THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 15, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:31 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Leo Housakos (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you and welcome to everyone to our Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications weekly meeting, where we are going to be taking another stab at trying to put together a work plan in order to go forward with our very much anticipated study on Bill C-11.
Because I am attending virtually, I would like to start by going around the committee table in Ottawa. Members can introduce themselves, starting from the left side of our clerk and working our way around the committee.
Senator Richards: Hi, I’m Senator David Richards from New Brunswick.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
Senator Dawson: Senator Dennis Dawson, Quebec.
Senator Clement: Hello, I’m Bernadette Clement, Ontario.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta.
Senator Manning: Fabian Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: I see one of our colleagues virtually.
Senator Quinn: Yes, Senator Jim Quinn from New Brunswick.
[Translation]
The Chair: My name is Leo Housakos. I am a senator from Quebec and chair of the committee.
[English]
I want to highlight the presence of someone who is not a regular member of the committee. I see that we have Senator Ratna Omidvar with us and, of course, Senator Omidvar, you are welcome to participate and intervene. Welcome to our committee.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: So I’ll begin with a motion. May I read it to you? It will be distributed to you immediately by the clerk.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’ll read it while it is being distributed.
[English]
It says that, pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the Senate on May 31, 2022, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications begin its examination of the subject matter of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, during the week of June 20, 2022, by inviting representatives from Canadian Heritage, representatives from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Konrad von Finckenstein, Michael Geist and Pierre Trudel or, in the event that one or more are unavailable, other witnesses in the order of priority indicated in the committee’s workplan, and that the clerk of the committee be instructed to make all appropriate invitations and preparations to begin this study, including scheduling additional meetings, as required, and under the direction of the steering committee.
It is long, but here it is.
The Chair: Can you repeat the number of witnesses you have highlighted there for that one meeting?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It was not only for one meeting. We said to begin this study, “including scheduling additional meetings, as required, and under the direction of the steering committee.” So I will repeat the witnesses: first, it is Canadian Heritage — so the government representative — then representatives from the CRTC, then Konrad von Finckenstein, Michael Geist and Pierre Trudel. So we are talking here about five witnesses, depending, naturally, on the number of Canadian Heritage witnesses. We could have more.
Obviously, we only have next week, so we could have more than one meeting if it is possible.
Senator Housakos, obviously we are naming those witnesses, but we are also saying that if they are not available, we just go down the list.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Quinn: Thank you, chair. Thank you for sharing the proposed list of witnesses. I believe our clerk sent a list around as well. I think it is good to have that thorough list.
My comment is on a work plan. I know that with the other work we were doing, we were finding it difficult to give justice to the presentations when we only had two witnesses. My request would be that as we deal with the motion, we consider that we limit it to two witnesses per hour.
The second point I would like to make is that I know we had a discussion on documentation last week. We received some of the documentation. We did not receive the clause by clause, but I am letting that go. As I understand it, the bill will be coming through the House fairly soon, and that is something we can deal with at a future point.
The documentation was helpful, but I just wanted to share that concern. I think cramming three witnesses into one hour is doing an injustice to the witnesses and also to my colleagues.
The Chair: If I may weigh in on this as well, I do not have any issue with the motion, generally speaking. I think we all want to get started very quickly on this study. We want a robust debate, and we want a review of this bill.
The only concern I have — and I want to reiterate the point of view of Senator Quinn — is that we have seen in our previous study that when we have three witnesses on a panel within an hour or even two hours, it is just not enough for all the senators who want to intervene.
As we have seen in our study on climate change and the effect of climate change on critical infrastructure, many senators did not get an opportunity to question the witnesses. The only thing I would like to see as chair — especially when it comes to the critical testimony of Canadian Heritage, the Department of Justice, the Privacy Commissioner and the CRTC — is that each of them appear individually in order for us to have an opportunity to thoroughly dive into all the questions and give ample opportunity to all the senators who want to intervene. I would like us to be able to do so in a wholesome fashion without always being pressed for time.
Again, I have no problems with the overall strategy, Senator Miville-Dechêne. We all want to get started. We all want to hear from the witnesses you’ve highlighted. The only concern I have is to make sure we give them and the committee the time required.
