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.

Online Streaming Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is wild disinformation again. I spoke for 20 minutes, and 17 and a half of those minutes were on the bill itself and the NDP amendments. That is wild disinformation. The Conservatives cannot even calculate with a stopwatch, when 17 and a half minutes are given to what is good in the bill and the amendments that the NDP brought forward. I even talked about confidence and supply.

Yes, I took a couple minutes to talk about what was deplorable conduct from the Conservatives, and there is simply no way to excuse it. What the Conservatives did in blocking witnesses from answering questions and blocking people from getting information was simply deplorable. That does not even make sense. I cannot understand why the Conservatives acted the way they did.

There are many good things in the bill, which is why almost all of my speech, which did last 20 minutes, was on both the importance of the bill and the importance of the significant NDP amendments that have improved this bill.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do think we made improvements to the bill. Even one Green Party amendment managed to get in. It was quite a nice change from Bill C-12, the climate accountability act, on which all of my amendments were killed by the NDP-Liberal deal.

I really regret asking this, but I have not had a chance in this session and we are about to rise for the summer, so I will ask my hon. friend, since he has pointed to the confidence and supply agreement, why the NDP decided that dental care was enough and that proportional representation or significant climate improvements would not be included.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would disagree with the premise of the question. I talked about dental care, but I also talked about affordable housing. The affordable housing crisis is something that is right across this country, including in the riding of my colleague, for whom I have a lot of respect.

This took unprecedented investments, and for the first time we have those unprecedented investments. After 50 years, since the former Liberal government actually ditched the national housing program, we will actually see tens of thousands of units of affordable housing—not market housing, but affordable housing based on income—being built across the country.

The just transition act is an absolutely mandatory part of the confidence and supply agreement as well. This is absolutely necessary, as I know the member knows, through the climate crisis that we are seeing. Last year, of course, both with the heat dome and the atmospheric rivers, we saw first-hand the impact of the climate crisis that is striking so close. We need that immediately.

The Canada pharmacare act is again another piece of significant legislation that has to be adopted next year. There are 27 other components. It is all published online, and we can of course direct people there who want to learn more. It is all online, all of the elements of the accord and all of the important things that will come to Canadians and to our planet as a result.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for all of his work on this file.

In front of me here, I have quotes from the Canadian Media Producers Association, from the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada and many others who support this bill and want it to move forward and understand how much it will help cultural workers.

We have misleading statements from the Conservative Party, which is using misleading statements about freedom of expression to protect the profits of web giants. I am curious if the member can speak to just how unfortunate it is that they are prioritizing the profits of web giants over support for cultural workers.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Victoria for her incredible advocacy and strong push for the environment and for the future of our planet. Coming from British Columbia, I really appreciate and have great respect for her environmental work. It is at such a critical time, when we have seen climate change striking first-hand, particularly in British Columbia as the epicentre.

The member for Victoria has really made an enormous contribution to move this country in a direction we need to go in order to actually and actively combat the climate crisis. I know there is a ton of work still to do, but I wanted to express appreciation for everything that she has done so far, and I know she will continue to keep pushing.

We have had incredible, systematic disinformation from the Conservatives. The vast majority of witnesses who appeared before the committee were in favour of Bill C-11, but they often talked about improvements to the bill. The Conservatives and the NDP took a different tack. The Conservatives' reaction was, “We are just going to shut everything down. We are trying to block everything.” The NDP, as the effective opposition, said, “No, we have to improve this bill.”

The vast majority of witnesses support it. The quotes that the member from Victoria just made are absolutely accurate. We sought to make the bill better, and we succeeded in those five areas I mentioned during my speech, particularly in terms of breaking down the barriers for marginalized Canadians, Black and racialized Canadians, indigenous—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. I had the pleasure of working with him when the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage studied Bill C-11.

He said earlier that he spent only about three minutes criticizing the Conservatives' obstructionist tactics and 17 minutes saying nice things about Bill C-11. I congratulate him on having the self-restraint to spend only three minutes talking about the obstructionist tactics.

I would like his opinion on what I see as a crucial part of Bill C-11, the government's kid-glove treatment of web giants. We would like to see the government really stand up to these digital giants that exploit us and rake in huge profits at Canadians' expense, and especially at the expense of Canada's and Quebec's cultural industry.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does the government's position inspire confidence? Does he believe in the future of our industries, knowing that the government is too spineless to stand up to the web giants?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague from Drummond for his work on the committee. We were able to improve the bill, which is an important part of our work. Another important part of our work as members of Parliament is to pressure the government.

