Hon. Pamela Wallin: I have a question for Senator Gold.

I would like your explanation for this: I’m going through “rapportage” on the committee discussions on the other side. Bill C-13 establishes targets for bringing more francophone immigrants to French-speaking parts of the rest of Canada. Could you tell me how that would work?

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?

Senator Wallin: Because it has been raised on many occasions, I would put the same question to Senator Gold. I don’t know whether I’m allowed to do that.

Hon. Pamela Wallin: Senator Gold, many of us were relieved to see the British Parliament’s honest review of their process of withdrawal from Afghanistan, admitting it was a disaster and a betrayal of Afghans.

We, on the other hand, have suggested we could have acted with “greater prudence.” That would be to risk painful understatement. Our diplomats fled, Afghans were misled, abandoned and had their documents destroyed — not to mention their homes, families and lives — and some were left to be murdered by the Taliban. Not only did the evacuation fail, but so too has the transition and resettlement.

We have a plane landing tomorrow with a few hundred more Afghans. Why can we not get on top of this and do what we are morally obligated to do, which is to provide safe passage for those who protected and served our military?