Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise today to speak to Motion No. 107, which was brought forward by our colleague, Senator Deacon. Even though my level of interest and expertise in all things digital are far from rivalling his own, I support his efforts to make the delivery of public services more efficient and accessible.

[English]

I must begin by confessing that when I first saw Senator Deacon’s motion, my immediate reaction was to think, “Finally, a chance to rant against government websites.” But then I thought that would not be very constructive in light of what the motion seeks to do.

Still, I would say that we are presented with a kind of paradox. By voting in favour of this motion — and I will — we are asking the government to do more of something it has been pretty bad at. It would be tempting to spend 10 minutes railing against the dysfunction of some of our online services, but I will resist.

Consider only two anecdotes. The first comes from a family of Canadian permanent residents in Montreal. They are immigrants from Eastern Europe. Both are telecommunications engineers. They have two children. They have lived in Canada for a few years, and recently had to renew their permanent resident cards as they prepare to apply for Canadian citizenship. This was a formality. So they went onto the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC, website and they started to fill out the online forms for their family of four. These are fairly complex applications, even for people who are already permanent residents.

The father started working on the process one evening, and after encountering some difficulties, he decided to take a day off only to fill out the applications online, but it did not work. For some reason, the government site made it impossible to submit the application. So this man, a telecommunications engineer, started looking for advice, and he discovered entire blogs dedicated to dealing with the IRCC system. He was told the name of his street might be too long. He was told to try to add spaces in his postal code. He was told not to use capital letters. He was told other things, but in the end, nothing worked.

After wasting more than one day on his family’s online application, this very smart and technologically capable man printed the application documents and sent them in paper form.

[Translation]

Here’s the second anecdote. Everyone knows there’s a dire shortage of doctors in the regions, including in Quebec’s Laurentians region. Five years ago, two doctors from France came to lend a hand, and they now have 2,700 patients between the two of them.

Unfortunately, we recently found out that Isabelle Branco and Jean-Louis Ménard had to put their appointments on hold and were in danger of losing their work permits. That means they’re no longer treating their patients, ostensibly because a code was missing from their file even though it had been sent several days earlier.

Fortunately, the whole thing was cleared up yesterday, but apparently it took the media getting involved to sort things out.

It’s something of a paradox. Government websites have been making lots of people, including me, want to tear their hair out for years, yet we still want more. We need more.

Why? Simple: We now live much of our lives online. We pay our bills online. We communicate online. We bank online. We research online. We shop online.

Steve’s Music Store, a Montreal institution, had this motto: “If we don’t have it, you don’t need it.” These days, if something isn’t on the internet, it doesn’t exist.

That’s why we need the federal government to increase the quantity and improve the quality of its online services.

I will not repeat the statistics given by Senator Deacon regarding Canada’s low digital government ranking, nor will I dwell on the cost savings, because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s recent reports show, those are difficult to quantify. In any case, the digital transformation is not just about cutting costs. It’s about making life easier and making sure that our public services remain accessible as technology evolves.

In order for that to happen, I would suggest that our federal government focus on two issues in particular.

The first is simplicity. The primary objective of this motion is to increase the quantity of services available online. However, I think that will be impossible if we don’t also improve the quality of those services.

Government websites must be simple to use and written in plain language, not Klingon. The sites must contain simple instructions with an easy log-in and authentication process. They also need to be reliable and flexible. They should not be designed to accept only specific file types, requests, software applications, certificates, characters, browsers or formats. They must be designed so that a 10-year-old child or a 64-year-old adult, like me, can use them without screaming or bursting into tears.

[English]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer report contains an encouraging paragraph on this point:

As part of this goal, the federal government created a link between [an individual’s Canada Revenue Agency and his or her Service Canada Account]. This allows for a single sign‑in and is based on a “tell us once” principle. . . . In addition to being able to connect between [different agencies’ accounts], the federal government also partnered with certain financial institutions . . . and some provinces to access Government of Canada services. The purpose of offering different choices of login credentials . . . is to make its online services “more convenient for clients to access” and having “one less username and password for clients to remember”.

I would like to take a minute to make sure that the eternal archives of the Senate record this critically important prescription for the future of humanity: Please give us fewer usernames and passwords to remember.

The second issue that I think needs to be addressed is that of privacy and information security. I have zero technical knowledge about these issues. To be perfectly frank, these are not problems that wake me up at night — perhaps because I am naive, or because my personal information is fairly boring. But I know that a lot of people are very concerned about privacy and information security — I have one friend in particular — and I know these things matter. As the federal government moves forward with the transition to digital services and digital identification, it must make sure to adopt best practices and be completely transparent about what it does.

