Bill C-10 (Historical)

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) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of that Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds — and should provide opportunities for Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(c) 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 Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) is fair and equitable as between broadcasting undertakings providing similar services,
(iii) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities, and
(iv) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which that Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on a class of broadcasting undertakings if doing so will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(d) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(e) 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;
(f) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(g) 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;
(h) 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;
(i) 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;
(j) 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
(k) 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.

Government Business No. 16—Proceedings on Bill C-11

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South says there cannot be more, but there is more, unfortunately.

The government has tools available to it in the House to force through legislation. On motions it can use what is called closure, and on pieces of legislation it can use time allocation. That is the traditional process. If Bill C-11 were to be reported back to the House and the government felt that it was not proceeding as fast as it would like, it could move time allocation. However, it did not. At least with time allocation there is an opportunity to put questions to the minister for a period of 30 minutes. It is not a lot and it is not sufficient, but at least there is a process. Motion No. 16 pre-emptively time allocates this piece of legislation before clause-by-clause happens, before the process even begins.

I want to quote paragraph (b) of the motion. It states:

not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment

That means one day for Bill C-11 at report stage.

Canadians listening at home may not quite grasp the severity of this provision. In the House, there are certain days of the week when government orders are debated for a lengthy period of time, for multiple hours. Sometimes when the government moves time allocation, it will say five hours. This is still, in my opinion, not enough time for an important piece of legislation, but five hours is more than what is foreseen for this piece of legislation.

If Bill C-11 is called before the House at report stage on a Wednesday afternoon or on a Friday, there will be not more than two and a half hours of debate in the House on each and every report stage amendment that may be brought forward. There is no discussion to extend hours. There is no discussion of additional time for Canadians to hear from their elected representatives.

I know that in my caucus, my Conservative colleagues want to discuss this bill. Many of them have eagerly volunteered to sit in on deliberations at the Canadian heritage committee because they have an interest in this piece of legislation. However, they have not had a chance to speak to it in the House of Commons. Why? It is because at second reading the government moved time allocation and they did not have a chance to speak.

My friend from Cumberland—Colchester is here today listening intently because he wanted to speak and did not have the chance. It is the same for my friend from Beauce. He has not had a chance to speak to this piece of legislation, and neither has my friend from Calgary Signal Hill. Each of them has been denied the opportunity to speak to this bill, and now they will be pre-emptively denied the opportunity to speak to the bill because of the limited time available for it.

That is not all. The final paragraph of this motion time allocates the bill at third reading. Paragraph (c) of Motion No. 16 states:

on the day the bill is considered at the third reading stage, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

That means one day of debate for the third and final reading of this piece of legislation.

I will remind members of the House that this bill only got to committee and began the committee process on May 24. Now, less than four weeks later, the government wishes to see this bill arrive at third reading and pass without meaningful debate in this place and without meaningful debate during clause-by-clause in committee.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I was in the chair for that meeting, and as members know, the chair does not actively participate in the debate. However, I listened intently to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in his opening comments. He made the comment that when the committee was finished its process, there would be more debate in the House of Commons at report stage, at third reading and then in the Senate. Then, just three days later, on notice on the Order Paper was this guillotine motion, which does not fulfill the minister's commitment to allowing more debate on this bill.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage and I get along very well, so I take him at his word that he was committed to more debate. Unfortunately, the government House leader's failure to manage the legislative agenda of this place means that our colleagues, members of the House, will not have the opportunity to fulfill their duty as parliamentarians, to fulfill their duty to the people they represent.

It is interesting that with the current government, what was old is new again, because in the previous Parliament there was a similar motion. It was Motion No. 10, and it also dealt with a bill, Bill C-10, the predecessor to this bill. It forced Bill C-10 through committee, forced it through the House of Commons and forced it into the Senate.

Had the government actually been committed to passing that piece of legislation, it could have, but something else intervened: the political interests of the Prime Minister. We saw the political ambitions and self-interest of the Prime Minister in his attempt to try to win a majority government during a pandemic, when he and every Liberal member on that side had committed to not calling an election during a pandemic.

They saw an opportunity to try to get their majority, and they did not. However, what happened is that every piece of legislation that was before the House or the Senate died on the Order Paper, including the previous Bill C-10. To hear Liberal members and ministers talk about having to expedite legislation through the House and through committee because it has to get through is simply horse feathers. It is horse feathers because they had an opportunity to do so but killed their own legislation by forcing an unnecessary election, which included the dissolution of Parliament.

However, the Liberals do not learn their lesson. These undemocratic processes keep coming back time and time again, and we have seen this with different pieces of legislation. I know I have heard Liberal MPs talk about the other matters we need to get to. Our Conservative Party put forward a proposal at the heritage committee to prioritize a review of Hockey Canada. We put forward a motion to prioritize the review of the disgusting situation we have learned about from four years ago. That should be our priority at committee. That is what we as parliamentarians should be looking at.

I see that I have one minute before question period, and as I assume I will have time to resume my comments after question period, I will leave with a few interim closing comments.

Canadians expect us to do better. Canadians expect us to review legislation. They expect opposition MPs to improve flawed legislation, and that is what we as Conservative members of Parliament will do. Regardless of the outcome of this motion, we will do what we can to protect Canadians, to support our creators and to ensure that Canadian creators are able to succeed at home and around the globe.

I look forward to resuming after question period.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to open by sharing a quote, which states:

We need to discuss why the government does not listen at committee stage to anything anyone says. It does not accept any amendments from anyone at all, and then it complains that the opposition refuses to allow public consultation.

The quote goes on to say:

We are absolutely not opposed, but we think we should listen to experts and to people who tell the minister what the government should be doing with the bill, but nobody listens in this government.