Senator Richards: I agree with Senator Quinn. I think that it is highly unlikely that we will have more than one meeting next week. Even if we do, the number of witnesses we will be calling in the motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne will not avail us much time to ask many questions or go very deep into the bill that we are trying to study.
As a matter of fact, I do have a motion later that states that.
I do not mind any of these witnesses. But I do have a problem on time. I don’t think that it’s going to be very conducive for us. Besides, it would be highly unlikely if we had more than one meeting next week, and then we rise for the summer. I might be wrong. But certainly we can avail this list in the fall, rather than now.
The Chair: If there are no more intervenors, I give the floor to Senator Miville-Dechêne. I am sorry about the little delay we are having tonight because I’m here virtually. I do apologize.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: After hearing the comments of our colleagues, I think we are ready to proceed to a vote on this motion, which, as you know, does not say anything about the time allocated to each witness. I think that’s not the heart of the motion; we can discuss that later. The motion is to start working on the bill. I therefore call for the vote.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, there has been a request for a vote. Actually, I will ask senators, anyone who is not in favour of this motion, just say “yea.”
Senator Richards: Who is not in favour of this motion?
The Chair: Who is not in favour of this motion.
Senator Richards: I am not in favour of this motion.
Senator Quinn: Chair, if I may?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Just a question for clarification. Senator Miville-Dechêne, is the list that you provided — I do not have the clerk’s list in front of me, but that looked like a thorough list — are they complementary, your list and the clerk’s list?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Senator Quinn: Great. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you for the clarification. This is just a list of witnesses; there may be others as we go forward. But you are not addressing the timing and whether we have one witness per meeting or ten witnesses per meeting, yes? That’s not what you’re talking about? It’s just the list of witnesses which mirrors that which the clerk tabled.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator, you probably received in your computer my motion, so you could read it yourself. But there is no list. I gave five examples. And I think we’re ready to vote.
The Chair: Quite honestly, colleagues, I don’t think there’s any controversy here. I think there’s a consensus. Again, if there are any senators who do not agree with this motion, please say “yea.”
An Hon. Senator: Say “nay.”
The Chair: Sorry, please say “nay.” All those in favour of the motion please say “yea.”
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: All those against the motion, please say “nay.” Accordingly, in my opinion, the “yeas” have it. It is adopted.
Senator Richards?
Senator Richards: I do have a motion, senators. I misunderstood Senator Miville-Dechêne’s motion. I thought she was presenting a timeline and she wasn’t, so I apologize for that.
Senators, I move, regarding the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications study of Bill C-11:
It is moved that Committee panels be limited to no more than two witnesses per panel to give witnesses the time to share their perspectives with Senators as fully as possible, and to allow sufficient time for Senators to question witnesses. It is further moved that one meeting each be devoted to hearing from:
Officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage and the CRTC Commissioner;
And one panel each, devoted to hearing from:
Officials from the Department of Justice; and
The Privacy Commissioner who should be the final witness to appear within this grouping.
The first two to four meetings should focus on these four witnesses before moving on to other witnesses.
Lastly, it is moved that the minister of Canadian Heritage be invited for a full meeting of the Committee. The Minister should be specifically invited to appear at the end of the hearing process, once all other witnesses have been heard.
The Chair: Any discussion or debate, colleagues?
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Mr. Chair, I have a copy of the motion in English. Is there a French copy of this motion?
The Chair: Monsieur Labrosse, is there a copy in French? We must have the proposal in both official languages.
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: Not yet, Mr. Chair. We have just received the new version of the motion. If you wish, we can suspend the meeting briefly to give us time to do a preliminary translation.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think if it’s not translated, it’s not admissible, is it?
The Chair: You are absolutely right.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Maybe we could continue by working on our work plan and drop this motion.
The Chair: We can drop this motion, but I would like — this is not a motion, but rather a point of discussion — to see witnesses such as representatives from Canadian Heritage, the CRTC, and the Department of Justice, which are probably the three most important in terms of this bill.
As I said earlier, in light of our past experience, it is really not effective to have more than two witnesses at a time. It does not give our colleagues the chance to do their job. We need to start, in my opinion, with Canadian Heritage.
