I would like to thank Senator MacDonald for his subamendment and his continuous support of user-generated content and digital-first providers.

We’ve heard a number of interventions this afternoon and this evening on Bill C-11. I just want to respond to a number of issues that are of deep concern.

In his intervention, Senator Cardozo talked about how the opposition and those who are opposed to the bill are somehow lining up with multi-billion-dollar digital corporations and platforms and so on and so forth. I’m starting to think that many of our interventions have probably gone unheard or are not really understood.

For those of us who are concerned, the concern that we have is not lining up with the digital giants. It’s the government, actually, who is lining up with multi-billion-dollar corporations. I said in my second-reading speech, my third-reading speech and in committee that we believe the whole purpose of this bill — and the government has said it outright — is to align traditional broadcasters in this country with digital platforms. Those of us who participated in the in-depth study at the Transport Committee, we understand clearly that digital providers are not broadcasters, far from it. They’re just platforms that actually help broadcasters and communication messages arrive to certain destinations more quickly, on a larger scale and in larger volumes. That is the actual reality of what digital providers like Facebook, Twitter, Google and all the other digital providers do.

We felt from the beginning that Bill C-11 is an attempt not to align broadcasters but, actually, to save the broadcasting industry, which we all acknowledge their business model is struggling. It is struggling because times have changed. What better testament of the fact that times are changing than having the CEO of CBC herself, a day after we passed the bill in this chamber or the day before, going public and saying how in a few years, CBC will be out of cable broadcasting and transforming their operation into digital platforms. That’s why you get organizations such as Quebecor running QUB radio, which is a full-fledged digital radio operation. They’re doing that because they’re starting to recognize the world is changing, and young Canadians are going toward that direction.

Senator Cardozo, let me tell you where I’m standing. I’m standing with user-generated content producers.

I’m standing with the digital-first producers in this country.

“User-generated content,” colleagues, is a digital term, and it’s Canadians. Every time you hear “user-generated content” or “digital-first providers,” just substitute the word “Canadians.”

I’m not standing up for Meta or Google. Unlike this government, I’m not standing up for CTV, Quebecor or Rogers either. If they have issues with their business model and they’re not feeling that they’re competitive enough, that is, philosophically speaking, for them to address. It’s not for legislation to address it or for me as a legislator or any government, Liberal or Conservative alike, to intervene in that particular marketplace to help a business model, because at the end of the day, I’m of the view, “Where does it end?” It has to end somewhere. We don’t have unlimited amounts of money. I know this current government thinks we have unlimited amounts of money, but we don’t.

The truth of the matter and why we’re so persistent, and why you see the subamendment from Senator MacDonald to insist on the amendments that we collectively all voted for — we voted for these amendments at committee; we voted for them here at this chamber. We did that not on a whim but because we are truly a chamber of sober second thought. We did all this because we heard so much testimony from so many witnesses about user‑generated content producers (Canadians) — millions of Canadians who came before our committee and pleaded with this institution.

We are their last hope. These are people who are creating on a daily basis. They’re generating income for the Treasury Board of this country. They’re generating content that is being spread around the world in a very successful way. We see now particularly young Canadians who have completely transformed themselves from the cable broadcasting industry; they’re all online.

As I have said this before in my speeches, I’m still of the old generation. At 9:00 or 10:00, I run to “CTV National News” to watch the news. My boys come walking by the family room laughing at me and spewing out all the news at me at miles an hour because they’re on all these platforms, and they feel they’re getting their news quicker, getting more options, getting more in‑depth news, and they call me a dinosaur.

The issue we have as an institution, Senator Cotter and Senator Dalphond — I listened to your speeches very attentively and I didn’t hear much being addressed in regard to Bill C-11. I did hear a lot of constitutional arguments about how this place is an unelected body. I heard arguments about how it is not our role to push back on government legislation from the other place because they have the elected mandate from the people and so on and so forth. But I just want to go back and remind everyone that it hasn’t been that long since Senator Serge Joyal — an eminent senator who, of course, has argued on behalf of the judiciary on this floor on many occasions what our rights and privileges are — has said many times, including on his way out of this place, that we have to be relevant, relevant to our constituency.

So to both Senator Cotter and Senator Dalphond, with all due respect for their arguments, I said to Senator Dalphond that probably what I do think will happen for years to come is the government leader of future governments will probably be quoting his speech on a number of occasions in the future. That is fine, because he put on his judiciary hat, as he was an eminent judge, and did a very good job at making a judicial argument on the floor, but I as a legislator have had the privilege of working at the feet and learning about Parliament from giants such as Serge Joyal and Lowell Murray and others who came before me.

More importantly, I also was privileged enough when I studied political science at McGill University — there was a professor named J.R. Mallory, who also taught me a thing or two, a renowned constitutional expert in this country. He told me that we live in a country where we have separation of the executive, legislative and judiciary bodies.

