Hon. Pamela Wallin: I do want to say a few words about closure, or time allocation in this case, in part because we gathered as a group, and we have a lot of new members in our group and in the Senate. I think if we even set the legislation aside for a moment, it is important that we understand the principles on which this place operates.

I believe that time allocation should be deployed with caution and restraint, and only when all other options have been exhausted; so too should challenges to the Speaker of this chamber when he offers his considered opinions and rules.

We in this place are here tonight because some of us feel very strongly about a particular piece of legislation. It is, in my mind, not a partisan issue. Bill C-11 touches us in a very personal and particular way. I’ve spent most of my adult life in the business of journalism and media. I have strongly held views. They are not partisan views. You may believe, as the government claims, that this is simply an update of the Broadcasting Act. For me and others, it is a threat to free expression. That does not make me a demagogue. I worked in the business; I understand this bill.

Free expression is not just a slogan. It’s not just free speech on a banner. Free expression is very much a two-way street: the right to speak freely, but the right to hear a wide range of views, to inform ourselves and to share our ideas that may differ. That is at the core of a democracy.

So whether it is the bill or the use of time allocation, the issue is pretty fundamental to how this place operates. What we are seeing is a clash of two fundamental principles of our parliamentary tradition. Governments are, indeed, elected and should expect to pass their legislation in a reasonable amount of time. But when governments run roughshod, they can expect resistance. That is what happened in the other place with the committee process.

Time allocation is a bit of an offshoot of closure, I guess. It is a tool that the government has every right to use, but so too does the opposition have a right to use the tools available to them to delay votes and to have hour-long bells before we vote, as annoying and as frustrating as that may be. It comes back to the age-old debate about the role of the Senate. It is our job to offer — or even impose from time to time — sober second thought, whether the government likes it or not. We are not obliged to defer to the other place. That is a choice we will make in this chamber.

I must say that what has particularly struck me in this debate is about the behaviour of the House of Commons committees. The process was nothing short of appalling. Debates were summarily shut down and motions were passed in secret. Debate was suspended and witnesses were sent home. It makes the obligation for us in this chamber all the more powerful and important. To give voice to those who were denied a voice — that is our job. That is what the very definition of the Senate is. It is very core to our role as parliamentarians. We are not a secondary house. We’re not something that is just an add-on to the process that goes on in the other place. We have a role as parliamentarians.

For many of us, this bill is a problem. Some of us find it truly offensive. But in the end, we also realize that the government will have its way. It will be a little messy. It is certainly not efficient, but democracy is messy. We must consider the consequences of our actions on both sides of the two that are debating here. If the government wants its bills passed, it should engage in discussion and negotiation. I don’t like the fact that tomorrow our committees will probably be cancelled so that we will carry on debate. If you want your legislation passed, you should create the circumstances where our committees can sit. The opposition needs to consider the implications of that as well.

A mind greater than mine once said, “The first act of all persuasion is clarity of purpose.”

This will not be our last controversial debate over legislation, but we owe all of those whom we represent that clarity of purpose, to have an honest debate. But more importantly, to respect the fundamentally different views that Canadians and senators can hold about this bill or about the right of government to limit debate because if you cannot offer people a vision of what they should do, you won’t be able to persuade them about the things they shouldn’t do. That is a challenge to our leaders in this place, and it’s a challenge to each and every one of us. Thank you.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, to begin, a few thoughts on the Senate’s constitutional powers, rights and obligations that have been conveniently redefined in the context of a government simply wanting its bill passed.

Legislation in Canada must be approved by both houses. We are here to offer thoughtful critiques of legislation, to hold governments to account and to resist unnecessary aggregation of power by governments.

We are not required by law, or the Constitution, to defer to the elected house. They have rights and authorities and so do we.

Sober second thought is not just a turn of phrase, it’s our obligation. Our amendments are not just the whims of an appointed talk shop. We are parliamentarians. We are members of a legitimate house with a legitimate voice and a valid contribution to make. We are not just to be tolerated, patted on the head or told what a good job we’ve done at committee and then go to our room.

In the elected house, government members ran roughshod over the committee process and the consultation process. The arrogance was shocking. We here in this chamber had no choice but to offer Canadians a voice and a place to express their legitimate concerns about this unprecedented piece of legislation. They were heard, and our amendments were based on that testimony.