[English]
Canadian Heritage has to come before this committee, and I think we would not be doing diligent work on our part unless we dedicate a full meeting for the officials to come present the bill and, of course, answer in a wholesome fashion the questions of every senator.
[Translation]
Senator Quinn: I would also like the motion in French.
[English]
I thought I heard some reference to the fact that the motion could be done, in translation, if we take a little pause. We’re not in a rush; I know that. I simply wanted to make sure that we’re respectful and get it done right. That’s all. Unless it is a big deal to translate that motion? I don’t know. The clerk may be in a position to say it can’t be done, and that it has to be done another time.
The Chair: To your point, Senator Quinn, in all honesty, if we understand now that there is a timeline that does not have everyone under the gun and we want to do a wholesome study, we can either spend the next two meetings going back and forth with motions and debates and filibustering or start working on consensus. We can put motions aside and come to a consensus on what witnesses and when, and we can get going on the work that we need to do.
This is a choice that we can make collectively. As I say, we can continue the filibustering and the debating and the motions and back and forth. It doesn’t take long for the motions to be translated. Or we could come to an agreement and get started next week with bringing in the government officials and putting them before us. We can start to get going on the work of questioning, studying and reviewing this bill.
Senator Klyne: At the expense of maybe waylaying us even further than is necessary — I am relatively new here, three years, something like that, less if you take the prorogation and dropping the writ and so on.
However, I did sit on National Finance. I sat on Banking. Now, I am chairing Audit and Oversight and sitting on Transport and Communications and also on Agriculture and Forestry. It’s no way to run a railroad if you’re going to talk about just two witnesses per panel. I think that we have the capacity and the wherewithal and the understanding of how these things work that we could probably handle four.
So I would like to see us get going and working towards this. Let’s begin the program, as you say, and stop going back and forth and filibustering and having other frivolous distractions. I would like to see us get working. Please, guide us there, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We all want to get working. So the question I have, Senator Klyne, is: Are you in agreement that in order to have a thorough review and a discussion and to give ample opportunity to all our colleagues, based upon our experience, that we need to have no more than two witnesses per panel? And do you also agree or disagree with the fact that, with Canadian Heritage being the most important, their officials should be given a whole meeting dedicated to them so we can question them?
Senator Klyne: Well, again, at the expense of being repetitive, I do think that we can probably handle more than two per panel and only have two panels. The order of them — that is part of the work that we should be doing now, discussing who will be coming.
If it means that we will get the proverbial ball rolling here, that’s fine, but I cannot agree with just two per panel.
Senator Simons: Point of order.
The Chair: From senator?
Senator Simons: Are we debating this motion? There isn’t a motion on the floor.
The Chair: Senator, we’re having a discussion on creating a new work plan, so I’ve opened the floor.
Senator Simons: You’re asking Senator Klyne whether he agrees with this motion, but we’re not debating this motion.
The Chair: No. As I said, it’s not in the form of a motion. The meeting here today is to give guidance, if you read the agenda, to our clerk and to our researchers to create a work plan. If we don’t have a work plan, you can have all the motions in the world. We’re here to discuss amongst ourselves what the best path forward to create a work plan is.
Senator Simons: Senator Richards’ motion is contradictory to the motion we’ve just passed.
The Chair: The motion we’ve just passed highlighted a number of witnesses that should be prioritized. We agreed with that. That motion is in the books.
Senator Dawson: I’m sorry, chair, but I’ve had my hand up for a long time. I know that sometimes you don’t like what I say, but when you talk about experience, I have had experience on this committee as long as you have, if not before. We have had panels with four people; we have had panels with three people. What we did was we would have panels. The first thing that we have to do is to agree that next week we have two sessions. If you only want two, let’s start with two panellists for those first meetings, but I would not want to put us into a constraint where, in September, we would only be allowed to have two panellists per meeting. I have been to meetings for years where we’ve had four panellists, and they’ve had to share the time. You take two hours with four panellists and you get the things done. Yes, obviously, some people do not get to talk. But, after so many years, nobody always gets to talk at everything. We would never get anything done, which I think is the objective here, namely, not getting anything done.
