Bill C-11

Online Streaming Act

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service, unless the programs are prescribed by regulation;
(c) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of the Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should
(i) serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from Black or other racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages, and
(ii) provide opportunities to Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(d) enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society, including by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs in both languages;
(e) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of English, French and Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide English, French or Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) takes into account, among other things, the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings,
(iii) ensures that any broadcasting undertaking that cannot make maximum or predominant use of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming contributes to those Canadian resources in an equitable manner,
(iv) promotes innovation and is readily adaptable toscientific and technological change,
(v) facilitates the provision to Canadians of Canadian programs in both official languages, including those created and produced by official language minority communities in Canada, as well as Canadian programs in Indigenous languages,
(vi) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities,
(vii) facilitates the provision to Canadians of programs created and produced by members of Black or other racialized communities,
(viii) protects the privacy of individuals who aremembers of the audience of programs broadcast, and
(ix) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which the Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on any class of broadcasting undertakings if that imposition will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(f) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(g) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(h) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(i) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(j) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(k) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(l) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(m) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act .
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Canadian Heritage

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, once again, our thoughts are with the workers and their families, particularly as the holiday season approaches.

This situation could have been avoided and all of those workers would still have jobs if the Conservatives had not spent the past few years opposing Bill C-11. Yes, Bill C‑11 is enough. Yes, we are here with a bill that is in place to help save media jobs. We managed to get Bill C‑11 passed, and it will provide solutions to protect thousands of well-paying jobs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, a full-blown atomic bomb has dropped on the world of Quebec television. TVA, the most-watched television network in Quebec, will be laying off 547 people, a third of its workforce. We are losing extraordinary artisans of our culture. It is catastrophic.

It is catastrophic, but not surprising, unfortunately. If this is happening to TVA, all of our media are at risk. We have to rethink everything, if we want to save our media. A massive undertaking is needed.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage seriously think that Bills C-11 and C-18 are enough to save Quebec media?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, my heart goes out to the journalists and workers at Quebecor and TVA, all the 500 employees who lost their jobs yesterday. This is not good news for Quebec. This decision was made by a private company. We always support journalism and information sharing.

That is why Bill C‑11 is so important. We hope that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives will vote with us to support Canadian and Quebec journalism.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, first, our thoughts are with the more than 500 families who are affected by these job losses. We will be there for them, and we will also be there for the cultural industry and the media. The reality is that this is the reason why we need to continue our work on Bill C‑11. That is why we introduced that bill. The reality is that the Conservatives always oppose measures to protect the cultural industry, the media and even Canadian content.

[Dr. Teresa Scassa]

I completely agree that there are problems with this provision.

The one I flagged in my opening comments is that it refers to de-identified information. This was taken verbatim from Bill C-11 and put into Bill C-27, but in Bill C-11, “de-identified” was given the definition that is commonly given to anonymized information.

Under Bill C-27, we have two different categories: de-identified and anonymized. Anonymized is the more protected. Now you have a provision that allows de-identified information—which is not anonymized, just de-identified—to be shared, so there has actually been a weakening of proposed section 39 in Bill C-27 from Bill C-11, which shouldn't be the case.

In addition to that, there are no guardrails, as you mentioned, for transparency or for other protections where information is shared for socially beneficial purposes. The ETHI committee held hearings about the PHAC use of mobility data, which is an example of this kind of sharing for socially beneficial purposes.

The purposes may be socially beneficial. They may be justifiable and it may be something we want to do, but unless there is a level of transparency and the potential for some oversight, there isn't going to be trust. I think we risk recreating the same sort of situation where people suddenly discover that their information has been shared with a public sector organization for particular purposes that have been deemed by somebody to be socially beneficial and those people don't know. They haven't been given an option to learn more about it, they haven't been able to opt out and the Privacy Commissioner hasn't been notified or given any opportunity to review.

I think we have to be really careful with proposed section 39, partly because I think it's been transplanted without appropriate changes and partly because it doesn't have the guardrails that are required for that provision.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry. I had an urgent call. I had to leave, so like MP Masse, I apologize if somebody covered this.