Do members know who said that? It was the member for Vancouver Centre, the current chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. What she said in 2011, we agree with. The current government does not listen. The government does not accept amendments. The government does not accept the testimony and advice of digital-first creators and experts on communications and on the Internet. The government does not listen.

We have heard a lot from the opposition parties that we have had 20 hours of witnesses. The fact is that this committee did not begin studying this bill until May 24: That was 17 days ago. Today, we have Motion No. 16. In the House lately, we are all used to time allocation and closure motions, but this is not just a time allocation motion. This is not just a closure motion. This is a guillotine motion on steroids. This is a motion that not only forces this bill through committee stage and clause-by-clause, but also through the final stages in the House itself. It provides for only one day at report stage, one single day, and there is no guarantee that day has any more than an hour or an hour and a half of debate in the House.

Report stage, as it currently stands, would likely fall on next Friday, meaning that the total time the House would have to debate it, at its very maximum, would be about 150 minutes. There would be 150 minutes to discuss report stage amendments to the largest and most comprehensive updates to the Broadcasting Act in more than 30 years. The government thinks that two and a half hours in the House is sufficient to do that.

As Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we have a duty to play our role: to criticize when warranted, to make amendments and to approve when necessary. That is what we, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, want to do. We have been clear throughout the process and the debate on this bill and its predecessor bill in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, that we believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated.

The Broadcasting Act dates to 1991. It is a time when VCRs were king, when we had to borrow VHS tapes from the grocery store or the corner store and when the member for South Shore—St. Margarets claims he had hair. I will look for photographic evidence of that. I will point out, because this is relevant, the member was a senior staff member in that government of the day when this legislation first came through. If we consult Hansard from that time and review the comments and commentary by the minister at the time, Minister Masse, we will see that in that time and at that place, the legislation to update the Broadcasting Act and the lead-up to 1991, when it took effect, was done with the broad-based support and consultation not only of members of the House, but also of Canadians. It recognized the challenges that were being faced at that time by broadcasters, by Canadians and by individuals who wanted to see Canadian content creations from across our country.

We want to see the major exhibitions and creations of Quebec creators, and we want them to succeed here and around the world.

We want to see that success, and that is why we are not opposed to necessary updates to the Broadcasting Act. In fact, in our last election platform in 2021, during that unnecessary election that gave us a repeat minority Parliament, we committed to updating the Broadcasting Act, but we committed to doing so in a way that ensured digital first creators were able to succeed and that did not unfairly regulate user-generated content. Now, here we are today with Motion No. 16, which is forcing this bill through Parliament.

I wish I could say I was angry. I wish I could say I was mad. I am not angry, and I am not mad, but I am disappointed. I am disappointed the government would use such an arbitrary and draconian measure as Motion No. 16.

My friend from Edmonton West pointed this out, but it is worth reaffirming what this motion would actually do when it comes to committee resources. Motion No. 16 states “the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings”. Members in the House know the hard work interpreters do each and every day. I know sometimes I have difficulty understanding myself in one language, let alone having that translated and interpreted to a second language. The interpreters in this place and in committee do exceptional work interpreting into English and French each and every day, and they deserve our respect.

Over the past two years, the strain and workplace injuries the interpreters in this place have experienced are unacceptable. It is entirely unacceptable. The two official languages of this place, the two official languages of this country, must be respected. It is the interpreters who enable that. It is the interpreters who allow that to happen. However, each and every day we see challenges with resources. We see challenges with the Translation Bureau being able to provide us with sufficient numbers of people who can interpret at committee.

Under this motion, under Motion No. 16, only one committee shall have priority for committee resources. Only one committee shall be able to have its meetings occur no matter what, which is the Canadian heritage committee, so the government can force through its flawed pieces of legislation. No other committee can have that priority.

My friend from South Shore—St. Margarets, on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, would not have priority for committee meetings, and meetings keep being cancelled. My friend from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who chairs the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, would not have priority for House resources. Her committee meetings would be cancelled if the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage needed those resources.

My friend from Edmonton West on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has already noted his committees have been cancelled, when they are looking at multi-billion dollar procurement. Those meetings could again be cancelled so the government can push through its repeat legislation, Bill C-11, which was formerly Bill C-10.

If it were only that matter alone, I would say it was sufficient to vote down this flawed motion, but it gets worse. Not only does this motion have a negative impact on each and every other committee, but it also rushes through what ought to be a deliberative process. Subparagraph (ii) states, “amendments to the bill, including from independent members, shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, 2022, and distributed to committee members in both official languages by 9:00 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

I am sure we are all probably thinking, well, that is Monday, and today is Friday. How does the government expect this motion to take effect by Monday and have amendments due by Monday night? Not only is this a guillotine motion, but this is a guillotine motion that will be guillotined. By the end of business today, a minister of the Crown will stand in their place and state that a minister of the Crown will introduce closure. A minister of the Crown will stand in this place and state that agreement could not be reached and closure will be necessary on Monday.

On Monday, the first order of business, when orders of the day are called, will be a closure motion on a closure motion on steroids, which means that debate will not be further adjourned and that, at 8:00 p.m. on Monday evening, the bells will ring. The Speaker will call in the members, the bells will ring, and at 8:30 p.m. on Monday night, the House will pronounce its judgment on Motion No. 16.

At midnight, under the terms of this motion, amendments would be due, which would be three and a half hours after this motion passes. Amendments on the first update to the Broadcasting Act in 31 years, a complicated and complex matter, would be due in three and half hours.

The government likes to talk about work-life balance, but we, as politicians, are used to this. We are elected. We are well compensated. We are ready and able to work hard, but let us talk about the administration staff of this place. Let us talk about the clerks of our committee, who are now being told that at midnight on Monday night they have to be ready, able and available to accept amendments from each recognized party and from any independent member. This is at 11:59 p.m. on Monday night, and then they have to ensure that each of those amendments are then distributed by 9:00 a.m. the next morning to members of the committee. That is nine hours and one minute, through the dead of night, for the committee clerk and the committee staff to make that happen.