Right now, I would agree that the motion was passed. There is a list on that motion. The clerk should be given instructions to reserve two meetings next week. We obviously have Wednesday night already booked. Find another meeting where we could get the witnesses that Senator Miville-Dechêne put on the list. Then I hope we go back to steering and start planning for September and October. But, please, let’s have meetings. Let’s have two meetings next week and meet with four people. Then steering will have to go forward. Let’s not constrain ourselves to two panellists until the end of the study. We’ll never finish, which I know is your objective. But my objective, as sponsor of the bill, is to get as many people heard as possible. To do that, we have to have more people on panels.
For next week, if the compromise is to have just two panels per half-hour, I can live with that. But, again, I think it is the majority that will decide, which is a concept that does not seem to be unanimous here.
The Chair: Senator Dawson, the concept of a majority deciding is something that I respect ultimately, but I’m just saying that the minority has to be heard as well. I always love your interjections and your interventions. I have you on the list here, Senator Dawson and Senator Dasko, as per the advice of the clerk. I’m not making the list today, he is. But you just interrupted Senator Simons. If she is done with her point of order, then you have the floor.
Senator Simons, are you done with your point of order?
Senator Simons: I would like to hear the chair’s response to the point of order. We have passed a motion. The motion directs us to do just as Senator Dawson has said. You now have us debating, in shadow form, the motion of Senator Richards, which is not receivable and which contradicts the motion we just passed.
The Chair: The motion from Senator Miville-Dechêne has been passed, and I am respecting it. Now we’re going into the discussion. The motion of Senator Richards, passed or not passed, is a legitimate question. If you look at Senator Miville-Dechêne’s motion, we’ve agreed to proceed with those witnesses. If I understand correctly, her motion does not say they all come in one panel. We’re having a discussion about the efficient way to do our work. If you want to bring them in — all four, five or six of them — within an hour, Senator Simons, that’s your choice. If that’s what you consider effective and efficient, by all means —
Senator Simons: Mr. Chair, that’s not —
The Chair: Let me finish. If that is the majority will, I will respect it, Senator Simons. Go ahead.
Senator Simons: Thank you.
The Chair: Is that what you are proposing — that we should bring all four or five of those witnesses in at that one meeting?
Senator Simons: No. I’m proposing that we get to work with the work plan and that we stop shadowboxing with a motion that is not on the table.
The Chair: Senator Simons, we’re having this meeting, as we did last week, to develop the work plan. Give us your advice on what the work plan should be.
Senator Simons: My advice on the work plan is that we should begin preferably with the minister himself, perhaps with the minister’s representatives, followed by the CRTC, as outlined in the motion of Senator Miville-Dechêne.
The Chair: Would you be in agreement to have in the next meeting, the two-hour span, the minister and his officials? How would you want to break that down?
Senator Simons: Do we not need a motion? This is what I would like us to discuss, and not to get sidetracked with things that are not on the table.
The Chair: I do not need a motion. I’m asking all our colleagues to come to a consensus. It’s not a motion. I’m running this as we’re running an enlarged steering committee. That is why we agreed to bring it here. All I’m simply saying is I do not have any difficulty bringing in, for example next week, for the first hour, the officials from Canadian Heritage and then the minister for an hour. What I disagree with is having the CRTC, the Justice Department and the heritage minister and —
Senator Simons: No. No one is saying that they should all come at once. Please do not be absurd. It is an absurdity to put those words in my mouth when the chair knows perfectly well that is not what I’m saying.
I think it would be an excellent plan, Mr. Chair — you are correct — to have the minister and his officials as our first witnesses, for perhaps 90 minutes. An hour with the minister and his officials and then an hour with the CRTC sounds like a very good start. Then, no matter how much more we get to do in June, or whether we recommence in September, we will have had the groundwork.
The Chair: Thank you. That is the opinion I asked for. Senator Klyne, for example, thinks that we can do three or four at the same time. I’m not putting words in anyone’s mouth. I’m trying to get a consensus. I’m in listening mode. I appreciate your perspective.
Senator Dawson, on that point, I give you the floor again. Going forward, what is your recommendation in terms of who actually comes and for how long for the first two meetings?