This is not just a matter of information security. It’s also a matter of public trust in our institutions, which is something that has implications beyond the delivery of government services. At a time when, sadly, public trust in our institutions seems to be at an all-time low, our government needs to be exemplary in its approach to digital interactions and information processing.

I conclude by reiterating my support for Motion No. 107. The federal government must continue to transition to digital service delivery, and it must do it faster and better. I do not expect this major transformation to be completed in the short term. However, and for this reason, I am grateful to have my husband, children and younger staff to help me navigate these evil web portals. Thank you.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Kutcher, seconded by the Honourable Senator Cormier:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the negative impact of health disinformation and misinformation on Canadian society and what effective measures can be implemented to counter this impact; and

That the committee submit its final report on this study to the Senate no later than May 31, 2024, and that the committee retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to support Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada, at second reading.

My colleague Rosemary Moodie provided a comprehensive overview of the history of child care in this country and the principles contained in Bill C-35, including provisions that enable Indigenous peoples to define and direct their own early childhood services.

I won’t repeat what Senator Moodie said so well. Instead, I want to address some of the challenges of implementing this program, in light of Quebec’s experience with $8.85-per-day child care spaces.

To begin, it is clear that this framework legislation essentially seeks to ensure that the ambitious federal child care funding initiative in the provinces and territories becomes a permanent fixture. Minister Karina Gould said so openly during the committee study in the House of Commons on March 10, and I quote:

The purpose of Bill C-35 is to guide the federal government so that subsequent governments . . . are guided by these principles and objectives when they negotiate with the provinces and territories.

That’s why this bill is short and simply sets out general principles, such as long-term funding. All the details are in the hundreds of pages of bilateral agreements between Ottawa and the provinces. Ontario’s agreement is 140 pages long; Quebec’s agreements are 47 pages long. The agreements include amounts, funding formulas, specific rules and accountability measures.

I would note that the agreement with Quebec is asymmetrical. It reaffirms Quebec’s exclusive jurisdiction over child care and says that Quebec will have total flexibility to spend the money it gets on improving its network and creating new spaces.

I found two segments of Bill C-35 particularly interesting. The first is in paragraph 7(1)(b), which states that federal investments should aim to “enable families of all income levels, including low incomes, to benefit . . . .”

Helping low-income families is no doubt the most difficult goal for a universal child care program to achieve. Quebec’s experience is proof of that. That was actually one of the two major goals set out in Quebec’s Educational Childcare Act, which was passed 25 years ago.

Unfortunately, the legislation has not had the desired result. The idea was to make the service free for the poorest families to encourage them to register their children in early childhood centres, which are known as CPEs in Quebec. These are high-quality, non-profit child care services. The goal was for children to benefit from early stimulation and more equal opportunities in their schooling.

The fact remains that these families still need to register and spots have to be available. We know that 36% of Quebec children under the age of four do not attend a recognized child care facility. Sophie Mathieu, senior program specialist at the Vanier Institute of the Family, explained to the House of Commons committee that very little is known about the systemic, economic and cultural barriers that impede families’ access to child care.

The 2020-21 report of the Auditor General of Quebec gave some striking examples of such disparities. In disadvantaged neighbourhoods, particularly the borough of Montreal North, there are a lot more spaces available in private daycares than in CPEs, whereas the opposite is true in the wealthy neighbourhood of Westmount. In simple terms, richer families have greater access to high-quality CPEs at $8.85 a day than low- and modest-income families, who have greater access to commercial daycares that offer lower-quality services. Children living in families with an income of $50,000 or less are less likely to get a space at a CPE. I find that deeply disturbing.

[English]

The known difference of quality between private daycares and non-profit CPEs should make the province think. The Quebec government did not have the means to meet the full demand, so it turned to the private sector to offer more spots, either by subsidizing them directly or by offering a tax credit. It is more than time to raise quality standards and to enforce them.

Quebec has gone through different stages to try to refine the data and make its waiting list system fairer. Today, there is a single, regularly updated waiting list for all CPEs across Quebec. Right now, for example, we know there are 37,260 children waiting for a spot, a figure that has jumped by 3,700 in one year despite the addition of more than 20,000 subsidized spaces over the past two years. However, even the accuracy of this list is disputed by some.