I am profoundly disappointed that the government rejected the most important amendment. This is not a numbers game. Yes, the government accepted some of your amendments, so count that and be happy. The one that was rejected was core to the bill. Our colleagues Senators Miville-Dechêne and Simons, who share many of the similar concerns that I and others have with this bill, proposed wording that would offer a generation of content creators assurances that they would not be captured under the provisions of this bill and, by extension, the regulatory and financial powers of the CRTC.

The government has said that content creators were not intended to be captured in this bill. We offered them the wording and they explicitly rejected that opportunity. Academics, experts and, of course, the content creators themselves have raised concerns that the bill will, in fact, regulate under its provisions, if the government so chooses to do so, their entire sector.

If the government was serious about ensuring that content creators would not be subject to the overreach, then put it in the law.

I believe the government’s rejection justification, the document put forward by Senator Gold, indicates their true views. They want the power today and in the future to assert more control over online content that is, of course, shared over the internet.

The message on why the amendment was rejected stated:

. . . because this would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time;

Perhaps you could only understand what that means if you sat through the dozens — perhaps hundreds — of hours of our committee process, but it is a cynical power grab. With all due respect to Senator Simons, it is more than just a small impingement on free expression; it implicitly threatens it. They may not have intended to, but in their language, they have belled the cat and admitted to what their intentions were all along.

It is clear that the government wants the power to direct the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, on user content today and maintain that power to regulate it into the future. This power will be granted to this government and every government that follows, giving them all the ability to direct CRTC policy over — among other things — Canadian content without even defining what that means. The government should be in the business of promoting and protecting selected content. Directing CRTC policy to disqualify other content is extraordinary.

In the absence of the Senate amendment, the bill continues to cover podcasts, YouTube videos and other types of content that has yet to be created. The government is looking to be able to regulate new avenues or types of user content that doesn’t exist without even going back to Parliament for debate, review or study. As some ministers have already hinted during this years‑long debate, they want more control over content they might disagree with or that they might want to restrict because it criticizes the government. This is not some conspiracy theory. This is what some of them have said out loud and on the record.

If anyone thinks that forcing an ever-larger regulatory burden on streaming services and content creators — and ultimately giving the government of the day the ability to direct CRTC policy to control content — is somehow giving us better content and greater access to a wider range of information, no, it does no such thing. It is the antithesis of democratic and free expression.

Forcing Canadian content quotas through the so-called concept of discoverability, these are also, in addition to the concerns I’ve raised, overly and overtly protectionist policies that will benefit few and serve as a detriment to many. It is fundamentally at odds with the concept of an open internet.

I’d like to acknowledge the rigorous work done by my colleagues here in the chamber and at committee to try and make this bill better, to make it more palatable for Canadians as well as fair and more realistic for content creators. While we are the chamber of sober second thought, and while the government has rejected our most important change, I maintain that if their stated intentions were actually reflected in their own bill, they would have found support in this place. But I cannot in good conscience support this. If you were looking for a democratic imprimatur, we offered you that — an opportunity to make the words and promises the actual law of the land. Thank you.

Senator Wallin: I have a comment in response to that. I want to put on the record what Attorney General David Lametti said when he spoke about Bill C-10, and when asked specifically about federal regulation of legal internet content. He said that rights and freedoms can be limited. In particular, he said:

. . . when Parliament legislates, it may have an effect on charter rights and freedoms. This may include limiting people’s enjoyment or exercise . . . . This is entirely legitimate. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter are not absolute . . . .

Hon. Pamela Wallin: For the record, Senator Gold, the constitutional design does allow for the Senate to challenge the House of Commons and not just once. You cited the cases yourself. I would also add that declaring “mission accomplished” is also a bit of a risky move when we heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses speaking on behalf of literally thousands of content creators about their concerns. We also heard from former CRTC chairs, from federal judges that this bill would have and could have unintended consequences on a free and open internet.