Senator Dawson: Ask the clerk to reserve two meetings next week. The one on Wednesday is already reserved. Try to find another two hours in hybrid format so that we can have as many people as possible. I don’t stick to four or to two. We could have the minister for an hour and a half just for one day and then the next day have the CRTC and von Finckenstein — or if you want your friend Geist to come, I do not have a problem with that. However, we will have a problem if we do not make the decisions here and we send it to steering. That is where you send things to die.
The Chair: That is not my intention, Senator Dawson.
Senator Dasko: I know we’re not speaking to Senator Richards’ motion, but it does conflict with the motion we passed already with respect to the people who we are inviting.
The motion we just passed lists the people that we are supposed to be inviting for next week. I think that is very clear. I think that we should move ahead on that.
I also agree with Senator Dawson that we need to have time to talk to these witnesses. We do not want to put a whole bunch of them on one panel. We need to space it out. We need to give time to the minister. We need to give time to the department. We need a very good time with the CRTC. However, I would not favour a motion to limit to two witnesses per meeting. It’s a reasonable idea, but I wouldn’t want to put it into a motion.
I think the process we’ve had with some meetings has been unsatisfactory. Having three witnesses per panel is frustrating and counterproductive, especially with the witnesses we have here. List it for next week. I think we should make sure that these important witnesses have the time to provide testimony to us and that we all have time to ask questions.
Senator Manning: In order to have two meetings next week, do we need permission?
Senator Dawson: It’s government legislation. For the last few months, every time government legislation is on the Order Paper, we can have as many meetings as simultaneous translation can give us. The constraint is not permission; it’s staffing. According to the work plan for next week for the Senate, there is some potential for having — again, let’s start by Wednesday night.
If you say that we’re accepting to have a two-hour meeting on Wednesday night to make the bill go forward, I’d already be happy. But I think the clerk can find us another two hours, either the day before or the day after.
Senator Manning: I wasn’t sure of that. Thank you for the clarification of that. I know in my time here — and I haven’t been here as long as some others — I’ve received a fair amount of correspondence on, as an example, the sealing industry. I’ve been inundated. I don’t know if your offices have, but I’ve been inundated with requests for meetings on this particular piece of legislation. I’m bombarded, to be honest with you, and I’m trying my best to meet with as many as I can. I’m not fully understanding all the concerns, but we’re getting there.
There’s going to be an opportunity, I think, with a lot of questions, and as I have been experienced at chairing meetings before, sometimes we’re meeting with the minister for the first hour, and if there’s a need for the officials to stay for the next hour, we’ve done that in the past. We’ve had the minister and his or her officials at the table at the same time.
If I follow Senator Miville-Dechêne’s motion, you’re not asking for all these people to come here next week or at one meeting, if I understand correctly. Or you are?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s not in the motion.
What we are asking for — and I agree with Senator Dawson — are two meetings, and those would be the priority.
Senator Manning: For two meetings? I’m just trying to find a way forward here. We’re going to have a meeting next Wednesday evening, pretty well, unless the bottom falls out of this. So who should we decide, or who would be —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: There’s an order.
Senator Manning: In an order? The Minister of Canadian Heritage and officials would be our first? Okay. I’m fine with that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: It’s pretty standard.
Senator Manning: Usually that’s the way it works. I’m just wondering on time and to Senator Dasko’s concern.
My only concern is when we have the minister in and their officials, sometimes one hour is not justification, in my view.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: You’re right, but if we have one hour for the minister and his officials and then the CRTC, the CRTC can wait a bit. Because, to be frank, the CRTC will have to apply this legislation, but since we haven’t started doing it, this will be pretty much that they will talk — and maybe not that much — about what’s going to happen, as you know how things go.
This is a regulatory body that will have to implement a law that’s not a law yet. To be frank, I’m not sure we’ll have that many answers, but we can try; that’s our job.
Senator Manning: We may have many questions but not very many answers is what you’re saying?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think the idea of extending forever those meetings to two hours — I think this is what somebody wanted to do — it’s not worth it.
I agree with Senator Simons that we could have both in a meeting, and then we’ll have witnesses in the next meeting who are available and balanced.