My first questions will be for Dr. McPhail.

I want to start by saying that we've had some interesting testimony already, and some pulling of teeth out of the minister to get the amendments he said he would make and then refused to make and then did make as drafts—which I think, in some cases on privacy, are wholly inadequate.

You know, we had Bill C-11, which the Liberal government brought in and which was flawed. They didn't listen to the privacy commissioner of the day and got responses afterwards, when it was tabled, that it was a bad bill. Then the 2021 election came along, so it died. The minister didn't listen to the testimony and brought in a flawed bill again, and let it sit in the House for a year before we debated it. Then, at the last minute, after four years of battling back and forth, he decides that maybe individual privacy matters, so we'll recognize a fundamental right.

Here's my problem with where the government is, and I think Dr. McPhail and Dr. Scassa outlined some of the reasons. If you had watched my earlier questioning.... While the Liberals are going to put the fundamental right in the “Purpose” section, the most important section, they also say the ability of an organization to use that data is basically of parallel importance in the purpose of the bill.

Then, as you've pointed out, there are issues in proposed section 12 around consent and implied consent. Quite frankly, I thought implied consent was gone a long time ago, in the 1990s, like reverse consent. Apparently, implied consent still exists here, so I can just say, “No problem, Brad. I think you would have consented to this, so I'll use it anyway.”

Then, in proposed subsection 15(5), as pointed out in the testimony we had earlier, there's a huge problem.

Proposed section 18, which I've talked a lot about, basically says, “No problem. Big business can use your data, no matter what the consent is, if it's in their interest to use it, even if it causes harm.”

Then there's proposed section 35. I brought up proposed section 35 to the former privacy commissioner last time. It says that if an organization is using your data for research or statistics, it can use the data however it wants—unidentified, directly. It doesn't say, like PIPEDA used to say, that it is for scholarly work. Those words are no longer there. It says that an organization can use it, and “an organization”, as we know, in this bill is a business.

There's a lot to fix in this bill to put the balance back on the individual. The Liberals have put the balance on big, multinational data-mining companies—Facebook, Google and others—to have the rights to do whatever they want with an individual's data. I am wondering, is it simply removing proposed section 18, the legitimate interest, that puts the balance, or do you have to make another statement of a higher level in the “Purpose" section? Do you have to get rid of proposed section 35 and replace it with what already existed in PIPEDA that's being removed here?

Maybe I could ask Dr. McPhail and then Dr. Scassa to comment.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for all the excellent testimony we've heard today.

My first couple of questions are going to be for ACTRA. Thank you so much for being here. I'm very blessed, in my riding, to have so many people within the arts and culture sector, but I know that they are prevalent right across our country. I'll say to you that I never forget the importance of arts and culture to our economy, to jobs, to our sharing our stories and to our having a better understanding of each other and a way of bringing our country together, so thank you.

You were very clear in terms of what you want us to do around improving economic circumstances, copyright law and AI, and I really want to say I appreciate that. You mentioned the Online Streaming Act, so I wouldn't mind asking you a quick question on that. I know it's estimated to generate around $1 billion for the Canadian creative sector.

Can you talk a bit about how you see the impact of the Online Streaming Act on the sector in terms of Canadian production and jobs?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Given that,

the government is desperate to police and control speech,

freedom of expression is fundamental to a free society,

the government rammed Bill C-11, the online censorship bill, through every step of the way, ignoring the concerns of Canadians and Canadian content creators, to force it into law,

the government has given itself the power to control what Canadians can see, hear, and say online,

Canadians must always stand up for their right to freely express themselves and access information of their choosing without government censorship,

the government is now requiring podcasts and social media services to register with the government as an overreach of Bill C-11 and a drastic affront to free expression,

it is the opinion of the committee to repeal Bill C-11 and that the committee report this finding to the House.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I would.

Just by way of background, this is revisiting the discussion we had when the member who brought the bill forward was here. We spent the last parliamentary session trying to modernize a lot of the legislation to make sure we captured the digital changes that have happened.