If I could focus again on what my colleagues have said, if you believe — yes, we have heard the minister say it repeatedly and we’ve heard you say it repeatedly — this bill does not apply to user-generated digital content, why would you not put it in the law itself for clarity? This just continues to raise questions and doubts and it’s just what we do with legislation here. There are, as you know, many questions in the public about the intent of this bill. You have gone so far as to say that you want this to apply to content and generators, other forms of media that have not even been imagined yet into the future. You’re asking us to give you a blank cheque on that. Could you just start and answer the question of why you have not put this in the bill in black and white, in clear language, which is what thousands of people asked you to do?

Senator Wallin: The reason we are all asking you questions that seem similar is because it is not clear in the bill. Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons presented language — a compromise — inside our own committee. They presented language that would have given the government the right and the opportunity to be clear about what you promised and what they promised publicly, on television shows and in front of the committee.

If you really believe it, then put it in the bill. That’s why we keep asking the same question. A promise in a response to questions and in appearances on television is not law, and we would like to see it written in the bill.

Senator Wallin: On that point, in fairness, Senator Gold, you did raise the issue of the constitutional role of the Senate, but that’s for another time.

To stay on topic, I will read the language of your rejection that you’ve shared with us here. The government has rejected the key amendment that we are talking about here on user-generated content:

. . . because this would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time . . . .

These are your words — the government’s words.

This rationale, of course, makes it quite clear that the government wants the power to continue to direct the CRTC on user content today, and maintain that power into the future. That’s what it states.

Obviously, these questions remain: Why are you so adamant to regulate user content online? What is your fear?

I ask this because in the discussions over Bill C-10, Minister Guilbeault, who was the minister in charge at the time, suggested that he was concerned about the criticisms of the government that he was seeing online. We have heard very clearly from Minister Lametti that he thinks it is okay to restrict rights and freedoms online if the government chooses to legislate in that direction.

Any bill that requires government policy direction to provide guidance on regulating user expression is leaving too much uncertainty on the most fundamental questions of freedoms.

Why does the government insist on having the ability to directly instruct the CRTC on user-generated content — the actual content — when this is supposed to be an arm’s-length institution?

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, after weeks of committee hearings and hour upon hour of testimony on Bill C-11, I feel as strongly as ever about the extraordinary overreach inherent in this poorly conceived bill. The legislation — the very idea itself — is out of touch with reality and with the people who actually use this technology for learning, teaching, communication, entertainment or for earning a living.

The government insists, despite much evidence to the contrary, that this is simply a modernization of the Broadcasting Act. It is neither simple, nor just an update of the rules. The internet is most definitely not a traditional broadcaster, so trying to impose the broadcasting rules, including content rules, Canadian or otherwise, is a flawed approach and will bring unintended consequences.

The internet and its platforms are global structures and entities — infinite in size and time — and are, therefore, completely unlike a finite, 24-hour, linear radio or TV station where you can actually enforce a percentage requirement or quota for designated content. For example, 30% of 24 hours is measurable and enforceable. How do you impose quotas on a system that crosses all borders, including time and space?

Well, this concept of discoverability is used. It will force platforms to make some content easier to find, or more discoverable, and other materials less discoverable. This is not an update of the broadcasting rules. This is government, through its agencies like the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, deciding what is most important, and then deciding that it is also most important for you and me. I cannot imagine that the global internet audience will be any happier than I am about the domestic content choices selected and promoted by our government overriding their own personal choices.

Our behaviour online is what teaches the algorithms to offer us more of what we like. The platforms track our interests, preferences and browsing habits, and then show us more of what we have chosen — not what the government has chosen. This is at the very heart of this bill — the fundamental issue of algorithmic manipulation. For me, it raises this question: Should any government or organization in a democracy be given the authority to override my choices or the choices of users everywhere?

We know that Bill C-11 gives the CRTC the ability to manipulate algorithms because of the chair’s own admission. Forcing platforms to manipulate algorithms to meet quotas — or to promote some content and obscure other choices — is simply not the business of governments. If you, as a consumer, enjoy country music or podcasts about philosophy, you would want to be able to access it without interference, and this kind of interference goes beyond the socially agreed-upon reasons for censorship, such as cases of hate speech or the incitement of violence or defamation.