Senator Manning: I’ll just throw this one out and I’ll end my part of the conversation for now. I’ve been in a position before where we had to cut off people who had questions. If we’re here next Wednesday evening with the minister and his officials — say we set 90 minutes, and we’re going to leave half an hour for the CRTC — I’m just trying to find the middle ground — and the chair has a list of senators with questions with six or seven still left to go — if we finish up, that’s fine — but if we wanted to continue on, is that a possibility that we could find an agreement on? I’m just wondering, if we’re sitting here and we’re at 90 minutes, and there are six of us here with questions to the minister and the officials, do we automatically stop the minister and the officials and bring in the CRTC with this piece of legislation?
I’m just throwing it out there. I’m trying to find a middle ground here.
Senator Cormier: I don’t know what the order is, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: It’s Senator Manning, and next was Senator Miville-Dechêne. I’m leaving a degree of flexibility to my deputy chair in the debate.
Again, colleagues, I don’t want to turn this into a debate over one motion and votes. I want us to come to a consensus and start meeting next week. From what I’m hearing, we’re not far from a consensus.
Next is Senator Cormier. You have the floor.
Senator Cormier: I want to remind our colleagues and all of us that we’re doing a pre-study here, but it’s not the bill. It’s a pre-study on the information we have now. It’s not a definitive study; it’s a pre-study.
In that direction, I would suggest as follows: If we could have two meetings next week, and we could have the minister and his staff for one hour and the CRTC for one hour. I remind you it’s a pre-study. We can come back, and we can invite the minister during the study at any time.
The second meeting would be Mr. von Finckenstein and Michael Geist for an hour, and we will have Pierre Trudel for the second hour, plus a second guest who is not listed in the motion, but is part of the list that we have. If we could agree that we have two two-hour meetings, and I remind us that we’re doing a pre-study.
That’s my proposal, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Senator Cormier, for the second meeting, who are the witnesses?
Senator Cormier: The first meeting would be the minister and his staff, first hour. Second hour would be the CRTC.
The second meeting would be Mr. von Finckenstein and Michael Geist, that’s one hour, and then we would have Pierre Trudel for the second hour, plus another witness whom we can choose from our list.
If we can agree that we have two meetings. That’s the first decision that we have to make, and that’s what I propose.
The Chair: I’m willing, as chair, to put this consensus on the table, and I think there is a consensus that we agree to next week have officials from Canadian Heritage for the first hour, the CRTC for the second hour, and then we can request a second meeting, as proposed by Senator Cormier, for one hour with Pierre Trudel and one hour with the other.
I find it very reasonable what Senator Cormier has just put on the table, but that’s my opinion.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Mr. Chair, the proposal of my colleague is that in the second meeting we would have four witnesses. We would have Konrad von Finckenstein, Michael Geist, Pierre Trudel and an extra one. The first meeting, two blocks — the government and the CRTC. Second meeting, four witnesses.
Senator Cormier: No, two blocks. I’m sorry. What I’m proposing here is that the second meeting — we always have two hours, right?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Senator Cormier: So the first hour of the second meeting would be Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein and Michael Geist, and the second hour would be Pierre Trudel and somebody else.
That’s what you’re saying?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s exactly what I’m saying.
The Chair: You do agree, Senator Cormier, that — if we find out that that is not working, and half of your colleagues aren’t getting an opportunity on this committee to ask questions, then what do we do?
Senator Cormier: We know that we might be only sitting next week. We know that we will probably receive the bill from now on until the fall, so we’ll be able to reinvite, of course, those witnesses. There’s no obligation for us to say we cannot invite them again. This is a pre-study. I think it’s very important to remember this.
That’s what I’m suggesting, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I find it reasonable, to be honest with you.
Senator Richards: I find it reasonable, too. The thing is, the first two witnesses on my list were the same as Senator Miville-Dechêne’s. That’s fine. It was just the time I wanted. I wanted more time, because I wanted people to be able to ask more questions and get fulsome answers. I think that is imperative, whether it’s a pre-study or a study.
If that doesn’t work, and my motion really wasn’t put on the floor, then that’s fine; we’ll go with what Senator Cormier has offered.