Members, the employees of the House and the employees of Parliament deserve better. They should not be forced into that situation.

It gets worse. After receiving those amendments at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 14, and this is from the motion, “the committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than 11:59 a.m. on June 14, 2022”.

Committee members will receive the amendments from all parties and from independent members at 9:00 a.m., and then two hours and 59 minutes later, they will proceed to clause by clause. We will be forced, as parliamentarians and as members of the committee, to pronounce judgment on potentially dozens of amendments that we will have seen for the first time only hours before.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert reminded us that there was a time allocation motion on the former Bill C‑10. We supported that motion insofar as it was a bit more “step by step”. We were trying to break the impasse at committee to be able to continue deliberating, including in the House or on other aspects of the bill.

However, the motion before us today deadlocks the entire debate when the situation is much less urgent. This is not the eve of an election, unless my colleague knows something we do not.

I understand the urgency of resolving the issue, especially when we think of the money traditional media is losing. However, I would like to understand how we ended up with this sledgehammer of a motion when that was not even the case last time for Bill C‑10.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague. He is a member of Parliament representing a riding in Quebec, which has a single official language, French. The riding he represents is also in Canada, which has two official languages, French and English. He gave about 10% of his speech in French, so I want to congratulate him, truly.

I am wondering whether my colleague is not a little embarrassed. We have been talking about Bill C-11 for two years now, if we include its predecessor, Bill C-10. We in the Bloc Québécois were ready and worked very hard to move this bill forward. The hon. member for Drummond worked very hard and was even congratulated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his work in committee on this bill.

Before the election, the Bloc Québécois was even ready and willing to vote in favour of time allocation on Bill C-10, which it never does. We normally oppose time allocation, because we want democracy to work and we do not want to shut down debate. We were ready, but then an election came along, and Bill C-10 was postponed indefinitely. Now we have Bill C-11 before us.

The government has hurriedly cobbled together a motion that sort of paves the way for us to maybe pass this bill.

Is my colleague not a little embarrassed that after all those debates the Liberals prorogued Parliament a year and a half ago and called an election? Now they are throwing this motion on the table two weeks before the end of the session and telling us that we must adopt this motion or Bill C-11 will not be passed. For artists, that is shameful.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly disappointed to have to be speaking to a programming motion today. I am disappointed because I truly believe in the committee process. I believe that House committees do really important work. I believe they are the heart of how bills get improved, the place where members from all parties give detailed advice to the government on studies and do detailed studies of legislation.

In the first four years when I was an MP, I had the true pleasure of chairing the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had really tough bills that we tackled, ones that involved issues like medically assisted dying, recognizing gender identity and gender expression in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the most significant reforms to the Divorce Act and the Criminal Code in decades. We heard from witnesses for many hours and we studied amendments, sometimes hundreds of amendments, and yet, in each and every case, nobody ever tried to stop the process.

The committee agreed on how many witnesses we would hear from, and once that ended, clause-by-clause would start. Each amendment was properly discussed, dealt with and voted on, and we moved on and returned the bill to the House. This applied to bills where there was a philosophical difference between the different members of the committee from different parties, such as medically assisted dying. It also applied to bills where the members of the committee from all other parties disagreed with the government on the bill, such as genetic discrimination, which was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. Committee members worked together. I see my friend from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, and he was part of that committee and knows how well we worked together. We treated each other with respect, and the committee respected the process. Everyone debated, a vote happened and the majority will was respected.

In the case of Bill C-11, this is not what is happening at committee. In fact, this bill is meeting a fate similar to that of its predecessor, Bill C-10. Having been a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in both cases, I know we have been treated to some members using the committee rules in a way to stop us from getting to clause-by-clause to try to improve the bill.

At committee, members have the right to speak to motions as long as they want, provided they do not stray too far from the topic. As a result, we have been blocked from ever voting on a motion to move to clause-by-clause, even though it is the clear wish of the majority of the members of the committee to do so. Based on what I have seen at committee, it is abundantly clear to me that there is no desire on the part of some committee members to ever allow clause-by-clause to happen on the bill. The members propose motions, amendments and subamendments, but never allow any of them to actually come to a vote. This is truly unfortunate, because if the goal is to improve legislation and propose and support amendments to improve the bill, we need to discuss and debate and vote on those amendments. We need to see those amendments. That is the way things are done constructively.

Those members using the filibuster to stop the committee from reaching clause-by-clause are certainly following the rules. Therefore, much as I would prefer that we not have to do this, other members have the right to follow other House rules to move us to clause-by-clause, because if we do not receive instructions from the House, we will never get there ourselves. Let me be clear: If any members think the bill needs to be improved, they should want us to get to clause-by-clause so that they can propose amendments, the country can hear those amendments and we can vote on those amendments. Let us try to get there.

As a result, the motion before us would provide the committee with priority for House resources so that we can sit outside of our standard hours. It proposes that amendments need to be submitted by 11:59 p.m. on June 13, which is a full 10 days after the original date that was proposed for those amendments to be submitted and is eminently reasonable. All members of the committee are certainly already in a position where they have their amendments prepared, or can have their amendments prepared by Monday.

The motion then proposes that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause deliberations no later than June 14, in the morning, and provides at least nine hours for the committee to consider amendments before the amendments are deemed moved and submitted. The reason for this time limit is, once again, to prevent filibustering of each amendment. The goal would be to actually have a constructive discussion and vote on each amendment, and not spend nine hours filibustering the first amendment we discuss. Sections (b) and (c) of the motion then discuss how the bill would be treated at report stage and third reading.