There is also a fundamental arrogance with the notion. I ask honourable senators and Canadians listening or watching at home, who is up to the task of being censor-in-chief, deciding what you should see and hear? Would you give this superpower to the government of the day with its own biases and political interests? You might share the views of a certain party, but what if the government changes? Do you want a government you don’t agree with having such power?

In the words of Christopher Hitchens, one of our great writers:

. . . every time you violate or propose to violate the free speech of someone else . . . you’re making a rod for your own back . . . .

This whole concept is the antithesis of free expression. Free speech is not just about your rights; it’s about the rights of others, even those with whom we disagree, to have their say. It’s about my right to disagree with them, engage them or ignore them, but not to deny them the right to express their views. So many of our great thinkers have opined on the fundamental importance of free speech. Linguist Noam Chomsky was crisp: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

This bill poses exactly the same issue. Using discoverability to promote some anointed music, art, language or idea, you are silencing others. Let me make my choices about what I want to hear, listen to, debate or disagree with — or even discover. One of the most appealing characteristics of the internet is the serendipitous discovery — by searching for something you like, you stumble upon something unknown or special. Curiosity cannot be legislated or regulated by government.

I gratefully acknowledge the committee’s recognition of the importance of freedom of expression and journalistic independence in section 3.1 by adopting my amendment. It is fundamental, given that this bill gives extraordinary new powers to the CRTC, and to the government itself. At the very least, it must explicitly ensure protection of our right to free and open expression. Let us hope that it is accepted.

As mentioned earlier, the impact of this bill on content producers, particularly on young Canadians building their careers online as part of the digital economy, is very concerning. From TikTok to YouTube to podcasts, there is a thriving digital space that has provided new avenues to share information and ideas, and to carve out a professional future and be paid for it. This bill is truly counterintuitive because by picking favourites, the government is hurting the very people it is purporting to help — this new generation of Canadian content creators and their audiences. Their reach and success will be impacted if platforms, or even countries, decide our rules are unfair.

There has been testimony, supported by direct and strong representations from the U.S. government, that discoverability and the requirements to promote selected Canadian content violates provisions of our trade agreements, and would be seen as interference with the conduct of a domestic business in the free‑trade zone. Our trading partners might seek recourse or retaliation. As a trading nation, do we want to become the protectionists that we decry?

Your committee proposed amendments we hope will help protect content producers and entrepreneurs from the impact of this bill. The amendment to section 4.2 offers some assurances to the small, amateur creators that — with the removal of the revenue test and the narrowing of the definition of a “program” — they will, for now, escape some of the costly bureaucratic burdens imposed on others. If the CRTC does not intend to capture small content creators within its sphere, it still has the power to do so if it chooses or is instructed to do so. Again, the CRTC chair admitted that in testimony.

The committee also voted for the removal of clause 7(7) to try to limit the grip of the government on the CRTC and its policies. This arm’s-length institution was designed to be a regulatory body, not a political body, and any oversight should not be at the whim of political considerations of the day. Now we must wait and see if arm’s length is an irrefutable principle or a matter of convenience. Since this bill gives the government and the government-appointed CRTC new powers, the chair and the minister should be required to appear before parliamentary committees in both places on a regular basis so that we can assess the implementation and the impact of this act.

Ultimately, the folly of this entire endeavour is that our digital world is nothing at all like legacy media, and the space and pace of information sharing and content production is unprecedented. Canadians value free speech. They do not want to be told what they should consume, and they do not need a nanny state to present them with material that they are more than capable of finding on their own, if they wanted to in the first place.

Former U.S. president Harry S. Truman warned of this:

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures . . . .

That is what I fear with Bill C-11 — more command and control over the flow of information.

I believe that what this bill aims to do is not, and should not be, the business of governments. It inhibits markets, innovation and creativity, and I cannot support it.

For now, we await evidence that the government has heard those witnesses who came before us to offer ideas, to build a way forward in the new digital world. I hope that the government will hear their pleas because the government’s track record on heeding the considered advice of the Senate is not encouraging. We hope this time it will be different, but I’m not optimistic. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Honourable senators, I, too, would like to join this discussion on the motion to force a pre-study on Bill C-11 — a highly contentious government bill, but not urgent in nature.