Senator Quinn: I’ve said a number of times that listening to colleagues, especially those with a lot of experience, is valuable. I want to especially refer to that which Senator Dawson said and Senator Miville-Dechêne and also Senator Cormier. This is exactly what I was hoping for in that we’ll have two meetings and have exactly what Senator Cormier said, and Senator Dawson referred to it as well. I think it was even more generous in terms of officials. But to Senator Cormier’s comment, this is a pre-study; when the bill comes, if we have to call people back, we can call them back.
I want to underscore what Senator Dawson said. I don’t think we should do anything that locks us into some magical rhythm that may cause us to want to do something different in the fall, whatever the case may be. I think he made a very valid point there. I want to voice my agreement with the combination of what the three senators said and which Senator Cormier nicely summed up.
Senator Simons: I just wanted to say, Mr. Chair, that a chair with your experience I’m sure will be able to run a meeting where the time is kept tight, where witnesses have only a certain amount of time to answer each question. I have no doubt that, given your experience as a chair and as Speaker, that you can run a meeting where everybody gets their questions asked and answered.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Simons. I appreciate your confidence. My concern is doing it right because I’ve chaired many committees — you’re right — and what I do not want in the case of a controversial piece of legislation like this where many senators have concerns is that they feel handcuffed by five or six minutes apiece. When you look at five or six minutes apiece on a committee of 15 senators, for example, in that hour, somebody, a number of senators, will not get an opportunity to ask a question. Because of my experience in doing our previous study, I know there are a number of senators who never got an opportunity to question witnesses.
That’s a concern that we should all have, because we want to make sure, in the spirit of fairness, that everybody’s concerns are addressed. That’s the only preoccupation I have with having a couple of panellists in 60 minutes. They go by very quickly.
Senator Dawson: I will be a witness that I’ve seen you chair meetings in which everybody gets their fair share. I agree with Senator Cormier; it’s a pre-study, and a lot of the people we might listen to the first time might come back. Even when we’re doing the bill, if we don’t have enough time with some witnesses, we will have hours available for us in September and October. We only have a few hours left for us next week. It will give us something to ponder on during the summer.
First of all, I would not give the clerk the sequence as an obligation. I don’t know if the minister can come first or second. I think we have to give a bit of flexibility. He won’t be making a mistake if he brings them in a different order. I want that to be clear, because it has never been that easy.
But I would keep, if we could — because I like Senator Housakos’s notion of having an extended steering committee — I would want us to start talking maybe next week at one of those half-hours or hours about next steps, because we might have to choose between — we might have permission to come before the House comes back. Will we want to be virtual? Will we want to have so many meetings per week when we get back? I think we should keep time for that. I don’t think we can do that tonight, obviously.
I think we will have instructions from the House on what we are allowed and not allowed to do during the summer. But I would want us to have an occasion next week to maybe debate it. Not to put aside too many of the witnesses, but I think we should keep a little cushion for that. For the rest, I agree with everything.
Senator Cormier: I will certainly not tell you how to chair a meeting, because you know that. I just want to say that we’re aware that it’s pretty tight. So I think we have a responsibility as senators around this table to make sure that when we prepare our questions for those witnesses, we go right to the point. In five minutes, we can get plenty of information if we’re pretty clear in our questions. The thing is that we must be prepared for that.
I think we should support you in that direction, since we want to have those witnesses and we want to have those two meetings. That would be my suggestion for my colleagues around the table and for me, of course, for sure.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Just a word. I agree with what Senator Cormier just said, and Senator Dawson, about maybe talking about the future meeting, if we have something to discuss. But I wanted to say that, obviously, you have all the flexibility to have whoever can come on the day that we have available. We will deal with that.
I just want to point out that you may have to change the witnesses if some are not available — the witnesses Konrad von Finckenstein, Michael Geist and Pierre Trudel. Let’s keep in mind a balance, because this is all we’ll have before summer. So some kind of balance would be nice, just to have an overview of the pros and cons.
The Chair: I think we have a consensus that our first meeting will go ahead next week. We have a consensus that we will ask for a second slot next week. We have a consensus in agreement of the witnesses Senator Cormier proposed. I don’t have any problems with the proposition of my deputy chair. I think there’s a willingness for some flexibility on that. If, for example, on the Wednesday, Mr. Geist can show up and officials can’t, we’ll leave that to our clerk and our analysts.