Has the government stood up to the web giants? No, not really. Some of what my colleague said is very true and relevant.

However, we have work to do. The improved version of Bill C-11 is a first step in that direction, but we need to continue our work—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. We also need to resume debate.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 and outline my significant concerns with what the Liberal government is proposing.

I will be sharing my time tonight with my fantastic colleague, the member representing South Shore—St. Margarets.

Let us make no mistake that what is contained within the legislation is extraordinary new powers for the government, through the auspices of the CRTC, to regulate wide swaths of what Canadians can create and watch on the Internet. Moreover, I have never received a letter, email or phone call from a constituent or a content creator in Canada asking the CRTC to regulate the Internet.

A couple of months ago, I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation on this bill, and one commentator said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” I was taken aback for a moment. I had to fully understand why he made that reference, but it got to the crux of the matter, which is that no matter how noble the government’s intended goals may be, this legislation will be an absolute quagmire. It gives the CRTC immense powers. It will give it the power to regulate what Canadians listen to and watch on the Internet, which has never been done before. This bill would also leave the door wide open for the CRTC to even regulate content creators sometime down the road.

Millions of Canadians are rightly alarmed about the Liberal government’s intentions. Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to regulate the Internet, and we know the government will introduce a bill in the future to determine what people can say on the Internet. A representative from YouTube who appeared at committee said, “Our concern is that Bill C-11 gives the government control over every aspect of Canadians' experience on YouTube. It does not include effective guardrails on either the powers given to the CRTC or the content to which those powers apply.”

Before I go any further, let us just step back and contemplate the size of the CRTC bureaucracy that will need to be established to undertake what Bill C-11 is trying to achieve. The sheer magnitude of the daily content being created for audiovisual services is hard to wrap one's head around. Across online platforms such as YouTube, podcast apps, websites and everything in between, thousands of hours of content are created in Canada every day. Unlike traditional broadcasters the CRTC regulates, new apps and websites are constantly being created and released to the public. Online platforms have cut out the middleman and dramatically reduced overhead costs, which in previous generations made it difficult for content creators to find an audience. As content creators have discovered, they now have the entire world with which to share their product.

Not only have we seen an extraordinary rise in content creators, but we have also seen several new online companies and platforms emerge. I, for one, welcome this innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, all done without needing tax dollars or regulations. With this in mind, for the CRTC to keep up with all the new platforms in order to regulate them would be impossible. I can imagine it now: hundreds of new CRTC employees scouring the Internet for hours and hours as they look for new platforms they intend to regulate.

Not only is it foolhardy to think the CRTC could ever figure out a way to manage this workload, but it would also be an incredible waste of taxpayers’ dollars, and for what? What are the Liberals trying to accomplish other than to create a mountain of red tape? That question gets to the core of why this legislation is short-sighted and could have disastrous consequences. What happens if the CRTC says it cannot do the job? Does it then come back to the government and ask for legislative powers to demand online platforms apply for authorization before Canadians can access their content? Not only would that be a colossal headache for companies, but many would just walk away from the Canadian market.

Here is another big question: How can the CRTC even impose its jurisdiction on companies that operate outside Canada? Unlike TV channels or radio waves, there is no limit to the number of websites or online platforms. A company might have its headquarters in Europe, its servers in Asia and its IT developers in the United States. While the CRTC might carry a big stick at home, there is no reasonable way for it to enforce its regulations on companies that do not have a single employee in Canada. These are the questions we must be asking.

It is simply impossible to regulate the Internet, as Bill C-11 would inevitably do. As I see this legislation, there will be very limited benefit for the vast majority of Canadians who create content, the Canadians who watch that content and the companies that publish that content. The real issue is, what problem is the government trying to solve? No one, particularly the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has ever provided a solid reason for this Goliath of a bill. The ingenuity and creativity of content creators such as musicians, artists, pundits, bloggers, gamers and everyone in between have been thriving, all without needing the CRTC to regulate the platforms on which they publish.

Never before in the history of our country has there been more Canadian content being created and watched than there is today. For those who want to learn about cooking, follow their favourite folk band, watch a tutorial on how to plant a vegetable garden or listen to people debate politics, all one must do is search for it. Many of those Canadians are generating content or deriving income from their own hard work. Many of them now generate revenue and have even made a full-time job out of it.