Despite significant investments, there is a lack of spots for mothers who want to return to work. The reality is that it is the less fortunate families who are worse off. The labour shortage in child care services aggravates the problem.

When I was President of the Quebec Council for the Status of Women, I spent much time thinking about this supposed universal child care model. There is no easy answer.

[Translation]

Let me share a personal anecdote. When the child care program first started 25 years ago, I secured $5-a-day child care spaces for my two children. I was very lucky. It was a daycare at my workplace at Radio-Canada, and there was always a child care educator available in the evening for employees with atypical work schedules. That applied to me because I was covering the news. I simply added my name to a waiting list at the right time. The system was purely first-come, first-served.

That child care centre gave me seven years of peace of mind. I could see that my children were learning and that their tastes were developing thanks to healthy lunches. However, even back then, there were long waiting lists, and some of my lower-income colleagues were not as lucky as I was. The Quebec model is not equitable. That is a lesson Canada should learn from.

The same problem will arise in other provinces. I believe that until there are enough spaces for all children from all walks of life and all neighbourhoods, the principle of universality is unfair if it doesn’t take income into account. I think it’s essential to give priority to less fortunate families. As it stands, the system will provide a daycare space at $8.85 a day to a doctor earning $300,000 if she registers before an orderly who earns six or seven times less than that.

In 2015, the Quebec government abolished the flat rate and charged higher rates to parents with higher incomes, but that reform was later abandoned because of an election campaign. In short, we went back to square one.

The Quebec example illustrates the challenges and the adjustments that were needed along the way, just as they will definitely be needed elsewhere in Canada. Fortunately, the Quebec government has recognized the inequity of access to reduced-contribution spaces and is working to address it. The legislation was amended two years ago to ensure that priority for subsidized child care services is given to children in precarious socio-economic circumstances.

Despite these challenges, I would remind the chamber that the Quebec model has contributed to significant advances in Quebec society, particularly for the middle class.

In 2022, 88% of Quebec women between 25 and 54 years of age were active in the workforce, compared to an average of 84% in the other provinces. Over the years, mothers of young children have been returning to the workforce faster, due in part to good‑quality, affordable daycare. In 25 years, the number of daycare spaces has climbed from 79,000 to 307,000, including 237,000 subsidized spaces. That is a huge increase.

The second thing in the bill that struck me is the annual report that the federal government will be required to prepare. The report has to contain a summary of the progress made in the provincial systems and information about the quality, availability, affordability, accessibility and inclusiveness of child care services.

The federal public servants who answered our questions at a recent briefing on Bill C-35 were unequivocal: They are depending on the provinces to provide the evidence needed to carry out a real assessment. This evidence must show not only how many spaces costing $10 or less per day were created in each province, but also how many families are still on waiting lists.

Obviously, each province already has its own waiting list system. Some don’t even have a waiting list. With this in mind, how can we evaluate the effectiveness of federal investments?

I am going to end by sharing some words from the November 2021 brief prepared by the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, which identifies the primary shortcomings that should be corrected in Quebec’s model. To meet the needs of all women, child care services must take into account mothers with variable work schedules, women with precarious immigration status, and poorer and more vulnerable women.

These are equity issues that have no doubt already been identified in other provinces and territories, but they are difficult to resolve. I hope that other provinces can benefit from Quebec’s experience and that Canadian families — especially the less fortunate ones — can fully benefit from the new program put in place by Bill C-35.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to speak in support of the principle of Bill S-251, which was introduced by Senator Kutcher.

At first glance, this appears to be a very simple, very short bill that should be very easy to support, regarding the use of reasonable force to correct a child. Who among us here advocates any form of child abuse? No one, obviously.

How could anyone object to sending a clear, albeit symbolic, message about our commitment to ending all forms of mistreatment, abuse and trauma for Canadian children? Again, no one.

On the other hand, this topic affects most of us personally, whether as a former child or as a parent.

Like many of my generation, I myself experienced physical correction when I was young. I have a vivid memory of the first spanking I received from my mother, at the age of seven or eight, when we lived in France. Even worse were the punishments at school. At that time, corporal punishment was frequently used to discipline children in elementary schools in Paris. I remember classmates being spanked in front of everyone and others being seized by the ear and pulled around the classroom by the teacher. For students, it could not have been more humiliating.

When I returned to Quebec in the 1970s, times had changed, at least at school. I may be a wise and patient senator now, but I was a rebellious teenager. I still remember the stinging slap my mother gave me after I insulted her. Let’s just say that it did nothing to improve our relationship.