If we want the bill to get to clause-by-clause consideration by the committee and not to be unreasonably filibustered, I feel we have no alternative but to do this. Therefore, I support this motion.

Now let me speak to the importance of this bill to many Canadians.

Bill C-11 addresses an important imbalance by requiring online audio and video broadcasting services to contribute to the achievement of important cultural policy objectives in the same way that traditional broadcasters always have. As early as the 1990s, concerns were raised about the potential for online streaming to disrupt the broadcast sector. An early decision was made not to place requirements on online streaming services then, given the relatively limited impact of those services at the time. We should remember that broadcasting regulation only applies where it has a material impact on the broadcasting sector.

Today, the rationale to exempt online players simply no longer stands. The world of broadcasting has changed. We all know this. We regularly turn to online streaming services such as Netflix, Spotify, Crave, CBC Gem and Club Illico to access our music and television, in addition to more traditional services like radio and cable.

Times have changed. It has taken us over 20 years, but online streaming services are now the method through which a growing majority of Canadians access their content. There has been a drastic shift in Canada’s broadcasting sector, which has directly impacted the level of support for Canadian programming and talent. Jobs are threatened. Continuing to regulate online and traditional broadcasters differently is not fair, and it is not sustainable. It is putting the support system for Canadian stories and music at risk.

To explain how modernizing the act will create sustainable funding for our cultural industries, it is important to look at how transformative digital disruption has been for broadcasting in Canada.

Let us recall how things were at the beginning of Canadian broadcasting. Radio stations and TV channels, as well as cable and satellite distribution companies, had to be Canadian owned and licenced. They were allowed, and still are, of course, to show foreign programs or carry American channels. In return for participating in Canada's broadcasting system and accessing our domestic market, they were required to fund, acquire or broadcast Canadian programs. They were also required to make programs accessible to Canadians and contribute to the creation of Canadian programming, including original programming in French.

Over time, broadcasters' demand for Canadian programs increased. The system was working as intended, and domestic creative industries flourished. Thousands of Canadians found careers in broadcasting as journalists, producers, actors, writers, directors, singers, makeup artists, set designers, showrunners and so much more. There was upskilling in Canada's cultural industries and investment in production clusters. We became known for our creative and technical talent.

Broadcasting plays a key role in supporting Canada’s creative industries and evolving cultural identity. The Canadian broadcasting, film and video, and music and sound recording sectors are also important economic drivers. They contribute about $14 billion to Canada’s GDP and accounted for over 160,000 jobs in 2019.

The online streaming act would build on the economic and social benefits of the Broadcasting Act. It is about ensuring the continued viability of the Canadian broadcasting system. It is also about securing our cultural sovereignty. Canada is home to continuous innovation and emerging talent. It is imperative that we support our creators and creative industries, and this requires that all broadcasters in Canada compete on an equal footing. We must bring the online streaming services into the system.

As an artifact of outdated legislation, online broadcasters are not required to support Canadian music and storytelling or any other important broadcasting objective. As the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters stagnate and decline, so too will the level of support for Canadian music and stories, and for the creative professionals behind them.

This is not right. The implications for our broadcasting system, which is the bulwark of Canadian cultural expression, are grave. Canadian broadcasters have responded by cutting costs, and that has had a real impact on their service to Canadians, on their contribution to Canadian culture and on good middle-class jobs. As Canadians, we would be the poorer for not seeing homegrown talent supported and more diversity on screen and in song. Previous generations enjoyed Canadian programs knowing that others across the country were sharing a similar experience, and they are important for our culture and our cultural industries.

We are not alone. Countries across the world are making moves to protect and promote their cultural sovereignty. Unlike others, we share our borders with a dominating force in the realm of content creation.

What matters most, what matters now, is that Canadian voices, perspectives and stories remain relevant, heard and groundbreaking. The online streaming act is needed to achieve greater diversity in the broadcasting system and ensure the long-term viability of our broadcasting sector.

The online streaming act is not meant to create winners and losers or promote one platform rather than another. The goal is to enable the creative sector to keep evolving. Regardless of how Canadians access their content, they should be able to see themselves in stories and songs that reflect their experience and their communities.

The Broadcasting Act of 1991 got us to this point. Bill C‑11 will move us forward. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and hope that our Canadian stories and unique perspectives will be shared without the protection and supports provided by the online streaming act. That will not work.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I'd like to jump on that, but because I'm seeing so much paper come in in the last two days, it tells me, around this table, we haven't done a very good job on Bill C-11 and that disturbs me.

I still haven't heard from APTN and diverse voices. We've heard from how many groups on diverse voices on Bill C-11 that will be affected? We've heard from two. We haven't heard from the national carrier for the indigenous. They haven't submitted anything. You've had it on your witness list. I think we even had it on our witness list.

I think we need to hear from the diverse voices around Bill C-11. That would give us some time to look through the 20 submissions in the last two days and see if we have any others because of commercial content, because of the billion dollars. Then we can come back next week and we can submit our amendments to Bill C-11. How's that?

We need time because here are 20...and I've had commercial content, which is not in the bill. People are wondering what that's all about and I can't answer them on that. The minister couldn't really answer it. He talked about commercial content. We've asked him about it, but the minister couldn't identify what commercial content is when it doesn't even show up in the bill.

If we're going to do both of these.... I think we have two weeks left, Madam Chair, until the 23rd, and we can get it in. We can have Hockey Canada Monday and Wednesday and have our submissions after that. We can put it in on Wednesday or Thursday next week, and we can move ahead and do Bill C-11 properly. We've been here for four or five months now dealing with it. I think the government would agree we should not proceed with Bill C-18 at this point because we've not even done Bill C-11 right now. I say Bill C-18 because I thought the minister in his testimony on Monday got both bills confused. I just felt that we needed to buckle down.