According to a 2019 university report, there are an estimated 160,000 Canadian content creators on YouTube alone, including 40,000 who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels. I can only surmise that number has grown since then, and more Canadians have unplugged their cable boxes and now turn to the Internet and online content for their entertainment and news. The reason I am bringing this up is the fact that, through Bill C-11, the Liberals are giving the CRTC the power to regulate the platforms their content is uploaded on.

Internet expert Michael Geist, who has been following this legislation, said, “for all the talk that user generated content is out, the truth is that everything from podcasts to TikTok videos fit neatly into the new exception that gives the CRTC the power to regulate such content as a 'program'.”

This is important because Bill C-11 would give the CRTC the power to write its own regulations. It would be able to determine what is considered the program, which will then fall under its purview. Due to the vague nature of the bill, no one knows what could possibly be deemed a program.

Mr. Geist also wrote about how this bill is created, stating:

[It] is a legislative pretzel, where the government twists itself around trying to regulate certain content. In particular, it says the CRTC can create regulations that treat content uploaded to social media services as programs by considering three factors:

[First,] whether the program that is uploaded to a social media service directly or indirectly generates revenue;

[Second,] if the program has been broadcast by a broadcast undertaking that is either licensed or registered with the CRTC;

[Third,] if the program has been assigned a unique identifier under an international standards system.

The Liberals can get up to say that user-generated content is exempt, but they cannot say that with any great confidence. As a parliamentarian, I am not comfortable with giving so much power to a body that is not directly accountable to Canadians. If Bill C-11 simply wanted to regulate Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime and the other large streaming services, we would be having a completely different conversation. I implore my Liberal colleagues to shelve this bill and go back to the drawing board. There are too many questions and too many concerns for it to proceed.

In closing, I want to stress how unrealistic and impractical it is to regulate the Internet. The consequences of this poorly drafted legislation would likely be to weaken consumer choice and hurt the potential of Canadian creators. I, for one, cannot and will not vote in favour of a bill that would grant the CRTC so much power. Canadians are rightly very concerned that this is overreach by the current Liberal government.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives used every tactic in the tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. At committee, all the members agreed to study the bill for 20 hours of witness testimony. However, the Conservatives did not allow that because they filibustered for seven hours. They went as far as to filibuster their own study at one point.

Why will the colleague and his colleagues not support Canada artists and creators?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, obviously it was in my speech. With the greatest number of creators we have ever had in Canadian history today, there is no way the CRTC is going to be able to manage trying to keep track of everyone through the mechanisms that it will have to put in place to monitor every one of those thousands that are coming into blogs and Internet services every day in Canada.

Our job as the opposition is to try to bring forward good ideas. The government was exempt of that, so we have tried to hold their feet to the fire as a good opposition would. We have heard from thousands, more like millions, of Canadians who have said that the bill is inadequate.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I quite like my friend from Brandon—Souris, who serves with me on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

He said at the end of his speech earlier that we should not try to regulate the Internet. However, regulating the Internet is not the purpose of the bill. I am sure my colleague is well aware that if Quebec wants its culture to flourish in a sea of anglophones, it needs support. That is what the bill seeks to do: offer support to Quebec culture to enable it to compete with American commercial culture.

That is how the bill should be regarded. The objective is not to regulate the Internet or to limit freedom of expression, but rather to ensure that all forms of expression find their place on the Internet, especially French-language expression.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is not about culture. We all have the opportunity to express that anywhere in Canada. The bill is about regulating programming, and the government has given the CRTC the power to determine what a program is and then regulate it. I would be very worried about it if I were from Quebec. I am from Manitoba, another bilingual province. We have to be very concerned about the government interfering in the lives of creators who are putting this content out there every day. Some of them are making a very good living at it.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was clear after listening to the member's speech that the Conservatives simply do not want the bill in any shape or form. The member basically said it was impossible, yet Canadian arts and culture workers have been clambering for us to pass the bill because they know how beneficial it will be for them. They have struggled over the past two years, and they need this support.

We have the web giants such as Netflix and YouTube, which are making record profits yet pay no taxes in Canada. This is what the bill is about. I am wondering about the Conservatives saying that we should spend more time at it, yet they filibustered at committee and stopped witnesses from appearing. They delayed getting their amendments in. What is their game plan?