I want to add that, although I remember being disciplined like that, it did not cause me any lasting trauma. In fact, like many other children, I’m sure, I was more hurt when my family yelled at me and criticized me. A slap hurts in the moment, but the damage words can do can last a long time. However, I doubt the government will ever be able to legislate what a parent can and can’t say to their children.

Bill S-251 proposes to eliminate the exception set out in section 43 of the Criminal Code, which allows a parent, among others, to use “force by way of correction toward a . . . child . . . if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.”

Although I am in favour of the principle of the bill, I still want to point out three problems worth thinking about.

The first is a political issue that comes up in many of our debates: How far can the government go in regulating private behaviour? Of course, there is no question that the government can criminalize violence against children, as it does for violence against any person, particularly the most vulnerable.

When it comes to “force [that] does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances,” however, we are also getting into the area of education, discipline and discretion in the exercise of parental authority. It’s clear that the government can and must protect children from violence, but it also can and must respect parents’ judgment.

[English]

It’s also important to remember that the exception provided at section 43 is already quite narrow. Here are excerpts from a March 2021 letter from Justice Minister Lametti to Heidi Illingworth, the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime:

The issue of whether or not section 43 should be repealed raises differing and strongly held views across Canada. . . .

As you are likely aware, assault is broadly defined in Canadian criminal law to include any non consensual use of force against another person. This can also include non consensual touching that does not involve physical harm or marks. Section 43 of the Criminal Code is a limited defence to criminal liability for parents, persons standing in the place of parents, and teachers for the non-consensual application of reasonable force to a child. . . .

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada . . . held that section 43 is consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also set out guidelines that significantly narrowed the application of the defence to reasonable corrective force that is transitory and trifling in nature. Moreover, the SCC’s decision provided that teachers cannot use force for physical punishment under any circumstances . . . .

[Translation]

There are many different parenting styles and approaches. I don’t believe that this grand, complex human adventure can be reduced to an exact science with definitive and universal answers that can be applied to any situation. That’s why we have to be careful not to target parenting approaches that we may not like, but that don’t necessarily deserve to be criminalized.

In a similar vein, I would point out that differences exist not only between individuals and families, but sometimes also between cultures. The way children are raised, the role of authority and discipline, and parenting approaches are often shaped by our personal or cultural history. Cultures and family backgrounds also influence the perception and impact of physical correction on children.

Again, I want to reiterate that we should not be condoning child abuse, mistreatment or violence in any way, but neither should we disproportionately target Canadians from minority cultures by removing the narrow exemption set out in section 43 of the Criminal Code. Some parenting styles may not match our own personal preferences. This does not necessarily mean that they are criminal.

[English]

Finally, I note something of a paradox. Many of the people who support this bill argue that we should not fear a wave of new prosecution of parents if we remove the exemption at section 43. This is because, while removing the exemption would technically make any non-consensual touching of children by their parents a criminal offence, everyone realizes this is an absurd situation. For this reason, proponents of the bill argue that if we remove the exemption at section 43, a new set of common-law defences and exemptions would apply, including an exception for minimal offences, rules about necessity, implied consent and others.

So are we really just removing one explicit, codified and narrowly interpreted exemption and replacing it with numerous vague and uncodified exemptions that would achieve the same purpose? In some ways, it could be argued that we are asked to make the Criminal Code less pragmatic and less realistic and that, as a result, courts will have to develop new workarounds. In other words, the change we are contemplating may be more symbolic than substantive.

All that being said, I recognize there is a global movement to remove these limited exemptions, even if it means developing new ones to replace them.

As of 2022, 65 countries have banned corporal punishment. Even in France, Article 371-1 of the Civil Code was amended in 2019.

[Translation]

That article states: “Parental authority is expressed without physical or psychological violence.”

[English]

If the French can make this commitment, perhaps we can as well.

Society evolves, and it’s normal that we adapt our legislation to reflect that change. Sometimes we update our laws to reflect the way we already live, and sometimes they reflect our aspirations. Just because things have always been one way doesn’t mean that we must continue forever.

I believe our laws play a role in setting the tone, and we must trust the institutions to behave reasonably in the circumstances. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise at second reading of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is currently studying. Some 30 witnesses have already been heard.

In the time that I have been a senator, I have never seen a bill elicit such passionate reactions and divergent views.