So let’s cut to the chase. This pre-study motion intends to ensure the passage of bills that have not been subjected to proper scrutiny or study or debate or anything close to first sober or second sober thought. We have been witnessing this in the other place for the last week, and it is shameful.

Pre-study of any bill is for the convenience, by and large, of government, not for the benefit of the public. In the case of Bill C-11, this legislation remains highly controversial. I have had literally hundreds of emails and exchanges with stakeholders and citizens who have repeatedly tried to make their cases, fact-based cases, but they have been ignored or shut down in the other place.

Government has been shown the fault lines, the evidence that, globally, we are out of step and that their attempts to control the high-tech sector will prove ill-conceived. Even their own officials have publicly contradicted them on user-generated content being subject to censorship. These are not simple commas or adjectives. This is a flawed, not-ready-for-primetime, core content problem, and it impacts fundamental rights.

In his speech on the motion on pre-study on May 18, Senator Gold said, “I just don’t know, nor does anybody else in this chamber,” if this bill will be amended in the House. Agreed. That is the point. Let them do their work, and then we will do ours. This is not a budget or a pandemic spending bill. No lives are hanging in the balance. There is no crisis. And governments can’t always have what they want just because they want it. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances.

Given all the drama that took place in and out of committee in the other place on Bill C-10 last summer — the secret amendments that were invalidated by the Speaker — it was an embarrassment then and we are seeing it again. It was then and it is again now not only a flawed bill but a flawed process.

Of course, the government wants this bill and all of their bills passed quickly and, usually, with as little examination as possible, but that is not what we do here. We have no right to turn a blind eye. Our job is to examine government legislation, fix it, improve it, make it Charter-proof and, all the while, ensure that the rights of Canadians are secured and protected.

As we know, pre-studies don’t allow for amendments. There is no guarantee that regular committee study will, in fact, ever take place when we do get the bills. But this bill, every bill, needs hearings and witnesses and, most importantly, we need some honest debate.

My concern is that by agreeing to ever more pre-emptive pre-studies, we are allowing a new culture to take hold here in the Senate — a culture of complacency, one where the government no longer needs to respect parliamentary procedure or weigh the cost of spent political capital. They no longer need to ensure actual debate or a fair exchange or airing of differing views or win the day with a solid argument with facts, never mind show that they have consulted and actually listened.

I fear that the role of the Senate to uphold the interests of the people we represent will become some quaint, out-of-favour ritual. If all government bills are deemed urgent or essential, then in fact none of them are.

During COVID, we let billions of dollars in spending and new programs slide by without proper scrutiny. We accepted that they were extraordinary times and that time was of the essence, but no longer. This is now a convenient and growing trend. Complicated changes are hidden in budget bills. Debate is curbed. With no ability to introduce amendments, without the guarantee of full committee study and without waiting to see if the bill will be changed in the other place, my concern is that we are truly becoming the thing that offends me to my core: We are becoming a rubber stamp.

The voters passed judgment on this government last fall and, in their wisdom, offered only a minority: a limited hold on power. There was a message from the voters: “We want checks and balances on what you do.” Yet, through a side deal, the government has now engineered a majority. So, given that, we must be, more now than ever, the check and balance in the process.

Our committees are capable of doing great work. We have been waiting to get back to our real work, stymied as we have been by technology, by lack of facilities and translators and by being considered second class when it comes to access to resources. We want the tools and the time to do our work.

The senators on the Transport Committee, of whom I am one — although I have been denied the right to participate because of hybrid scheduling — and all who remain bring a breadth of experience and expertise to any issue. I look forward to a careful examination of Bill C-11. But already under a constrained calendar, with very limited resources, and committees meeting just once a week, this is going to be a tough task.

At the Banking Committee, we have been asked to examine key components of a budget bill and Bill S-6, both of which make sweeping changes to a whole range of important laws in this country. Clearly, we do not have enough time, yet again, to address the increasingly complicated legislation. Changes to the Copyright Act and the Competition Act, which were quietly shoehorned into the budget, need and deserve more time to be carefully considered. But we are no longer afforded that right due to some contrived, I think, politically driven declaration of urgency. This trend is troubling.

Increasingly, government bills receive much less time in committee, and too often we hear from witnesses from the department or the minister, and there is little time for the critics or the concerned or even those who simply want to know why, when and how come.