We updated Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-27 to all reflect the digital age. We want to make sure that “digital creations” are included. Then, when we had the language discussion, we agreed that English and French were important but, as has been pointed out, there are indigenous languages that people do creative activities in and there may also be ethnic-specific ones. In order to reflect that diversity and the digital creations, this amendment is to add the following:

filmmaking and digital creations that reflect the diversity of Canada, including with respect to the languages in use and its ethnocultural composition.

That's brought to you by the legislative people who know the legalese terms.

Thank you.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to support my colleague's motion as well.

I would note that, if you go back to Hansard and my debates around Bill C-11, I repeatedly asked the government why it was trying to make podcasts live in the same world as, say, a radio station. I was assured at that time it was indeed not the case, and the government was definitely not doing that, yet we have reports in the media this week that now the government is expecting podcasts to register...or the CRTC is expecting that podcasts would register with it.

I think it would be imperative for this committee to study it or to ask the questions, anyway, of the department, of the CRTC and of the minister: What's suddenly changed, and why are we all of a sudden asking podcasts to register when we were assured that, when Bill C-11 passed, this would never happen and that this was not the government trying to impose radio station and CanCon requirements on podcasts? That was definitely something we were assured of at the time.

Believe me, Madam Chair, I did not believe the government when it said that. You always say that you hate to say “I told you so”, and now we're here saying, “I told you so”. I think it's important that this committee study this. I think it should be sooner rather than later. I would hope we can pass this motion this morning, for sure, and get the minister here tomorrow and the CRTC next week forthwith.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I won't take the committee's time. I agree we should hear from the CRTC and from the minister, but I think the rest of this motion is just an attempt to relitigate Bill C-11, which has already been passed by this committee.

I'll leave it at that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, indeed.

I'll try to be brief, but it won't be easy. I know we have other motions to debate this morning, and I can see that this one is generating a lot of discussion. The fact that we already have extremely varied, even diametrically opposed opinions, demonstrates the need to have a discussion on it.

Now, let me explain why it would make me uncomfortable to target, for example, hate speech in this study: a bill dealing precisely with hate speech will soon be tabled. Now, before we start discussing online hate speech and the markers and parameters to be established around this notion, we must at least start by agreeing on the markers or means that the government can have to protect the concept of freedom of expression, which is fundamental to our democracy.

I didn't say freedom of speech, I said freedom of expression, because, as Mr. Shields was saying earlier, freedom of expression is a broad spectrum that includes, among other things, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, but also the freedom to dress as you like, for example.

So I want us to have this discussion before we tackle the extremely tricky subject of hate speech. Indeed, if the discussion we're having today on a little motion that simply proposes to discuss it together is anything to go by, we won't be out of the woods when we tackle a subject as thorny as hate speech. It's true that there is a resurgence of violence among various groups. I'm not going to point the finger at the far right or the far left. For me, all extremes are harmful. I think there are extremes on both sides. We can discuss this, if you like.

That's why it would make me uncomfortable to focus too much on one particular aspect of freedom of expression during this study; we're going to have to debate it at length when the bill is finally tabled. We've been told it's been ready for two years, so we can't wait to see it. We've spent an hour discussing our perceptions of this or that aspect of freedom of expression. I'm proposing something. In fact, I was hoping we could have this discussion without flaunting our political colours too much, and maintain a certain openness and neutrality.

There are many concepts within freedom of expression, and there are a host of things that are even somewhat abstract. For example, the right to be offended doesn't exist, but being offended is measured at different levels, depending on the individual. To answer Mr. Noormohamed's question, this is what I was thinking of when I talked about the means that the government should have at its disposal to ensure the exercise of freedom of expression. When can you say that someone has gone too far? Does it depend on the thickness of my own skin, my resistance, or the hypersensitivity of certain groups? We need to do something to make people understand that, yes, sometimes we will be offended by what someone says. Can we make it clear that at a certain point, it becomes incitement to violence and the line of what's acceptable has been crossed?