On the one hand, many representatives of the cultural sector are urging us to pass the bill as written or to strengthen it. On the other, as my colleague Donna Dasko stated, our inboxes are full of form letters from citizens who fear for their freedom of expression and their freedom to listen to and watch whatever they want on the internet.

As for me, I do not believe that Canadians’ rights and freedoms are threatened by this bill. However, I do recognize that in a polarized social and political context, where some people do not hesitate to demonize their opponents and twist their words to whip up their supporters, some words have become radioactive. The word “algorithm” is one of them.

There are also concerns about some grey areas in the bill and the regulations that are to follow.

The more I hear the objections of stakeholders regarding Bill C-11, the more I realize that there are several interrelated debates. It is not just about being for or against the bill, as is the case with simpler legislation.

Bill C-11 is basically an adjustment exercise. It adjusts Canada’s broadcasting policy to bring it in line with the new technological environment.

In the past, music and audiovisual programs were broadcast via radio and traditional television networks that held licences and were subject to many rules, including the well-known quotas. The government was thus able to ensure that our country’s artists and cultural diversity were supported and showcased.

As we know, today, a significant portion of Canadians access music and programs via online platforms, often foreign platforms, that are not subject to any regulations. For the first time last year in Quebec, subscriptions to online platforms exceeded traditional cable subscriptions, with 71% of adult Quebecers having paid subscriptions to online streaming sites. That is a lot. We are seeing the same trend with music, where people are increasingly turning toward streaming platforms on which only 8% of the music listened to by Quebecers is French music.

The result is that our artists are losing visibility and the government no longer has the means of showcasing Canadian culture and content, including that of French and Indigenous people and other minority groups. In the wild west of digital platforms, the biggest players make the rules and, as we know, the biggest players are American companies.

There are two possible ways to deal with this new reality. The first is to do nothing and pretend that, in the internet era, the government has no role to play. The government could stop regulating altogether. The regulatory framework would have to be phased out gradually as the public moves to digital platforms. In the end, within a few years, all programs and music consumed by Canadians would be determined solely by market forces. The problem with this approach is that it means giving up on defending the values of Canada’s cultural identity, to the benefit of the web giants.

Officials from YouTube and TikTok appeared before the committee to reaffirm that the business model that has made them successful is working just fine. Their message was simple. What they call their secret recipe works, as evidenced by the success of Canadian YouTubers and singers.

Beyond these generalities, however, there is little information. What percentage of audiences do these Canadian artists get? How is this distributed between artists, content types and across the country? YouTube doesn’t have any precise statistics to share. In fact, YouTube officials don’t really care where the creators are from, because according to them, we live in a global world, so we should take their word for it and hope for the best.

However, the survival of our francophone culture cannot depend on only one or two successful artists like Charlotte Cardin and Coeur de pirate, whose names we hear over and over. People need to be able to discover and listen to others.

The second option proposed in Bill C-11 is a compromise. It involves bringing new platforms into the Canadian regulatory framework, but not in the same way as traditional broadcasters. The platforms will have to help fund production of Canadian content and will have to showcase Canadian content while continuing to offer a rich and diverse menu of program options. The CRTC will have the complex task of tailoring the rules to each foreign player. At least, that is the promise. I’ll be frank; it will be a mammoth undertaking, and I fear the CRTC will be overwhelmed.

I personally support the broad strokes of Bill C-11. Canadians will retain the best of digital platforms, that is, the freedom to listen to and watch what they want, based on their preferences, while giving our artists a chance to carve out a place for themselves and find their audience in this new broadcasting ecosystem.

However, as is often the case, the devil is in the details. Here are some of the main issues. The bill delegates a lot of power to the CRTC to make the rules for online platforms and implement Canada’s broadcasting and cultural policy. Many of us think it would have been better for the government to give the CRTC its instructions right now. This kind of feels like handing over a blank cheque.

One of the central issues the CRTC will have to consider is Canadian content. How should we define it now? Are some criteria more important than others? Should the focus be on subject matter, artists or intellectual property in productions? It will be up to the CRTC to review this crucial definition.

Much ink has been spilled about discoverability; it has taken up a lot of bandwidth. The term “discoverability” appears only twice in the legislation, which does not provide further details.

How will discoverability work for Canadian content on digital platforms? Is promoting that content without influencing algorithms and viewers’ or listeners’ choices enough? How will new content requirements differ from the old quota system? A lot of questions remain.

