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.

Child Health Protection Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-252, which focuses on the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children.

This bill is mostly a preamble, and there is some strong language in the preamble about protecting kids from manipulative media and about their vulnerability to marketing and media. We should be concerned about marketing that is targeting kids with things that are beyond their age or could be harmful to them.

What about sexually explicit materials and their impact on kids? Numerous studies show the harmful impact that exposure to pornography and hypersexualized media can have on kids, including mental health issues such as depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, increased likelihood of accepting sexual violence or rape myths and an increased risk of girls being sexually harassed and boys committing sexual harassment. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that exposure to pornography by children may shape a child’s expectations in relationships, blur boundaries and increase a child’s risk of victimization, increase a child’s health risks through, for example, sexually transmitted infections or sexual exploitation, and increase a child’s risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment.

We know that children’s exposure to sexually explicit content, particularly that which is violent and degrading, causes serious and significant harm to mental and emotional health. We know that much of the pornographic content published and hosted on MindGeek websites is sexist, racist or degrading to particular groups. We also know that some of the content involves actual violence or coercion, or is shared without consent.

We need to be focused on the marketing that targets children, and one of the most pressing areas is companies that publish sexually explicit material. If we want to protect “vulnerable children from the manipulative influence of marketing”, particularly harmful content online, we should be starting with predatory porn companies. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to kids online but they do, and they have no requirement to make sure those accessing their sites are actually over the age of 18.

For example, MindGeek is a Montreal-based company not too far from the riding of the sponsor of this bill. MindGeek employs around 1,600 people. It is based in Montreal and the online platforms it owns include Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers. According to MindGeek's own data, its websites received approximately 4.5 billion visits each month in 2020, equivalent to the monthly visitors of Facebook. Many of those visitors were kids.

That is why last spring, when Bill C-11 was going through the Canadian heritage committee, I proposed amendments to help protect kids from exposure to sexually explicit content. Specifically, my amendment would have added to the policy objective of the Broadcasting Act that it “seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”. It was supported by multiple child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation in briefs submitted to the heritage committee.

Defend Dignity, a great organization, pointed out that these amendments are supported by general comment 25, which was recently adopted by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada is a signatory to it. The Convention on the Rights of the Child's general comment notes:

States parties should take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks to their right to life, survival and development. Risks relating to content, contact, conduct and contract encompass, among other things, violent and sexual content, cyberaggression and harassment, gambling, exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse, and the promotion of or incitement to suicide or life-threatening activities, including by criminals or armed groups designated as terrorist or violent extremist.

To be clear, they urge signatories like Canada to “take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks...relating to...violent and sexual content”. That is why Defend Dignity said, “Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority.”

Timea’s Cause, another great organization, and OneChild, with a combined 32 years of experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children, wrote to the heritage committee and said:

Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....

This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values, and ideologies. In the case of children, who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them-this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of online content has frightening links to rape, “sextortion”, deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.

At the heritage committee, when it came to a vote on my amendment, it had NDP support, but the Liberal Party voted it down. It was puzzling that, for the Liberals, who want to control the posts of regular Canadians and now target food advertisers, porn companies get a free pass when it comes to our kids.

I will say it again: Predatory companies such as MindGeek should not have unlimited access to our kids online. This is not new. Over two and a half years ago, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him for help to stop this. We got no reply. Then, two years ago, MPs and senators from across party lines wrote the justice minister, and this was followed by a New York Times exposé asking, “Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?”

We then had an ethics committee study last year, a committee that the sponsor of the bill sat on, with 14 recommendations supported by all parties, and still there was no attempt by the government to provide oversight to a part of the Internet that has caused so much pain and suffering to women, youth and vulnerable individuals.

Now, there is a courageous, independent senator who is taking on predatory porn companies like MindGeek with the goal of keeping kids safe online. She has introduced Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, in the Senate, which would require all that publish sexually explicit material to verify the age of the consumer.

The preamble of Bill S-210 states:

Whereas the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms, including the development of pornography addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — particularly against women;

Whereas Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit material online for young persons are an important public health and public safety concern;

The preamble then continues:

And whereas any organization making sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes has a responsibility to ensure that it is not accessed by young persons;

This bill is at committee at the moment in the Senate, and it is hopefully headed to the House soon. When it gets here, I hope it will have strong support among all the parties.