Thank you, Mr. Julian, for all your support on Hockey Canada. I think it's much needed in this country for everybody who wants to play for Team Canada, men and women. I think we need to go ahead with that.

I agree one hundred per cent but at the same time, because we're dealing with Bill C-11 and so many submissions, I would like to have a little more time to get the submissions from people who have reached out to my office, in particular about commercial content. I can't answer them on that and I'm not sure you can answer them, Madam Chair, or anyone around here, because commercial content does not appear in Bill C-11.

How do I answer that when the minister couldn't answer that on Monday? That's why I'm a little reluctant to move on with Bill C-11, when I heard some stories coming out of Monday's meeting from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his official Mr. Ripley.... In moving from $830 million to $1 billion, where does that come from? He mentioned YouTube once, so I'd like to know where the extra $170 million is coming from. Bill C-10 had $830 million and we've gone to $1 billion.

When I asked that question on Monday it was like, where did that number come from? I'm not sure we got the answer for that. I am hearing from stakeholders who want to know a little more information on the commercial content and I'm hearing about the $1 billion, about how the government is going to get a billion dollars out of Bill C-11 and what they are going to do with that. I think we need a little more time to flesh that out, if you don't mind, in the committee. I'm not filibustering here—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I do, Mr. Julian. First of all, the CRTC, whatever it does in regulations, has to respect freedom of expression.

Second, the bill makes things very clear. It was there before in the original Broadcasting Act. We brought some other elements into this act. This is the sad part of the previous debate on Bill C-10, which took place on freedom of expression, which was an aside. It had nothing to do with the bill, and the entire debate happened on that, while the bill was about something else.

This bill does not attack freedom of expression. It's not about freedom of expression. It's about streamers that make a lot of money here, and to contribute to Canadian culture. That's it.

[Marla Boltman, Executive Director, FRIENDS]

Thank you. I'm going to switch to good evening now, Madam Chair.

Honourable members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to speak with you today.

I've had the pleasure of meeting some of you in advance of this bill's arrival at committee but for those I have not met, my name, again, is Marla Boltman, and I am the new executive director of Friends.

We have over 360,000 supporters, Canadian citizens from coast to coast to coast, who stand up proudly for Canadian culture in film, in TV, in music and in journalism, really in every space and place we can share our stories at home and abroad.

While I am new to the organization, I bring with me both a content production and entertainment law background, which for more than 20 years I have used to help advance the interests of those working in the Canadian cultural industries.

The last time my organization appeared before you to talk about Bill C-10 our name was Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. Today we are more simply called Friends. This is quite fitting because I'm not just here to talk about broadcasting. I'm also here as a friend of Canadian storytelling and Canadian cultural sovereignty, both of which will be affected by the work of this committee when this bill is adopted. I say “when” because I want to clearly and unequivocally state that, while it's not perfect, we support the adoption of Bill C-11 and believe it can be improved with some minor amendments.

One of the bill's imperfections lies in its silence when it comes to addressing the CBC's mandate. We are very disappointed by this, but a conversation about the modernization of our nation's public broadcaster clearly requires more singular attention, something that the government has committed to doing via Bill C-18, which we welcome.

In the meantime, I don't want to use these few minutes to give those who would like to see this legislation stalled any more reasons to pause, to prevaricate, to do nothing, because if we do nothing, how our stories are told, who gets to tell them and how Canadian audiences access these stories will all be decisions made by foreign tech giants, billion-dollar companies who have effectively been crashing on our cultural couch for almost a decade, paying nothing toward the structures and systems that allow Canadians to tell their own stories.

With the adoption of Bill C-11 we, as a country, will finally send a long-overdue notice to these foreign tech giants that their rent is due, but we cannot stop there. Bill C-11 must prioritize Canadian ownership and control of our broadcasting system as well as the content created to serve it. If it does not, these companies will not be paying us fair rent for the use of our home. Rather, their contributions may simply amount to a down payment on a broadcasting system that they could potentially own and control.

Our amendment to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a), jointly submitted with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, is meant to address this ownership and control issue. As currently drafted, the language in proposed paragraph 3(1)(a) is a massive retreat of Canadian public policy. If we don't support our own media and preference over foreign media, then we are ultimately relegating ourselves to having no Canadian media at all.

We need only look to the decimation of the Canadian local news sector for a preview of what is to come if we do not take care of our media institutions, which is why support for Friends' amendment to proposed subsection 11.1(1), dealing with expenditure requirements, can lay the foundation for a stronger, more viable local broadcast news sector. It would help ensure that the cuts we've seen to local print outlets across Canada do not start coming to local radio and TV and that broadcasters have the resources to maintain quality local coverage.

In closing, I would like to remind this committee that the modernization of the Broadcasting Act isn't just about protecting industry and jobs. It's what Canadians want, Canadians who have sent a clear message to Ottawa that streaming platforms should contribute to Canadian storytelling and reflect our stories back to us. They think this is fair and we agree.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this incredibly important matter.

I am happy to answer any questions you have.

[Wendy Noss, President, Motion Picture Association-Canada]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to offer you the perspective of the members of the Motion Picture Association-Canada. These include Disney, Netflix, NBCUniversal, Paramount Global, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Warner Bros. Discovery.

Global studios train and provide well-paid opportunities for 200,000 of Canada's talented creative workers. Our investment here has grown to $5 billion a year, more than half of all production in Canada. We help finance new infrastructure, stages, VFX and animation studios across the country. Our work is economic fuel for more than 47,000 Canadian businesses a year. We invest in cleaner production and are leaders in environmental sustainability. We're proud supporters of Canadian cultural organizations and are committed to advancing equity and diversity, representation in front of and behind the camera and amplifying under-represented voices and untold stories.