Is this a fulsome examination of something as complex as a budget or changes to regulatory regimes or a bill that changes how Canadians fundamentally communicate with each other and interact with the internet?

I would like to make one final comment on this process. This debate on the pre-study motion is exactly the kind of healthy dialogue needed in this chamber. Let’s have it. Let’s have it out. Why? Because it is much more difficult to undo bad legislation than to get it right the first time. It clogs our courts and costs taxpayers and consumers unnecessarily.

Colleagues, I think it’s important that we remind ourselves of our unique role, why we exist within not only the parliamentary process but also the political world. As independent as we all believe we are, we must pass judgment on the actions of the government of the day. To believe that this motion for pre-study is somehow purely intended to give the committee more time, a gesture to afford us this luxury, would be naive at best, something I do not believe any of us are.

But I also find it an affront that someone in the other place would believe that this chamber could be tricked by such a transparent proposition.

And claiming that we’re wasting time by debating this motion is an insult to my intelligence and yours and undermines the very commitment when we swore in our oath to do the work necessary and to preserve the rightful reputation of the upper house and of Parliament itself.

So I ask, colleagues, let us not drift complacently into irrelevance. Let us not ignore the political or economic consequences of what we do. Let us not forfeit our very basic right to speak our minds, to fight in the arena of ideas and difference and not be silenced by political correctness or pressure or fear. Let the government do its homework before we do ours. It’s their job. Hash it out. Don’t silence the critics or shut down committees or curb study.

Let’s wait and see what the bill looks like when the fight has been had in the political arena.

Let’s not fall for the procedural games of any government. Please, colleagues, join me in voting against this motion for the sake of the Senate today, for those who will follow us into this chamber and for the oath we took. It is surprising what we may find when we shine a little light on some of the dark corners. Thank you.

Senator Wallin: Well, I mean, this is what we’re dealing with, that kind of request. We have kind of merged the two issues in that we have a request to pre-study legislation, but then we are told that we can roll that into a different kind of long-term process. That’s not how we do business. Either we do a pre‑study, as we have just completed on the budget, or we do an appropriate committee study in which we choose our timetable, we choose our witnesses and all of those things.

These are two different creatures, and they don’t just meld.

[Translation]

Senator Wallin: Certainly.

Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much. Certainly, today, a lot is being said in the Senate, some direct, some indirect and some with innuendo, but the debate is really important. I would like to maybe even think about calling out the elephant in the room. I think we are all quite familiar with our former governor general, Mr. David Johnston, who wrote a book on trust and 20 ways to make this country better.

To you, my question is: Are we talking about the debate about having a pre-study, or are we talking about trust that the process and diligence that are supposed to take place, that we hear in the Senate, are going to be done in due course?

Senator Wallin: They are inextricably linked. To be asked to do a pre-study on the promise that we will have all of the time in the world is one thing, and many other senators, myself included, have heard other comments and other suggestions about what the real intent is. Of course, trust is at the core of it. I think this was part of Senator Tannas’s point.

We have a different relationship with one another in here than we see in the other place all too often. I am sitting on a joint parliamentary committee, and it is a frustrating process. I’m trying to clean up my language because we are here in the Senate.

We need to preserve that difference and a different approach. It’s hard because, of course, we are dealing with government legislation. As I said, that’s our job. We get to pass judgment on it, whoever the government of the day is, and whatever it is that we may think about particular bills.

But as for this process of saying we must get this pre-study done — and I think timing is part of it — if we were talking about a pre-study with months of runway in front of us, we might have a different feeling in our gut. But when we’re talking about the crisis that is at hand if we don’t start this pre-study tomorrow morning at dawn, then something goes off in my mind. I mean, I have been in and out of this city for decades covering politics and being part of the process in different ways, and my instinct tells me that you have to be wary. If somebody wants something so badly, and they want it now, let’s examine that. Let’s look at that. Let’s think about why. Let’s look at what their potential motivations might be — I’m not saying they are horrible people. Governments get to decide what they want to do. We get to decide what we want do.

I’m just saying let’s be intelligent and critical thinkers, and let’s take those gut instincts into account.