Honourable senators, I wanted to say, to make you laugh a bit, that this is the first time in my life that I have heard my name used so often. It is very good for the ego. However, I get the feeling that I was being used politically, to some extent. Then again, we cannot be against those who support our causes.

I rise during this marathon of interventions not to prolong the debate, but to make a few remarks that I consider to be necessary. Some relate to me, others are more general.

I will begin by saying a few words about the closure motion and the six-hour time limit on the debate about the message received from the House of Commons on Bill C-11.

In theory, no one likes to short-circuit debate, especially in the Senate, where the new non-partisan reality should render these processes unnecessary.

In practice, these measures are sometimes inevitable, particularly when all the substantive debates have been held, when every perspective has been heard, when every argument has been made, and when every objection has been made.

In these cases, when there is nothing left but obstruction, when even the opponents of the bill are not claiming that it needs to be studied further, I think it is incumbent on us to end these now sterile exchanges and proceed with the vote. You will forgive me for not giving too much political value to the use of lengthy bells, the use of procedural tactics and partisan innuendo.

I have a spine. I am not a Liberal. Our opponents like to wrap themselves in the rhetoric of democracy. However, in this case, I believe that it is our democratic duty to prevent our debates from being blocked indefinitely or taken hostage when there are no new elements to bring to the discussion.

Several members have pointed out that the Senate spent more time on Bill C-11 than on any other government bill. I will not repeat the figures. What is important to note is that all those who wanted to be heard were heard. Is that not right, Senator Housakos?

All arguments have been made, often multiple times.

I would add that debate on Bill C-11 did not take place in Parliament alone. There were discussions in the papers, blogs, on the radio, on television and even on podcasts and in emails. We were inundated with all possible and imaginable viewpoints.

Ultimately, it is simply impossible — and no one is doing it — to claim that the bill was not properly studied or that there are voices that were not heard.

Essentially, this piece of legislation is far from perfect. Some have doubts that it meets its objectives. Others believe that it goes too far or not far enough.

Personally, despite a study and the amendments that have been proposed to very specific provisions of Bill C-11, I believe that we need to come back to the big picture.

Bill C-11 is based on the idea that Canadian culture — and minority and francophone cultures in particular — is not just another commodity that can simply be subjected to the law of supply and demand. This culture — our songs, our television programs — cannot be treated like tires or toothpaste, regardless of whether it is disseminated through traditional means or new online platforms. All governments have the right to protect and promote their culture, heritage, identity and artists by removing them, at least in part, from the ruthless logic of the marketplace.

Bill C-11 essentially proposes two things: that new online platforms help financially support our artists and works, and that they ensure that these cultural products are discoverable, that is, that they are, at a minimum, seen or heard by the Canadian public.

I see nothing offensive in these principles, quite the contrary.

Some claimed that this was a censorship bill. No one should be convinced by that blatant exaggeration. All of the content that exists today will continue to be available, and all of Canada’s creators will be able to continue to broadcast what they want on the platforms of their choice. Bill C-11 simply proposes to give our creators a hand. If some people want to get angry and upset about that, then that is their right, but it is all a show.

It is true that my colleague, Senator Paula Simons, and I tried to clarify proposed subsection 4.2(2) on user-generated content. The idea was to reassure some content creators who were concerned about the possibility of excessive and unreasonable interference by the CRTC. I am talking about people who earn a living on YouTube and other online platforms. Many of them came to tell us how concerned they were that they were going to lose their livelihood.

Obviously, that amendment was never a sine qua non condition for supporting the bill. It was a pragmatic and independent effort to reach a compromise that would iron out a few wrinkles and get some skeptics on board. Consensus is important in politics.

Obviously, I regret that the government and the majority of members of the House of Commons, including NDP and Bloc Québécois members did not agree to that amendment. However, in the end, I believe that the overall bill is more important than the amendment.

I categorically reject the idea that my independence is compromised or diminished because I am in favour of a bill whose underlying principle I have always supported.

Ultimately, I will be voting for this bill. The Government Representative in the Senate recognized the content creators’ concerns about the CRTC, and therefore his motion states the following:

That the Senate take note of the Government of Canada’s public assurance that Bill C-11 will not apply to user‑generated digital content and its commitment to issue policy direction to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission accordingly;

Of course, it is a promise, but it is in writing.

I will be voting in favour of this bill because I believe that something needs to be done, even if it isn’t perfect, to protect our culture in a fast-paced world where we, especially francophones and other minority cultures, are a drop in the ocean.