When it comes to Bill C-252, I support the intentions and the aims of the bill, and I commend the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her efforts. As parents, we want our children to be healthy and protect them from marketing that could be harmful.

The striking difference between Bill S-210 and Bill C-252 is that the former has a clear framework put in place to do what it aims to do, and I do not see that in Bill C-252, which is not written in a way that could actually accomplish what it claims to do. We know that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at kids under 13, and it has largely been ineffective in lowering child obesity rates.

I also believe that parents should be able to make informed food choices for their families and have affordable access to nutritious foods, the latter of which has become incredibly difficult due to the inflation crisis caused by the Liberal government.

To be successful on this, we need co-operation across all sectors, and I look forward to working with members of the House and across the economy to ensure that we have parents and corporations working together to encourage healthy living.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This issue of the Community Media Advocacy Centre is profoundly disturbing. The anti-Semitism that was expressed was appalling. That's why I called for ending the contract when we became aware of the comments, as you'll recall, Madam Chair.

This is part of a broader trend of increased hate, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Certainly with the convoy occupation earlier this year we saw the most appalling symbols—Nazi symbols—flying on Parliament Hill. We saw blatant anti-Semitism. Anyone who supports the convoy—sadly, we saw some members of Parliament supporting those despicable acts and expressions of hate—are people who should be really examining themselves because that was a low period in Canadian history. Of that there is no doubt.

I support having Minister Hussen before this committee and have expressed that repeatedly. I have asked my colleagues to hold off on the idea that we would move immediately to Minister Rodriguez. I want to hear the responses that Mr. Hussen provides. Following that, depending on whether or not we're satisfied with those answers as a committee, I will certainly be more than willing to entertain this motion.

Quite frankly, I feel disrespected that this motion has been put forward today knowing—the member who moved this knew my position on this—that I wanted to get to the first hearing and, after that first hearing, make a judgment and a decision about whether or not to then convene Minister Rodriguez. The fact that this has been put out today in a way that stopped witness testimony that was so vitally important.... The Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba weekly newspapers gave us a cry today for support. They believe that Bill C-18 needs to be amended so that they will all be included. I support those amendments. All 56 of the Saskatchewan newspapers should be included in the supports that C-18 provides.

I understand that they were Conservative witnesses. When that contradiction between the Conservative position and the weekly newspapers became clear, we then had an immediate stopping of that testimony, so I am not able, as a member, to then question Saskatchewan community newspapers about the important stand that they have taken. It is a stand that is contradictory to the Conservative Party stand on Bill C-18. I feel like, as with Bill C-11, we are again seeing a stopping of witness testimony because it raises uncomfortable truths that some members around this table don't want to face.

I'm quite frankly frustrated that witness testimony was cut off and that we now are facing a motion that we've already discussed. It's a motion that I've already clearly indicated my stand on. The majority of the committee has already communicated its stand on it. Instead of waiting until next week, hearing the testimony from Minister Hussen on this very important subject, and then deciding collectively as a committee where we want to go from there.... That is something that has worked very well in the past, Madam Chair, as you're aware.

I commend Mr. Nater, particularly, because he's always been willing to work together with all parties around this committee so that we can find a consensus. Rather than finding that consensus, we have had witness testimony cut off and we are now dealing again with something that I very clearly indicated I do not want to consider until after I hear from Minister Hussen.

Quite frankly, Madam Chair, I'm frustrated. I'll be voting against this motion if it comes to a vote, but it seems to be more of a filibuster tactic. I deplore that because the witnesses we were hearing today had important testimony and information to relate to us. They were cut off because of the moving of the motion for filibuster purposes rather than any sort of attempt to come to an agreement.

That being said, I will be prepared to look at this motion again after Minister Hussen's testimony. That is when I believe we should be having a discussion about whether or not to convene Minister Rodriguez.

[Monika Ille]

Thank you so much for your kind words for the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. I am most proud. We acknowledge them with pleasure.

It goes without question that we support Bill C‑18.

APTN needs money. Our network is included in basic cable packages, but we need more funds, just like everyone else.

I know that our news content is well received and becoming more and more popular. Over the last year and a half, we realized that people were accessing more and more of our news on our website, www.aptn.ca, or on Facebook. They are doing so in order to get an indigenous perspective on news items that are about indigenous peoples.

