their content available by agreeing to share it. The real problem is that we don’t know how much that journalistic content is worth to a platform like Google. Of course, Google won’t give us its figures. As a result, it is extremely difficult to implement a bill like this one, which seeks to put a value on journalistic content, because we have no idea how much that content is worth to the platforms or what it brings to individual media outlets.

We know they no longer get any advertising revenues because the entire advertising market has been picked up by the platforms, but we don’t know whether that could make a difference in terms of traffic. For example, people from the daily newspaper La Presse told me that they were bringing in decent advertising revenues. It wasn’t a windfall, but they had what they needed to survive. That’s why everyone wants to be on social media. Did you have another question?

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Housakos, would you agree to take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Housakos, I’m not denying that the platforms give us a great deal of choice and that we can listen to a lot more cultural products from outside Canada. I’m someone who really enjoys this diversity.

The problem is that Canadian cultural products are not being seen. They’re hidden, especially products from minority groups, whether it’s francophone minorities or Indigenous minorities, because it’s all about clicks — not only clicks, but clicks are part of it.

Yes, I have faith in Canadians, but Canada is sparsely populated and has always relied on cultural policies for its culture to survive and flourish. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, and many countries do the same thing. We are not the United States, of course. We are a smaller culture that has the right to survive. Every country has the right to promote its culture. That’s part of the cultural exemptions in free trade agreements.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Housakos, according to my calculations, a majority of the committee members, 8 out of 12, would like to start the pre-study. If, as you say, the committee is free to decide when to start this work, I can tell you that the majority want to start the pre-study now.

I would like to ask you a hypothetical question. In your opinion, when the Senate authorizes a committee to carry out a pre-study on a government bill, does the committee have the right to not carry out the will of the Senate and to refuse to conduct a pre-study?

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I’d like to start by thanking you for this initiative, Senator Housakos. Like you, I think Canada should do more to help the Uighurs. That said, I would like to ask you a more specific question about your bill and compare it to the bill the U.S. passed in December.

In the United States, as in your bill, the importation of all goods manufactured in whole or in part in the province of Xinjiang is prohibited. However, the U.S. bill includes one important exception. It lifts the prohibition if the importing company is able to prove to customs officers that the goods were not manufactured using forced labour. In the United States, this bill was viewed as very aggressive, and it was the subject of intense debate, which led to this compromise of giving the importer a chance to defend itself with good arguments. Why don’t you try putting a clause to that effect in your bill? I understand that the existing legislation is complex and hasn’t been brought into effect. However, this is about reversing the burden of proof.

Senator Housakos: Thank you for the question, senator. First, I don’t want to copy the American law. I wanted this bill to be very strict.

As I said in my speech, I’m very open to looking at other options or amendments that could add something to the objectives of this bill. I’m very open if you want to propose an amendment so the bill can be studied and referred to the committee for study. The only problem is that, in my experience with the Chinese, they always find ways to bend the rules and circumvent the law.

For instance, I think they realized a few months ago that Canadians, Americans, the British and Australians are taking tough action. According to many sources, the Chinese are moving Uighurs from Xinjiang to other locations in China to again use them for forced labour. At the same time, they are clever enough to say that conditions are being put in place that will reduce the importation of products from Xinjiang.

I’m not entirely against your proposal. However, it’s important to remember that the Chinese government is very innovative when it comes to circumventing the laws of various countries and at various times.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you very much for the answer, Senator Housakos.

(On motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Boisvenu, seconded by the Honourable Senator Plett, for the second reading of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders).

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne, for Senator Housakos, pursuant to notice of February 8, 2022, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report on matters relating to transport and communications generally, including:

(a)transport and communications by any means;

(b)tourist traffic;

(c)common carriers; and

(d)navigation, shipping and navigable waters; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than September 30, 2025, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.