Of course, we can pretend that, with its fierce competition, the market will always reward the best, and that our artists will emerge on their own, that Klô Pelgag will dethrone Beyoncé, that Daniel Bélanger will overthrow Eminem, but that’s magical thinking.

To become well-known and to find an audience, artists need talent, hard work, ingenuity and determination, but they also need to be heard, to be seen and to be discovered.

These days, people listen to music and discover new artists on foreign platforms that have no particular interest in promoting our culture. Of course, I’m saying “our culture,” but I also mean the culture of Indigenous, Black or racialized communities and that of other minority communities.

There will be no turning back, of course. In this era of endless choice and à-la-carte consumption, minority cultures, and especially francophones in North America, will always have to fight to exist.

I am of course aware that a bill alone is not going to change this reality. We appreciate all the platforms, such as YouTube and Spotify, and the freedom of choice that they offer.

However, I have no doubt that we can continue to use and appreciate these platforms and the unlimited universe they open up, while giving our artists the best chances to be heard, seen and appreciated. They are an extension of us and the expression of our culture. They make a powerful contribution to the foundation of our identity. Personally, I am not prepared to allow their fate to be determined by the free market alone.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yes, I think I know exactly what I’m doing. I have been here for a few years and I understand, so no, you shouldn’t be concerned about that. I know we are looking at the message.

I voted for Bill C-11 and now we’re focusing on the message, and in the message, yes, two of the six amendments that were defeated were ones that I was involved with; there are mine and there is Senator Simons’ as well.

As I explained quite clearly in my speech, I believe that at this stage, given the importance of the bill and given that everything has been said, if there were no closure motion, we would be stuck at this same point in June. That would mean that the bill would have been before the Senate for a year, which is a relatively long time.

Pretty much everything that needs to be said has been said about this bill, and we won’t necessarily be able to reconcile the different points of view. From my personal perspective, we must try to implement this bill. I know that it will be complicated and that the CRTC does not have all the tools it needs. I foresee some bumps on the road, but at least an effort is being made. Anything that represents any kind of regulation of the internet is difficult in this day and age.

There’s no magic formula. We must try to ensure that this globalization, which has certain advantages, doesn’t completely kill national cultures. In that respect, we are indeed the first to do something that affects music. Others have done things that affect television productions, Netflix. In France, for example, 30% quotas have been set. We are trying something else here.

It will be complicated, that’s for sure. I am not really sure how this will unfold, and it’s going to take a while to implement, but at this point, personally, I’m voting for the message, because I think it’s time to end the debate. It’s time to try to implement this bill.

Of course, content creators have concerns, but there are other people on the other side. Content creators are an important part of the reality. There are also young artists who want to succeed, to be heard, and who are not necessarily content creators on Spotify.

There is then a group of stakeholders, and there are a lot of them, as you know, since you are from Quebec. There is very little debate on this in Quebec. Most stakeholders are in favour of Bill C-11, but obviously there is a bit of a generational divide. I am aware of that. Overall, however, this bill is seen as supporting a minority culture and is considered necessary.

Would the senator take one more brief question?

Yes.

The honourable senator has two and a half minutes remaining.

I will be brief.

Senator, at the start of your speech, you alluded to the idea that you had maybe been used politically. I know I quoted you a number of times in my speech, so I am sure you were referring to that, at least in part.

You and I might disagree on some issues, but we are absolutely rock-solid agreed on other issues. Whether you like to be in agreement with me or not, the fact of the matter is that I support your passion against child exploitation — no question.

You also used the word “opponents” in your speech. I would like to believe, Senator Miville-Dechêne — and in this particular case, we might vote differently on this issue — that we are not opponents on this issue. If you are as non-partisan as you say you are — and I respect that — then I would suggest that we are not opponents on this; we will vote differently, but we are in agreement on this issue.

You are right, the term “opponents” in general was probably not the best choice. I should have said “adversaries” when speaking about Bill C-11, in general, and the objectives of Bill C-11, because, clearly, on other matters, whether it was the issue of pornography and children or forced labour, you supported my efforts to introduce private bills on the issue.

However, I did find that our names, Paula Simons’ and mine, were often mentioned in connection with the amendments, and that led me to wonder whether it was about the content of the amendments or the fact that senators from the Independent Senators Group had moved these amendments. That is something I wonder about.

I am not sure of anything, but, in any event, I thank you for your support on the issues we both agree on.