As to how APTN will benefit from Bill C‑18, the answer is we don't know. We don't have an agreement in place at the moment and we have not been contacted on the matter. We still don't know if we will be able to negotiate such an agreement. I find that the necessary information that would allow me to answer your question is lacking.

However, the way that the bill has been written does not lead me to believe that indigenous media is being given a prominent spot. I think this is extremely regrettable, especially given the efforts made to pass Bill C‑11, which now recognizes indigenous media. It would be wonderful if Bill C‑18 also recognized indigenous media and was more inclusive of Indigenous peoples rather than merely mentioning at the end that indigenous points of view should be taken into account.

[Peter Menzies]

First of all, the CRTC is going to be a very busy place these days. There's a search on for a new chair. The initial search had to be extended, so the incumbent has been extended for four months. It will take that new chair a year to organize the place the way he or she wants. You have all the stuff from Bill C-11 coming through. I'm not sure if there won't be things coming through from online harms legislation to come soon, and then you have this. It's not an area in which it traditionally has expertise. I would think that we would be better off just for the CRTC's role—if anybody had a role, and it doesn't need to be the CRTC—to confirm that, if you're going to go down this route, both parties are happy with the agreement, end of story.

The terms of it need to be no one's business if it's a purely commercial agreement. If it's a public subsidy, then the terms of it need to be everybody's business. That goes to what Ms. Ageson was saying. We need transparency. Is it a subsidy? If it's a subsidy, then everybody needs to know everything. It looks like a subsidy to me, the way it's structured, because the government is directing how the money should be spent. If it's not a subsidy and it's a commercial agreement, then it's nobody's business.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us here today. I thought that was a good swath of information presented by each of the six individuals and organizations represented on today's panel.

I want to start with Mr. Menzies appearing here today.

Mr. Menzies, I see that you're wearing your orange shirt. I would note that at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum, the sales from those shirts, I believe, go to the traditional knowledge-keepers program that's operated at the Royal Saskatchewan Museum. I want to note that and the good work that's being done there.

I want to turn to your expertise—30 years in newspapers, 10 years with the CRTC—and it's that CRTC angle that I want to touch on. You appeared before us on Bill C-11. You talked to some of the unintended consequences that might happen with Bill C-11. I'm wondering if you have similar concerns about Bill C-18, some of the unintended consequences that may flow from a bill such as Bill C-18.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

In fact, the government is giving itself even more power as part of Bill C-11 to overrule the CRTC.

I think there needs to be a difference between.... Obviously, once you start getting into the evidence and the decision-making, you want that independence. However, in terms of trying to ensure that you have both the right kinds of people who inspire public confidence in the commission, in ensuring that there's a clear delineation of what the policy priorities are, and an express willingness to exercise powers, both the powers that the government has as well as the powers that the CRTC has.... So much of that has gone missing, I think, in recent years. There's a desperate need to hit the reset button, in a sense, on many of those issues now as we come closer to a change in leadership.

[Dr. Michael Geist]

Yes, I think it would be.

I think the CRTC has really struggled to meet its mandate and do what I think Canadians would expect. Frankly, the way in which it de-emphasizes competition.... It's just something, well, it might happen, and it would be nice if it did, as opposed to one of its top priorities leading to the kind of affordability and resiliency that we've heard talked about over the course of the day. That really ought to be job one.

It's an organization that has little experience dealing with some of these Internet-related issues, and the notion of taking Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, potentially some of the online harms issues, and vesting in the commission all of those additional responsibilities I think leaves us all pretty concerned.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Going back to the CRTC, it's clear they're already having trouble meeting their current mandate. This, of course, has to do with the 911 services and the alerting system services that went down. With that, do you feel that adding further responsibilities will further dilute their ability to do their work? One good example might be Bill C-11.

Consideration of Motion Resumed

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very relevant. It is not lost on me that every time any member on this side—and even in the Bloc Québécois, for that matter—starts saying things that the member does not like, he jumps up on a point of order just to disrupt the interaction. That is too bad. If he does not like what I have to say, too bad.

I want to focus as well on a couple of other things that are critical in this debate on whether we return to a hybrid system in the fall.

What is not being taken into account, and I know Madam Speaker is fully aware of this, is that there have been increases in injuries within the interpretation bureau. We have received numerous reports over the last several years that there has been a ninefold increase in injuries among those people who work so hard to ensure that we have world-class interpretation in this place, and when I say “world-class”, I mean it is unlike any other around the world.