For example, at our brief hearings in June, I asked the chair of the CRTC how he would ensure the discoverability of Canadian content without involving the algorithms. He answered that the platforms themselves would have to change their algorithms to achieve the desired result of having Canadian users consume more Canadian music and shows.

As you can imagine, this answer shocked those who were closely following the hearings. For them, it was proof that algorithms must be changed even if the bill states that the CRTC does not have that authority. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC, and I quote, “shall not make an order . . . that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm.”

I believe that the debate on this specific point is so polarized that it is difficult to come to a conclusion. For example, YouTube and TikTok state that, without changing their algorithms, they go to great lengths to promote Canadian creators, whether through subsidies, programs or revenue sharing. They boast about their efforts and the success of certain Canadian artists.

Why are they worried about Bill C-11 when they will be able to choose how to get results in terms of the Canadian music that is listened to? Is it because only algorithms really have the power to influence the habits of the users of these platforms?

The logic of algorithms is simple. The only content suggested to the customer is similar to what they have watched before in order to keep them watching. How then can we hope for minority cultural content, whether it be French or Indigenous, to be automatically recommended to customers in a predominantly anglophone North America? How can we trust the mathematical algorithms to point to the exception rather than the rule?

Another distinction needs to be made. For artists from English Canada, the playing field is global, whereas for French-speaking Quebec artists, the main market is Quebec. These artists create in a beautiful language, but it is a minority language.

By making the algorithms off limits, as the platforms want, are we giving in on the main issue and allowing Canadian culture and artists to be steamrolled by American giants? However, if we tinker with the algorithms, we risk harming the lesser-known artists that we want to support, since they could be downgraded by the existing system if customers do not accept the recommendation in question. It is quite the dilemma.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the foreign players in our market should be responsible for finding innovative solutions so that we can see ourselves in this flood of global content. I understand that they feel rushed and that they do not want to lose users, but let’s remember that Canadian broadcasters are subject to much heavier and rigid regulations regarding Canadian content.

We also have to be mindful not to rely on what other countries are doing. This specific aspect of the bill, in other words the idea of requiring platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and others to showcase Canadian works, is a world first; it has never been done anywhere else. Many have thought about it, but Canada is the first to try. This is uncharted territory.

Another issue that raises debate has to do with social media, YouTube in particular, which offers both content for users to download and commercial content. I believe it is possible to further clarify in the text of this legislation what commercial content is in order to reassure content creators.

Obviously, although the purpose of Bill C-11 is to develop Canadian culture and artistic expression, it has several economic dimensions.

At the heart of these debates are Canadian organizations such as producers, broadcasters and unions. There is a mix of corporate, protectionist and other interests behind the requests to amend the bill.

For example, independent producers want to keep the advantage they’ve had for the past 30 years under the Broadcasting Act. They want to be given priority. On the other hand, broadcasters want their own production companies to be treated as independent businesses.

It’s not necessarily a matter of promoting more or less Canadian content; it’s a matter of promoting certain players and changing the power dynamic. This bickering among the players in Canada ultimately undermines efforts to come together.

Beyond these more specific issues, Bill C-11 also brings out different political, cultural and economic views and sometimes pits them against one another.

As I look at my colleague, Senator Housakos, I can see that division here.

In this new global cultural market in which Canadian creators have access to the entire world but are also competing with the entire world, should we be trying to protect our creators from this competition or finding ways to help them stand out? Is it possible to give our creators, artists and tradespeople a chance without needlessly restricting the Canadian public’s options and preferences?

Clearly, I don’t have all the answers. While I agree that Canada must protect its cultural sovereignty, including francophone culture, my duty is to assess whether this bill can be improved and, if so, how.

My personal belief is still that culture is not just another commodity. It deserves substantial support from governments, particularly in cases of a minority culture, such as French in North America.

I’m extremely concerned about the underlying trends in Quebec, particularly in terms of the music people listen to. We can’t surrender all of our cultural sovereignty and national identity to algorithms and market forces. It would be akin to cultural suicide in the medium term, the result of a voluntary blindness to the reality of the power imbalance that is at play. In that regard, I believe that Bill C-11 has a legitimate political objective.

That said, we need to find compromises and modern solutions that also respond to the desire of Canadians and Quebecers to participate in and consume cultural products from around the world, without unduly limiting their choices. Defending and promoting our distinct identity is more valid and timely than ever, but we can’t expect a return to the past, to a time when the availability of cultural content was strictly controlled.

Our challenge is to strike the right balance.

Thank you.

[English]