Global studios are crucial partners of Canadian producers. We account for 15% of the financing of all Canadian-owned content last year. That's more than Telefilm and CMF combined. Thanks to the opportunities presented by global streaming services, the films and shows made here are seen by more people and in more places around the world than ever before. This is a story of extraordinary mutual opportunity and plenty of room to grow.

Let me turn to Bill C-11. To put our interest in perspective, our studios and streamers offer a wide variety of content in both free-to-consumer and subscriber streaming services from the global entertainment of Netflix, Disney+ or Paramount+, to Hayu's all reality show format or Sony's Japanese anime service, which is so popular across the Francophonie. When Bill C-10 was introduced, we supported the important thought at the heart of the bill: a flexible framework to determine how online undertakings can best contribute to Canada. With Bill C-11, we continue to support the government's drive to modernize policy and create a flexible, world-class broadcasting system.

We offer a few key amendments to help the bill deliver on these ambitions, described more fully in our submission.

First, new powers were intended to extend the concept of mandatory carriage in the cable system to online services like Apple TV or Roku, which offer third party channels. The current drafting language, however, goes far beyond that intention. It must only be limited to online undertakings that offer the programming services of others.

Second, we applaud Minister Rodriguez for confirming that he will direct the CRTC to modernize how a Canadian program is defined. Our simple amendment would make it explicit that the CRTC must consider the full range of policy objectives in establishing this new approach, with no one single factor being determinative.

Third, we recommend changes to clarify inconsistencies in the broadcasting policy objectives, ensuring that the CRTC considers the different nature of various streaming services and the fact that global, not just Canadian, undertakings will now be included in the regulatory system.

In addition to these amendments, we have raised policy approaches relating to discoverability and the importance of encouraging competition, innovation, consumer choice and affordability. We hope these will be advanced in the policy direction and CRTC proceedings that follow.

In this rapidly evolving market fuelled by new technology, Canadians will be best served if you reject the calls to look backward and impose the same obligations on global online undertakings as Canadian broadcasting groups, or enshrine rigid, old approaches to defining Canadian content in legislation. Our members contribute to Canada in so many ways, but the business models of global streaming services are fundamentally different from those of Canadian broadcasters and certainly different from broadcasters in the 1970s, when these rules on Canadian content were developed.

While many are asking you to make amendments to reduce flexibility, it's time for policy that leans into a more modern definition of creativity and offers global players the flexibility to contribute to all Canadian goals—cultural, social, environmental and economic. A fresh look and a wider lens will mean incredible opportunities for a lot more talented Canadians in the future.

Global productions allow Canadians to work at the top of their craft and achieve worldwide success. Talented Canadians who want to stay in Canada, develop their skills and help create stories that resonate with audiences around the world need this policy to be flexible and adaptive.

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to any questions.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Now, in the previous incarnation of this—Bill C-10—there was a policy directive that was released, at least a draft version, prior to Bill C-10 being passed, though it obviously did not receive royal assent. That was done. Is that correct?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying that because of this discrepancy that exists between what Mr. Scott testified on May 24, 2022, and what the charter statement says, I am asking that this committee members consider the motion that is before them, which of course would ask for a revised charter statement with regard to Bill C-11, and that it be granted to this committee as soon as possible.

Of course, I am also asking that we hear from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, along with any officials they feel might be necessary.

Now, let me jump into my proof of point here as to why this motion is so important—not the motion itself, but what it's calling for.

The action that the motion is insisting we take is so important because we have two different authoritative sources with two very different interpretations of this legislation and of the impact that it is going to have on Canadians, and Canadians deserve clarity. Those individuals who exist as digital first creators, for example, here in Canada, deserve to know: Are they as individuals generating content captured by this bill or are they in fact exempt? They deserve that clarity. That is what I'm asking for today.

I'll take you to the transcript from committee in May with Mr. Scott. At that committee, I said this:

Bill C-11 does, in fact, leave user-generated content open to being regulated by the CRTC. I recognize that there have been arguments against this. However, Dr. Michael Geist has said, “The indisputable reality is that the net result of those provisions is that user generated content is covered by the bill.”

Jeanette Patell from YouTube Canada has said, per The Canadian Press,“the draft law's wording gives the broadcast regulator”—in other words, you—

—that is, meaning those in the room at the time—

—scope to oversee everyday videos posted for other users to watch.”

Scott Benzie, from Digital First Canada, has said, per the National Post, “while the government says the legislation will not cover digital first creators, 'the bill clearly captures them.'”

Madam Chair, my point was this at that committee: I was raising attention or raising the alarm bells and showing that we had Dr. Michael Geist, Jeanette Patell, and Scott Benzie all saying that the user-generated content of digital first creators would in fact be captured by this bill.

Now, we have since heard from many other witnesses at this committee that this is in fact their understanding of this legislation as well. Mr. Ian Scott believes otherwise—or, sorry, he agrees, actually. Sorry, he does agree. The minister is the one who is trying to argue otherwise.

When I posed that question, then, to Mr. Scott, at that point in time, back in May at this committee, he said:

As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required, but if I could just quickly respond to the general tenor of those comments, that's all true today. We could do any of those things today under the Broadcasting Act.

It's very interesting. He's affirming that user-generated content is in fact captured by this piece of legislation, and that the CRTC can in fact put so-called provisions in place that would apply to those who generate online content as individuals.

After Ian Scott responded, I said the following:

My question for you, then, is this. Isn't the point to modernize it? Why would we keep that so broad by keeping proposed section 4.2 in the current bill? Why wouldn't we remove that?

Mr. Scott responded by saying:

With respect, it's not our place to make recommendations about the definitions in the legislation. What I would answer is that there should be a higher degree of trust in relation to the commission's future actions. It's demonstrated, as I said, by 50 years of broadcast regulation. We have never interfered in individual content.