In short, it's complex, but we can't hope to study the online hate bill without having managed to agree ourselves on some markers and recommendations that we could eventually give to the government to ensure the exercise of freedom of expression in our society.

I agree that we should focus on the somewhat sad episodes we've been seeing in our society over the last few years. I was not in favour of the truckers' demonstration, the “freedom convoy”. I was inconvenienced by it like many others, but I never thought these people had no right to be there.

That said, how far did they have the right to be there? To what extent was their freedom to express themselves and their discontent acceptable? These are things we didn't discuss together, precisely because the political positions were extremely tense.

We aren't open to a discussion on this. We've locked in on the left, we've locked in on the right, creating two distinct camps with an unbridgeable divide. But that's not the way to exercise freedom of expression on this issue.

In short, I propose, Madam Chair, that the motion be withdrawn for the time being. I am more than willing to entertain amendments to the motion, but I will not support a motion that specifies a particular aspect of freedom of expression, such as hate speech. I want to keep this discussion fairly broad and open.

I also don't want us to follow suit on Bill C‑11 by the CRTC, which gives Conservatives the urge to discuss government censorship. This is not at all the discussion we should be having.

I propose that we talk about this again next week, when we return from the parliamentary break. If any of my colleagues have amendments to propose, I'll be happy to consider them. For the moment, I don't think the present discussion allows me to support an amendment proposed to the current motion.

Madam Chair, I propose that discussion of this motion be stayed and that we return to it at a later date with any amendments.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just a couple of quick things.

We've heard a lot today about the risk of the loss of freedom of speech. Mr. Shields has made some very powerful comments around this, yet look at our own recent history in the last few years in this country.

The Black Lives Matter protests were allowed to occur across this country. The occupation of Ottawa and the remarkable and profound disturbance, noise and impact on the quality of life of citizens in this country was left unchecked for weeks. Folks who protest climate change are allowed to do so in freedom without the police attacking them. There are marches against the LGBTQ community, which I personally find remarkably abhorrent, but they are allowed to occur across this country with freedom.

I have been part of sit-ins. I walked and marched in one of the first Black Lives Matter protests in New York City when I was working there. I've seen the privilege of freedom of speech, but I have also seen the consequences of freedom of expression on people's lives.

The social contract that I would argue we have in this country is that we have to ask ourselves what the consequences are to others of the things we are saying and doing. We may not go up to somebody and punch them in the face, but the words we use can have a profound impact, particularly on young people and vulnerable people. We have an obligation to ask ourselves, as all of us come from different faith traditions, whether our faith traditions allow us to behave in these ways. These are personal questions. Whether you're Muslim, Jewish or Christian, “love thy neighbour” is an important concept. The idea that we think about the well-being of others—these are important concepts.

No one should have to worry about their church, mosque, gurdwara or synagogue being burnt down or attacked. It is unacceptable. I agree with you that it is absolutely unacceptable for any place or worship or any place of gathering to be attacked or burnt down. However, the idea that we should put ourselves in a place where that is left unchecked is something that does cause me a tremendous amount of concern.

With respect to C-11, I'm sure we will have lots of conversations about this. My goodness, though, as somebody who worked in tech for over a decade, I don't understand why we would have a problem with companies that are making $10 million in this country telling us where their headquarters are. I don't see that as being censorship at all. I see that as being responsible corporate citizenry, but we'll leave that where it is.

We are in a place now where we have this motion that Monsieur Champoux has put together. What I'd really love to know from Monsieur Champoux is what he would be open to in terms of changes to this. What would be some of the things he might be willing to look at or be open to in terms of change and in terms of areas where he might put some sort of parameters around this?

In particular, with the expression “the means the Government should have at its disposal to ensure its exercise”, how does he see that playing out? There's a government of one stripe, and there may be a government of a different stripe in a decade. Different interpretations of that might mean different things to different people. I was wondering if he might share with us how he sees that shaping up.

Perhaps that's a good segue into his time at the microphone.

Thank you.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's interesting that you say “expression”.