We are seeing increased workplace injuries. We have been told that those workplace injuries are going to continue as long as we continue with a hybrid system here in the House and at committee. Why the government and the NDP are proposing to jeopardize the health and safety of our interpretation bureau is beyond me, especially since the warning signs and signals have been sent.

We are seeing a diminishing pool of interpreters, for which these workplace injuries are not the least reason. That puts the bilingualism component of our Parliament at risk for all of us, especially those who are francophone in this place and those who listen in who are francophone, and calls into question the future of bilingualism and the ability of interpreters to relay what is going on to francophone Canadians. I think that needs to be strongly considered as we consider moving into this hybrid Parliament format.

It is no surprise to the House that we want to signal to Canadians that we are getting back to some sense of normalcy, but there is no reason, no science, no evidence and no rationale as to why we are dealing with this in the waning hours of this session of Parliament, all because the government House leader and the NDP House leader do not want to return to normal. That is the only alternative. They want to continue the decline in the relevance of this institution by allowing ministers and members to not be here. It is sad.

I wear this bracelet around my wrist. It says, “Lest we forget”. I have said this before in this place, because I often think about the lives that have been lost and the families that have been decimated by war. Those who have defended our country in faraway lands to allow us all the privilege to sit in our symbol of democracy did not fight so we can sit on Zoom. They did not fight so ministers can hide from accountability. They did not fight to see a decline in our democracy. They fought to strengthen our democracy and to ensure that it was sustainable for years to come, but what the government is proposing is limiting and diminishing our democratic institution.

I know the government is going to argue otherwise, but we have seen it. We have seen a lack of accountability and transparency. We have seen the government hide using these tools. We saw it with Bill C-11. We saw the chaos that ensued at committee when the chair was sitting in her living room trying to manage and deal with a complicated and substantive bill with hundreds of amendments.

It is done. It is over. Its time has come. It served a purpose at the time, but it serves a purpose no longer when no other legislatures in this country, provincial or territorial, or around the world, are using a hybrid system. It is done. It is over.

In the time I have left, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy Royal, that the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (i) by deleting all the words after the words “motion is adopted” and substituting the following: “or adopted on division, provided that precedence shall be given to a request for a recorded division followed by an indication the motion is adopted on division”;

(b) in paragraph (p) (i) by adding after the word “videoconference” the following: “provided that members participating remotely be in Canada”, (ii) by adding after the words “resources for meetings shall be” the following: “subject to the provisions of paragraph (j) of the order adopted on Monday, May 16, 2022”, (iii) by adding after subparagraph (vi) the following: “(vii) any proceedings before a committee in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment”; and

(c) in paragraph (q) (i) by deleting all the words in subparagraph (ii) and substituting the following: “members participating remotely shall be in Canada and shall be counted for the purpose of quorum”, (ii) by adding after subparagraph (v) the following: “(vi) any proceedings before the committee in relation to a motion to exercise the committee's power to send for persons, papers and records shall, if not previously disposed of, be interrupted upon the earlier of the completion of four hours of consideration or one sitting week after the motion was first moved, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the motion shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate and amendment”.

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the NDP House leader for his version of Liberal karaoke. That was very nice, and I appreciate his interjection.

I will continue with what we talked about as far as the pairing situation, which is an option. Since, and well before, Confederation, politicians have contracted serious illnesses, suffered critical injuries, welcomed new children into their families and said tearful farewells to loved ones, among other significant life events. In short, life happens to members of Parliament, just like it does to all other Canadians.

For the first 153 years of Confederation, we ably managed to square our personal circumstances with our professional lives, even if it might not always have been ideal. As unprecedented as some aspects of the pandemic were, the demands on us to balance our personal and parliamentary responsibilities are not, and we can easily revert to the tried and true practices that we know work.

Again, on the issue of pairing within the standing rules and Standing Orders, while pairing has been largely based on a series of customs and practices, with only a tangential appearance in our rules via Standing Order 44.1, we would be open to considering proposals to strengthen these arrangements, to render them more transparent or to empower further individual members. If there were ideas on this front, I would have been happy to entertain them. Otherwise, I suspect that this will come up in the procedure and House affairs committee, as it is charged with studying and issue, which I know the Liberals and the NDP want, and that is a more permanent movement toward a hybrid Parliament.