Madam Chair, what I find interesting about Mr. Scott's statement on that day are a couple of things. One, he is, in fact, affirming that yes, user-generated content is caught within the scope of Bill C-11 and that the CRTC can, in fact, regulate individuals who are posting information online.

In so many words he goes on to say that Canadians just need to trust us. That's the problem; they just need to trust us. We shouldn't worry about putting it in a legislative document. We shouldn't worry about making sure that the provisions are concrete and drafted in legislation. Canadians should just trust us.

My thought and the thought of many of those who I am standing for here today, is why should we just trust them? Isn't this the point of putting legislation in place and going through this process? After all, we are at this committee because we are discussing Bill C-11, and we are currently hearing from witnesses. From there we will go into discussing the piece of legislation clause by clause.

Throughout this journey, it is our responsibility as legislators to understand this bill to the greatest extent possible. It is our responsibility to make sure that it is for the common good and that it will serve Canadians well. When the language is purposely left vague, which is what Mr. Scott is pointing to there, that should be alarming for everyone. No matter what your political colour is, no matter your political stripe, that should be alarming.

Those at this table should wish to have very black and white legislation to the greatest extent possible. It should not be left up to the CRTC to determine to what extent it wants to function within the realm of this legislation, apply it or not apply it. That should be clearly directed by this legislation.

Innovation takes place most readily in environments where regulatory schemes are known, where investors and creatives can have confidence in legislators and in the process followed. By leaving Bill C-11 grey in this area and by allowing the words of Mr. Scott, which are contrary to the words of the minister, Mr. Rodriguez, to just hang there, we are then, in fact, reinforcing this lack of safety and security that investors and creatives are so looking for.

It's not just about them; it is also about every single Canadian who ever posts something on YouTube, TikTok, Twitter or any other platform of their choice. Canadians deserve to know. Will their individual content be captured by this bill or will it not be? Right now, the minister says no, but Mr. Scott says yes. At the end of the day, Mr. Scott is going to be the one put in charge of making sure that Bill C-11 is put into practice. My interpretation is that certainly those individual creators—again, I would say any Canadian—who has posted or plans to post online has great cause for concern with regard to this legislation and the way that it could impact them. As we heard from Mr. Scott, they are, in fact, captured by Bill C-11.

However, I would like an opportunity to hear from the justice minister with regard to his thoughts on Bill C-11 and whether it captures user-generated content. The way we would pursue that is by seeking out a charter statement. That charter statement would then be put together. It is an official document that would outline whether Bill C-11 is in fact compliant with the charter and whether it does in fact capture user-generated content, which is, in other words, the material that individual Canadians post online.

It would allow us, as a committee, to move forward in the direction that we need to. In other words, either we accept the bill as it is or we propose amendments that would help to strengthen it and allow for certainty among individual Canadians and especially among digital-first creators.

Again, I would present to this committee that this is a reasonable request, based on a few things.

First, it's similar to a request that was put forward after changes were made last spring to Bill C-10, the predecessor to this bill.

Second, it is always in the best interest of legislators to have the greatest degree of clarity as possible, so that they are making good decisions on behalf of Canadians.

Third, we have heard from many witnesses at this committee since Ian Scott spoke and they, too, have raised this concern that user-generated content is in fact captured.

I'm not just talking about individuals with opinions, I'm talking about individuals with legal backgrounds. I'm talking about people like Peter Menzies, who is a former CRTC commissioner. I'm talking about Dr. Michael Geist, who is an expert in this subject area and a professor and a lawyer. I'm talking about individuals from the Internet Society, who have decades of experience with this material and who have far more letters behind their names than I do.

Having that testimony on the record and having this discrepancy between what is in the charter statement and what Mr. Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, has said, does require clarity. The best way to get that is by asking for that.

Some people might be saying that they didn't see the charter statement. That's okay. It's no problem. I'll familiarize you with it.

We do have access to it. It is online. This was tabled in the House of Commons on April 1, 2022. I would encourage my fellow colleagues at this table to read it. The purpose of the charter statement is as follows:

Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to prepare a Charter Statement for every government bill to help inform public and Parliamentary debate on government bills. One of the Minister of Justice’s most important responsibilities is to examine legislation for inconsistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“the Charter”].

The point of this statement is to look for any inconsistencies or incongruence. It is, in fact, the Minister of Justice's responsibility to make sure that has been done.

I would argue it's his responsibility to make sure that has been done, not just when the original legislation is tabled, but if any changes are made to that legislation through the process or if any authoritative voices would challenge that charter statement, particularly in this case, when you have the chair of the CRTC, who will be implementing Bill C-11. If he is unclear or misunderstanding the intent—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, I've moved this motion asking for a new charter statement. You will see that it's a really reasonable motion. I'm saying that this be done as soon as possible. I'm saying that we're going ask the justice minister to do that, and that we invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, accompanied by relevant departmental officials. We're going to have them appear before this committee, again, as soon as possible, in order to discuss that revised charter statement. All of those things seem appropriate and in order.

What I was saying before Mr. Julian interrupted me was that the point of this motion is that we have a charter statement in front of us that says that user-generated content is not captured by Bill C-11, but we have the chair of the CRTC, who, on May 18, 2022, said that it is captured by this piece of legislation, so the two are not congruent. In order to clarify that in a legal framework, we do require a new charter statement.

The committee will recall that we came to a similar predicament with Bill C-10. We were debating that piece of legislation in the spring of 2021. This is, of course, the former Bill C-11, the predecessor to the current bills. We were debating that piece of legislation in the spring of 2021. What happened was that the members of the Liberal Party who were on this committee at the time made amendments to that bill, and they took out a section that protected individuals who use online platforms to post their content. Having taken out that clause, it significantly changed the piece of legislation, and because it significantly changed the piece of legislation, a new charter statement was then required.