Being an old guy, I remember how in grade 12 I would have been kicked out of school if I didn't shave and if my hair touched my collar. When you talk about freedom of expression, I would have been denied an education if I didn't shave or cut my hair. Not too long before that, girls weren't allowed to wear pants in school as an expression.

You're very right, Madam Chair, that expression can come in very different ways. Sometimes we forget history in the sense of what rules we can effect for expression.

It's World Teachers' Day. I am a former high school teacher and university instructor, and one of the challenges I always presented to students was expressing opinions, and a wide range of opinions, to get students at secondary and public school and university to feel free enough to express whatever opinions they would like in a setting in which they should be free to do that.

I was in university in the States in the riot and revolution times in the late 1960s when universities got burned down and cities got burned down. I was in those places. I was in Detroit when it burned. I was at San Francisco State University when it burned.

If you haven't lived where violence becomes extreme, then be careful what you're saying about what you know. Freedom of expression is critical. It needs to be respected, but when people feel they are living in a society where they can't express their opinions, then we have moved in the wrong direction. We all understand legally why you can't yell “fire” in a theatre. We know that in a public space. Anyone who has been through legal training knows what freedom of speech is allowed and not allowed, whether you're sued for libel or whether you're disrupting the peace.

Freedom of expression is critical in a democracy. My youngest grandchild is taking political science in university. We've corresponded a lot in the last month about questions she has asked. She asked about democracy in her last assignment.

I said that we, as a representative democracy, try to represent our people in our constituencies. Our constituencies are varied. The city I live in is a small one, but per population it is the most ethnically diverse one in Canada. That's for economic reasons: The largest meat-packing plant in Canada is right beside my community. We have over 100 different nations represented in our community. It's a very lively, very culturally diverse community, and that is really a good thing.

There is freedom of speech on our city council, on our school board. We have different races on our school board and on our councils representing our community. Freedom of speech is critical to that happening.

When I see things like Bill C-11 and when I see things like the announcement this week, those things bother me because that's the kind of thing I encouraged in a university classroom, the kind of thing I encouraged in high school classrooms, to get young people to think, to express their opinions and to be varied in their opinions.

Sure—do research. Attempt to do all the research you can and find it, but there were over 100 Christian churches burned in the last couple of years in Canada. There were well over that. It's been well documented. I'm not saying it's something concerning my religion or background, but you have to make sure you're talking about both sides of the issues.

This is a place where we need to express our opinions in this setting. If we're a representative democracy we can express a variety of opinions, as my friend Mr. Julian does, I do and several others on the committee have done for years. We need to do that in these committees. This is what freedom of speech is about. We're a representative democracy. We need to protect freedom of speech and protect it at all ends.

I've seen situations in which it has not been protected. Those are pretty brutal and they destroy our society. We need to protect freedom of speech.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak in favour of Mr. Champoux's motion, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us freedom of thought, expression, opinion and belief. I see in the country an erosion of that right.

Taleeb was talking about what he's seeing in his riding, and certainly there have been comments made that were offensive to Jewish people and to Muslim people. There have also been comments made that are offensive to Christian people, and there have been comments made that are offensive to the LGBTQ and trans communities. There have been offensive comments.

I think we need to be careful and understand the difference between hate speech, which is defined in the Criminal Code as something that would be reasonably expected to incite violence, and offensive speech—somebody who has an opinion that you don't agree with. I certainly find the extreme left opinions very offensive, but it is their right to express them and we've certainly seen violence on that side as well.

I know Mr. Julian loves to talk about the extreme right, but I would say the extreme right and the extreme left are demonstrating similar behaviours. As Canadians, we want people to express their opinions and views in a respectful way without violence.

I think there's value in this study, because I think something needs to be done to the legislation to take the threshold of hate speech from today, where nobody can really bring a suit on it, to an understanding of what commonly we agree shouldn't be said because it's harmful to communities or whatever. It's a lesser crime, if you will, but we still want to send the message that it shouldn't happen.

I think within this study there is the ability to do that. With the censorship that we've seen increasingly with bills like C-11, and even C-18, people are concerned about the censoring of their freedom of expression, thought, opinion and belief.

I support this motion.