That’s the direction, clerk and analysts, that we go ahead with our first meeting next week. We invite the officials from Canadian Heritage and the CRTC to that meeting, and we carry on with the other proposed witnesses for the second meeting date that is proposed.
In all honesty, I would save the minister for last, sometime in the fall. But again, if the minister is free and wants to come with his officials on Wednesday, who am I?
Is there a consensus and an agreement with that?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Richards: Yes, there’s a consensus. I’m wondering when the second meeting would be. Would it have to be on Thursday afternoon or Thursday morning? It could be on Tuesday before the Wednesday meeting? Okay.
The Chair: We make the request and —
Senator Dawson: For Transport and Communications it’s always been Tuesday mornings. Very historically.
The Chair: Again, colleagues, we’ll set some parameters as well of how I chair those meetings going forward, because we do have 15 members on this committee and there is 60 minutes to question the witnesses. The truth of the matter is that when you divvy that up, it’s about four minutes allocated to each member, two minutes to put your question and two minutes to receive the answer. I will have to be disciplined both with our colleagues and with our witnesses.
If colleagues, in advance of all the meetings, want to forfeit their time, let me know. Like I said, I just want to be fair and make sure that everyone gets an opportunity to put forward their concerns and receive the answers in an intelligent fashion.
Clerk, is the guidance given by the committee clear? Are there any questions from you or our analysts before we move on?
Vincent Labrosse, Clerk of the Committee: Everything is quite clear, chair. Thank you. Just to reconfirm regarding the minister: Is the wish to invite the minister last or to invite the minister, and if he’s not available, proceed with the officials?
The Chair: It was just a suggestion on my part. I’m not hung up on it. Whatever my colleagues think best.
Senator Sorensen: I was curious, is it allowed that the minister come twice, once at the beginning and once later in the fall, or can they only come once as a witness?
The Chair: We can invite him any time the committee wants to invite him and, of course, he can appear at his pleasure.
Senator Sorensen: That may be another option, understanding the first meeting might be to help people like me understand the bill very generally and then later on as needed maybe.
The Chair: Clerk, analysts, are we good to go?
Senator Manning: First, I want to thank Senator Cormier for guiding us in a positive direction.
I am a bit concerned. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chair, I have had numerous meetings already on Bill C-11. Many people want to present to us. I have a very short motion that I want to put forward. I don’t think it’s going to cause any controversy, but I want to get it on the record to ensure that, as Senator Miville-Dechêne talked about moments ago, we have a balance here.
Honourable senators, I move:
That given the widespread and comprehensive impact of this legislation, that the Committee make a particular effort to hear from ordinary Canadians on this Bill, in particular from online creators and from LGBTQ2S, Black and Indigenous Canadians.
I’m getting a lot of push from many different organizations, and I want to make sure that ordinary Canadians are heard. I don’t want to be hearing from the CRTCs of the world and the large organizations such as YouTube and Disney and so on. I want to make sure we have an opportunity here to have ordinary Canadians come and sit at this table and put their concerns forward.
Senator Simons: What is an ordinary Canadian?
Senator Manning: An ordinary Canadian is not someone who’s getting a million dollars a year to run a big organization, in my view.
Senator Simons: That makes you and me ordinary Canadians.
Senator Manning: You know what I meant. The representation I’ve been getting at my office is from major companies with billions of dollars involved in this.
Senator Dawson: I move the adoption of the motion.
Senator Manning: As I told you, I didn’t expect a major thing, but I wanted to get it on the record.
The Chair: Did someone move the adoption of the motion?
Senator Dawson: I did.
The Chair: All in favour of the motion say “yea.”
Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Chair: All those opposed to the motion say “nay.”
Accordingly, the “yeas” have it. The motion is approved.
It’s amazing how from one week to another we go to complete consensus and cooperation.
Senator Simons: It’s so amazing.
The Chair: It is fantastic. It just goes to show you that with a little bit of comprehension for the minority opposition, a lot can be done after that.
Colleagues, I thank you all. I look forward to commencing this work.
(The committee adjourned.)