There was a motion moved at that time that is very similar to the motion I've presented today. The committee members at that time were very reasonable and agreed to it, so a new charter statement was, in fact, drafted and considered by the committee.

Similarly, we find ourselves in a situation where information is not fully aligning, so we need clarification. Now I—

[Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the process leading to the necessary passage of Bill C‑11.

My name is Carol Ann Pilon. I am the executive director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, or APFC, an organization that brings together independent French-speaking producers in Canada's official language minority communities.

For more than 20 years, the APFC has been working to help the French-language screen industry thrive and gain exposure in Canada and abroad. Our mission is to showcase the outstanding content our members produce, and advocate for its cultural and economic significance by engaging with policy-makers to ensure the expression of diverse francophone voices across the country.

On February 2, the APFC welcomed the historic scope of Bill C‑11 and its impact on Canada's audiovisual ecosystem. The APFC was especially pleased to see the return of the requirement to formally consider official language minority communities, which will apply to the entire broadcasting system going forward.

The pressure on the audiovisual sector is growing, as is the inequity. Foreign production is on the rise, more and more people are unsubscribing from traditional services, online consumption has skyrocketed since the pandemic, and the companies benefiting from that growth still don't have to make a significant contribution to Canadian expression or the objectives of Canada's broadcasting policy.

If the goal is to establish a system that is truly inclusive, fair and diverse, the government must move swiftly to regulate any company carrying out broadcasting activities, in whole or in part, in Canada. That includes social media and telecommunications companies.

The APFC is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, whose representatives the committee heard from last week. We agree with the measures the coalition is recommending to make Bill C‑11 a better piece of legislation.

One of those recommendations is to bring back the terminology used in Bill C‑10. In particular, the expression “official language minority communities” should be reinstated in Bill C‑11, which instead refers to “English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada”.

There is absolutely no denying the minority context of French in North America, but in recognizing that fact in Bill C‑11, the government has created ambiguity about the meaning of the expression “French linguistic minority communities”. It could be interpreted to include francophones in Quebec, who obviously make up the majority in that province, and the provisions in question would then apply accordingly.

Keep in mind that Canada's broadcasting system is based on two language markets, English and French. The possibility of francophones in Quebec being considered a linguistic minority community could undermine the recognition and legitimacy of the two language markets.

Not only would that be unacceptable, but it would also represent a detrimental step backward for the rights of minority francophone communities and Canada's entire francophone population.

The way to avoid all ambiguity is simple. Bring back the term “official language minority communities”, and add a definition making it clear that the term refers to English-speaking communities in Quebec and French-speaking communities outside Quebec.

Similarly, we want the term used in Bill C‑10 “original programs in French” to replace the term currently used in Bill C‑11 “original French language programs”. This change would ensure that original content dubbed into French or containing French subtitles was not confused with original content that was originally produced in French.

The APFC also supports the amendments proposed by the Association québécoise de la production médiatique and the Canadian Media Producers Association. The amendments are aimed at ensuring that Canada's independent producers are able to negotiate fair and equitable commercial agreements for the content they develop and produce. Most of the independent producers the APFC represents are small and medium-sized businesses. If left to their own devices, they would have no leverage in dealing with the major broadcasting groups and foreign online companies, the broadcasting gatekeepers that make billions of dollars in profits every year. It is paramount that the CRTC step in to offset and regulate such a glaring imbalance to give Canadian companies the ability to own their own content and grow over the long term.

The modernization of the Broadcasting Act has been a long time coming, and the bill can still be passed at third reading before the House of Commons rises. Let's make sure the bill is grounded in reality.

Thank you.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I guess that goes back to my comments.

The estimates are fundamentally still one of the most important aspects of our parliamentary system. We have not yet heard from the minister.

When this government was first elected, the indication was that ministers would be made available to committees. I think there are a few things more important than the estimates in normal times. Today was our deadline. The fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has not seen fit to join us at this committee to review the estimates is unfortunate.

Thankfully, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition has this committee's back and has provided us with some time to extend the estimates so that we can hear from the minister. The minister needs to be here. The fact that he hasn't been here yet is exceptionally unfortunate. Those are my comments on that. I hope that those from the minister's office are listening to this and will see fit to ensure that the minister makes himself available to this committee before our extended deadline so that we can review the estimates and report back to the House of Commons, as is our duty.

Going back then to our question at hand, which is the deadline for amendments. We said that we would have 20 hours of testimony. I believe by the end of this week, we will be at 19. We have at least one more hour next week. We haven't heard from all of the witnesses. We don't yet even know who we're hearing from later in the week, in terms of our Thursday witnesses. It takes some time for any party, us included, to come to a discussion among our colleagues—both those on the committee and elsewhere—and decide what types of amendments and suggestions we are going to come forward with.

I don't need to remind anyone on this committee about the challenges that were faced by this committee in the review of Bill C-10. There were things that were rushed, that were voted on and were removed during the clause-by-clause and the amendment process, which made it quite unfortunate.

I'm going to reinforce—I know Mr. Uppal wants to share a few words—that we are not in a position to commit to a deadline for amendments today. I'm not saying we will never be in a position to do that, but today we are not willing to make a deadline of this Friday for amendments to this bill. That's our position.

I know Mr. Uppal wants to make some comments. I might come back with more comments later.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have a quick question for Mr. Denton.

Mr. Denton, I'm referring to a Financial Post article where you refer to the guiding principles on diversity of content online, which is essentially the policy document associated with Bill C‑10. You called it “totalitarian”, and you essentially compared it to communist Russia under Brezhnev.

Is your feeling that Bill C‑11 is also leading to a totalitarian state similar to communist Russia under Brezhnev?