Honourable senators, I want to make clear that I’m not speaking in any capacity in my role with the Canadian Senators Group; I’m speaking as a senator from Alberta.

I want to thank the government leader and his colleagues for responding to the concerns that I raised yesterday. It may seem like a minor edit, but I think it does strengthen the observation or the “take note” paragraph that we have.

Much like Senator Simons — and maybe I said this yesterday — I wish that we weren’t grasping at something like this. It would be nice if it were in the bill, but I’m also pragmatic enough to know that this paragraph in this motion is truly what we have to work with. With that, I think we have to do our best to get the words right and as clear as possible to reflect what we, at this time, in this moment, understand to be the motivations and the intentions of the government.

Senator Gold likes to say — I’ve heard it frequently in the last while — that words matter. I believe they do, and I think we have found some better words that make the meaning clearer. Those of us who have been here awhile will remember former Senator Baker. Senator Baker talked about how often courts look back on debates — and on moments like this — to understand the circumstances that led to a bill being passed. I think we’re potentially in that moment right now. We have to be very clear, and I’m pleased. Senator Gagné mentioned collaboration and cooperation, and this is a wonderful example of that. In regard to Senator Baker, we should believe that someday someone may be relying on the discussions that we’ve had here — the articulation of what we understood, and the reiteration of what was said in public that weighed on all of our decisions not to insist, again, for our amendment, but to let it go. It is with that responsibility that I felt it was important to try to find something that I could support in this situation, notwithstanding what I know to be the wishes of a large majority of the citizens of Alberta.

Thank you to the GRO for the opportunity, and I intend to vote for this amendment. Thank you.

Will you take a question, Senator Tannas?

Yes.

Senator Tannas, I appreciate the wording and the comments you made about this, but, given the question that I asked Senator Gold yesterday, it appears to me that this is yet another way for the Trudeau government to say they’re making a promise that user-generated content would not be subject to Bill C-11 — without actually putting it in the substance of the bill. This is simply a message. It’s not a part of the bill or the provision that would actually govern the bill.

You indicated, senator, the wise words — always — of Senator Baker about how courts look to the Senate and our debates, but what the courts also, of course, look to is the actual provisions of the bill.

Wouldn’t you agree that if the government wanted to make it crystal clear, what your constituents in Alberta and, certainly, mine in Saskatchewan want is for user-generated content to actually be out of Bill C-11? Wouldn’t that be the way to make it the most crystal clear for the courts, for Canadians and for everyone?

I agree it would be. That’s not what we’re presented with.

We’re presented with, in the context of our constitutional responsibilities, how far we go and when we push and when we accept, and I think there are enough bread crumbs here that, if the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, chose at some future point to abuse this, somebody could make the case that it was not to be used, that the governments that passed this bill were adamant that it was not the intention to empower the CRTC to bring users in along with platforms.

I cannot deny that it would be better in the bill. This is what we have. I’m grateful that we have something with which to potentially give somebody a handle somewhere down the road if regulatory overreach occurs.

Will Senator Tannas take another question?

Senator Tannas, I thank you for this. Obviously, I know you’re always trying to find a compromise in the spirit of cooperation. You said that in the ideal world, it would be in the bill; it would be in the law. But you said that this is the best we can do and that this is the best we’ve been presented with.

Presented with by whom?

It’s not up to the executive branch of government to be dictating directives to Parliament. It’s not. It’s the other way around. It’s up to Parliament to be dictating to government on behalf of its constituents.

We also have a constitutional obligation. You talked about the Constitution. It’s black and white in the Constitution that we have the same rights, privileges and authority as the House of Commons. Yes, we exercise that authority with a great deal of prudence, because, colleagues, we are an unelected body, and we have to be cognizant of that at all times. But we’re equally bestowed this great privilege that, when the government or the Crown does something that is so egregious to a large number of Canadians, we’re compelled to speak on their behalf.

Even though you’re not a full standing member of the committee, you participated in many deliberations, and you know there are a large number of user-generating Canadians — millions — that are concerned by this.

What would be the harm if so many of us feel like that? And the committee was unanimous in its decision after the testimony. It was unanimous in these amendments. Why wouldn’t we, one more time, press the government and make them understand that these amendments are coming on behalf of millions and millions of Canadians, and they want it within the body of the law?

I think that’s still possible. I think we can defeat this amendment, if that’s what the Senate wishes to do, and we can defeat the message and start all over. That can be done, if that’s what we want to do.

But if that’s not the way the cards fall, I’m a pragmatist, and I come from a long line of Alberta pragmatists, and I would rather make sure that what is likely to be the eventuality, that we do our best with it, rather than shout at the rain and not do it.

Thank you.

We heard about this amendment for the first time yesterday when Senator Tannas raised it. The government didn’t give us an indication that they were going to bring forward their own amendment today. We did learn about it this morning a few hours before we sat.

I am not at all suggesting at this point that we are opposed or in favour of this amendment, but clearly, in light of the amount of time that we have had to look at it, I think we want to review this a little more.

In light of that, Your Honour, I would like to adjourn the debate for the balance of my time.