Speaking personally, I got elected to Parliament with an understanding of what that responsibility was, and it is a great responsibility, as we know, to represent, in my case, the residents of Barrie—Innisfil.

I also understood, and my family understood, that there was a requirement for me to come to Ottawa. Being elected in 2015, and with the pandemic happening in 2020, it was common practice for me, and all of my colleagues, all of us in the House, to show up in the seat of Parliament. There is the constitutional requirement for us to be here in Ottawa.

As difficult as that was, that was a choice I made. It is a choice that all of us make. Notwithstanding some of those family pressures that I highlighted or outlined and some of the demands that go with this job, it is an incredible privilege to be able to sit in this place, to be able to come to Ottawa and represent my constituents, not just to engage in debate, not just to engage in the committee work that we do and interact with all of our colleagues on all sides of the aisle, but to actually sit in this seat and be able to vote and to stand up and be counted in person. Those were the expectations that I had when I was to become a member of Parliament and those expectations continue today.

As I said earlier, one of the issues that came up in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was the concern that there would be perpetual electioneering in those close ridings.

I say this with great respect, that if it is one's intent to be elected as a member of Parliament, the reasonable expectation of that intent is to come here to Ottawa. If a person is not willing to do that, if they want to stay in their community to continue to electioneer, perhaps the choice that they should make is to run for mayor, council or school board trustee if they are concerned at all with any imbalance in their lives because, as we know, this is a difficult job and a difficult thing to do, to be away from our family, in some cases, 29 or 31 weeks a year.

It is hard. It is a choice we all make because we want to be here to do the best for the people that we represent and the people in this country.

It is a vast country. It is a transcontinental country, from coast to coast to coast. People get elected to be representatives in our House of Commons and the expectation was, is, and should always be that this is the place that they take their seats. Members can call me a traditionalist. Members can call me a Conservative, as long as they call me someone who believes in our institutions, who believes in the institution of Parliament and who believes in the institution of our democracy.

The challenge I have with everything that has been going on in the last little while is that we have really seen a decline in our democracy. When government ministers are not held to the same account and transparency as they typically are by being here, and not just by us as an opposition but also by the media, it poses challenges.

There is no greater evidence of that than what we have seen over the last couple of months, particularly when we were going through the WE scandal, which was happening a year and a half or two years ago. All of that was happening on Zoom, and there were technological challenges going on with that. It was difficult. It was not the same dynamic as in-person committee meetings or the same fiery exchanges we would see, which is all a healthy part of our democracy.

We saw it recently again with Bill C-11. I am not even sure how many times the chair of the committee has been in Ottawa, but she was chairing a committee virtually on a substantive piece of legislation such as Bill C-11, which the government rammed through. We saw how difficult it was to deal with the amendments going through, and the chair was on Zoom. Anybody who was watching those exchanges in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage could see just how dysfunctional this system has become, especially when people are not present.

Some of the other things we talked about, as I said, is that we were open-minded to meeting and supporting the pairing needs of all colleagues in this House. The current hybrid system, with minor modifications, could be reactivated in the event of a serious reversal of the current trajectory of public health guidance concerning COVID-19, upon the agreement of recognized parties and House leaders, for a period of time they agree on.

That simply means that, instead of precluding some southern hemisphere variant I have heard about from the two doctor House leaders in this place, why could we not revisit this in August? Why could we not come back in September and look at the situation to see if there was a need to flip to a hybrid Parliament? We have learned our lessons over the past couple of years, and that should be an easy thing to do, so why could we not do that in August or September?

Instead, as I said at outset, here we are in the last couple of days of this session of Parliament before our summer break, and we are dealing with and precluding something none of us can predict. In fact, we can in a way because the world has moved on at this point. Public health measures have been eliminated, but not in this place. There is no reason we cannot come back in August and September to revisit this situation.

I did speak to the government House leader and gave him my word, because I will still be House leader at that point, that if there was a need at that point to flip the switch on a hybrid Parliament and get back to the virtual voting app, we would be open to it. I am not unreasonable. I can read the room. We would be open and amenable to doing that.