So with all due respect to judges who are now, of course, legislators, I want to point out that we have supreme constitutional authority on legislative issues, to step in and articulate and craft legislation to the best of our ability, listening to our constituents, even though we’re not elected. I know we’re all appointed by a prime minister — Prime Minister Trudeau or Prime Minister Harper; I don’t think there are any Prime Minister Martin appointees left — but, at the end of the day, we’re still accountable to our constituents, to our provinces.

Oh, so Senator Cordy and Senator Massicotte.

Jean Chrétien, a great prime minister who made a great appointment. I don’t want to leave out, of course, Prime Minister Chrétien and Prime Minister Martin. I’ve been here so long, Senator Cordy, my memory is starting to fog up.

To continue my train of thought, we all have an obligation to our constituents. When we give a mandate to our committee to go do the robust, in-depth study that we did and hear so many voices, literally millions of people, user-generated content producers — which means, again, in brackets, Canadians: your kids, your nephews, my children, artists, singers — when these individuals come to us as their last hope because they see a piece of legislation that is riddled with potential dangers — and there is a possibility the CRTC will do the honourable thing, and there is a possibility that politicians and Heritage Canada will be true to their word.

However, I see no obstacle here — no issue why particular amendments that were put forward by Senator Miville-Dechêne and Senator Simons that were so responsive to the outcry of citizens — this isn’t a political agenda; this isn’t a partisan issue. This is senators from all groups at committee who heard a large constituency of Canadians who said, “Please, take this issue outside of the pressure cooker of politics of the House of Commons and do the right thing, apply your sober second thought, make the amendments that give us a chance and give us a sense of confidence that the government will not get in our way and destroy our successes.”

Now, at the end of the day, colleagues, let’s be clear: Senator Dalphond and Senator Cotter, we get our legitimacy when we speak for voices from those who feel they haven’t been heard in the House and other places. That’s where we get our judgment day.

The risk we have — and I’ve seen it in my 15 years here many times, with all stripes of governments — very often we acquiesce to the will of those who brought us here. When we acquiesce to the will of the executive branch who brought us here, we silence those constituents who are always calling upon us to represent them and speak for them.

Senator Cotter, I thank Senator Downe, because he has been here longer than I have and he appropriately pointed out that the Senate has exercised its constitutional authority on a number of occasions when the Senate thought we were speaking for a large number of Canadians who felt the executive branch was imposing legislation upon them that they thought was so egregious that we were their last hope to stand up in their defence.

When we choose not to do that for a variety of reasons, I believe — and again, if we listened to Senator Joyal on his way out of this place — this place loses a notch of credibility in the eyes of the public. All of the new senators who came here after me, you all know the biggest challenge we face is our legitimacy, because we’re an appointed body. Too often, I’ve seen a large number of voices in this country — it doesn’t matter if it’s Indigenous people, underprivileged people — whatever the issue may be at whatever time — we agree or disagree — whatever side of the fence you stand on — but a lot of those groups feel that we always acquiesce more often than not to the executive branch. We have heard the argument, both in the media and from the public: “You guys are a rubber stamp.”

So, this is the one occasion where I disagree with Senator Dalphond and where we can exercise our constitutional rights when there is such an outcry. As Chair of the Transport and Communications Committee — I was there on the front line with my colleagues — there is a clear lack of consensus.

There is a particular divide between generations in this country. I think we will also be sending a strong message to a younger generation of Canadians who are asking themselves, “What does that unelected upper chamber really do?” I’ve seen it among witnesses — vloggers and streamers — who came before our committee, both francophone and anglophone. They were like, “Senator, for the first time, we see there is actually a value for this upper chamber. Please exercise your authority.”

That’s why I am speaking in support of the amendment from Senator MacDonald. I don’t think we will be overstepping or overreaching our authority by sending this message back to the government and saying to them, “We strongly recommend you listen to our sage advice and take note of the amendments that are put forward” — by senators appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau.

Again, I reiterate that this is not strictly a partisan issue, and this is not an issue of us defending — as many are trying to turn this into an issue — the multinational digital companies. It is defending average Canadians who are looking at this institution as their last hope.

I’ve been pleading and begging, both in public, outside of this place, and in this place, for us to do the right thing. We want to send a message of independence. We want to send a message that we will stand with people and not stand on the side of government. This is the issue.

Thank you, colleagues.

Certainly.

That is an excellent question, Senator Dalphond.

First of all, as you know, our small group of Conservatives speaks for the majority of Canadians, since we won the majority of votes in the last election. This is an important vote, and we still won more votes than the party that was in power. We won more votes than the current government in two consecutive elections.

It goes without saying that even a democratic parliamentary system is perfectly imperfect. I would also point out that the government is of course elected based on its electoral platform. However, we must not forget that in any election platform, like the Liberal Party platform, it is one thing to say that the Broadcasting Act will be reformed. But the details of the reform process aren’t included in the election platform. The details come later, in a bill, and if there’s any time for the upper house to do its job, it’s to study all the details. An election platform is very general.

Furthermore, I would never argue that we should support a bill simply because reviewing it was part of a political party’s platform, since that is entirely contrary to the idea of the independence of this great parliamentary institution.