Some of the other things we were focused on in my May 31 letter to the other government House leaders is that the arrangements we were talking about could take effect, as I said, after the current arrangements expire, which is happening tomorrow and hence the rush for this, and be in place for a year. The House would be instructed to acquire an adequate supply of N95 face masks to allay the concerns some of our colleagues may have going forward.

This is a suggestion I made. There is no masking requirement outside of this place. I gave the example of members of Parliament, including Liberal members and NDP members, at receptions not wearing masks when they are required to, and even on the parliamentary precinct, so this theatre needs to end.

We are at a point right now where if an individual requires or wants to wear a mask, they should have the option of doing that. Those who choose not to wear a mask, just like the rest of the world and the rest of Canada is going through right now, maybe we can supply them with a higher quality mask like an N95 just to allay their fears and make them feel a little more comfortable. It should be the right of an individual, if they choose, to wear a mask. For those who do not want to wear a mask, they should not have to wear a mask. That was in the proposal.

The procedure and House affairs committee would be instructed to study these arrangements with a view of producing a report next May, ahead of the scheduled expiry of these proposed arrangements.

We believe in the work of committees. We believe in the ability of the procedure and House affairs committee to look at this and to revisit the issue, as we did a couple of years ago, but in anything the committee does, any work it engages in, it should never be under the guise or direction of moving to a more permanent system of hybrid. We should not be doing that. We need to be here in Ottawa.

The tide is turning on this. Just this past week, when the issue of Motion No. 19 came up and the government indicated, with the help of its NDP partners, that it wanted to move to a year's prolongation of the hybrid system, we were starting to see pundits and people who watch this place really start to turn on this and ask why we are not getting back to normal, why we are not getting back to a level of accountability and transparency that this place is designed and structured to do, when everybody else is returning to normal. We have seen editorials that have occurred. Here are some of the comments we have seen in these editorials:

That’s all well and good, but the government has not yet properly addressed the toll the hybrid system is taking on the support staff who make it possible for Parliamentarians to work remotely, especially the interpreters—a limited workforce without whom parliamentary work cannot function.

I addressed that earlier, and I think that we have to be empathetic to the plight of our interpreters and the interpretation bureau. It is becoming a real problem, one that is going to manifest itself if we continue down the path we are on with this hybrid system.

Just the other day, Campbell Clark of The Globe and Mail wrote about this. His editorial piece starts with this:

Another year of hybrid Parliament? No.

If the Liberal government wants to extend this semi-artificial version of the people's house, it can come back to the House of Commons in September and ask for a month. If it absolutely feels another 30 days is needed, it can ask MPs to vote again.

That goes back to the suggestion I made earlier. Why are we dealing with this now? There are so many important issues in this country that we have to deal with, such as affordability, the inflation crisis that is going on, and the fiasco going on with the government's ability to provide the most basic services to Canadians, and of course over the last couple of days we heard about Nova Scotia and political interference. Why we are dealing with this now and not in September is beyond me. This is what causes me great anxiety.

The Toronto Star talked about the decline in our democracy and how we need to get back to some sense of normalcy. That is really the theme of what I am talking about tonight, this decline in our democracy and the fact that the hybrid system is proving itself to be an old and tired system. Yes, it was needed at the height of COVID, but we need to get back to some sense of normalcy. That is what I expect.

One of the other things that we found over the course of the last couple of years was that when Canadians were not allowed to travel, when there were mandates that restricted them from boarding airplanes, the Prime Minister had no problem travelling all over the world. It was hypocritical that he could just get on his government jet and travel anywhere he wanted when Canadians were restricted by the government's policies. We have seen this over the course of the last several years. I gave the example of the chair of the heritage committee, who was sitting in her apartment. I do not know whether she has even been to Ottawa once. She may have, and I have not checked, but certainly not during the course of dealing with this substantive bill. She was sitting there while the committee was doing its work here. It created chaos within the committee. That did not deter the Prime Minister from travelling all over the world when Canadians could not.

I will give members an example of how much the Prime Minister has travelled, just in 2022. On March 4, he went to Toronto. On March 6-11, he went to the U.K., Latvia, Germany and Poland. On March 16-17, he was in Alliston, central Ontario. On March 23-25, he went to Belgium. On March 27-30, he went to Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Williams Lake. On April 8, he went to Hamilton. On April 11-18, he went to Victoria, Edmonton, Laval, and Whistler. He flew from Edmonton to Laval for a morning of promoting the budget on April 13, before flying to Whistler that afternoon to start his vacation. On April 19, he went to Dalhousie, New Brunswick; April 20, Waterloo; April 22, Winnipeg; April 29, Montreal and Toronto. That is half of the list. Here comes the second half: May 2, Windsor; May 3, Montreal; May 6, GTA and Hamilton; May 8-9, Ukraine and Poland; May 17, St. John's, Newfoundland; May 20, Sept-Îles, Quebec; May 23-25, Kamloops, Vancouver, and Saskatoon; May 27-29, Nova Scotia; June 2, Siksika, Alberta; June 5, London, Ontario; June 7-11, Colorado Springs and Los Angeles; and today, the Prime Minister left for Rwanda.

Now, the Prime Minister can fly all over the place. He can go to places where arguably the virus is still active, but parliamentarians cannot come to this place. It just does not connect.

I know that the Prime Minister has a job to do, and I know that he represents Canada around the world, but he can fly to places that do not have the same vaccination status that we do in this country, and put himself at risk. He had COVID last week, and he has had COVID twice in the last couple of months. If he can put himself at risk by doing that, then there is no reason, given the safety measures that are in this place, the option to wear a mask if members choose to and the safety that is in aircraft across this country, why members of Parliament cannot be here, unless, of course, they do not want to be here, unless they want to be in their ridings to perpetually electioneer if they are in a close riding so that they can do everything they can to win the next election, or unless they want to hide behind the virtual Parliament and the voting app. It does not make any sense.

I know there are members who are flying across the country and perhaps not coming here, but we can check. There is public disclosure, and we know where people can go. People are flying to other parts of the country, but they are not coming here. Why? This is their job. This is what they were elected to do.

I am going to make a suggestion, and I may bring it up at the BOIE committee, for members who want to be here on a part-time basis and who do not want to be in Parliament. There are many situations where apartments around this precinct are being paid for, in some cases $2,500 a month, and not being used. Why are taxpayers expected to pay for those apartments if members do want to be here? I think it is a fair question. Maybe there are other expenses that are being put in, and we can certainly look at that. However, if members do not want to be here, in their proper seats, then why are taxpayers subsidizing their apartments here, which are sitting empty? I think that is a fair question to ask.

As I said, the tide is turning. I was hoping, by sending that letter on May 31, that we would actually engage in and initiate some consensus. I was really hoping that the government House leader and his partner in the NDP would actually see the sense of what we were proposing. The unfortunate reality is that they did not, and we are in the position that we are in right now, where we are dealing with Motion No. 19 and the government is going to propose closure on this motion. We are effectively going to have a few hours to debate it. I know that it disrupts the plans of NDP members to discuss this, because what they want to talk about, as is their common theme, is the Conservatives obstructing things.

The reality is that the Conservatives are doing their job. They are actually fulfilling their constitutional obligation, as is the Bloc Québécois, to hold the government to account. We were elected in this place in a minority government. The government was sent here with less than a majority, and it was not until the coalition agreement with its partners in the NDP that it actually formed a majority.

I can tell members that I went through the election and I was certain, at the time, that all the Prime Minister wanted was two things. He thought people were going to throw rose petals for the way he handled COVID and the billions of dollars that flowed through the treasury, which we are now paying for with inflation. He thought people were going to throw rose petals at his feet for the way he handled that, and he wanted a majority government, but he did not get it. The reason he wanted a majority government is that he knows, and we knew at that time, that there was a convergence of factors that was happening.

One cannot print that much money and inject that much liquidity into the system and expect that there would not be an impact on inflation and that it would not increase inflation. When we have more money chasing goods, the resulting effect of that is what we are seeing today, what was announced today, 7.7% inflation, and it is only going to get worse.

We are seeing that interest rates have gone up almost a point in the last month. The expectation is that on July 13, in order to fight inflation, the Bank of Canada is going to increase interest rates by another three-quarters of a point. We can think about the impact that is going to have on the lines of credit that people have. We can think about the impact that would have on variable-rate mortgages. If we have an affordability challenge now and Canadians are anxious and angry about their situation, it is only going to get worse as long as the Liberals continue to pour gas on a raging inflation fire.

We were predicting this a year and a half ago. It is not that we did not want to support them, because we did support many of the programs the government was proposing. The challenge was that there really was a lot of money going out and it was not targeted into those areas of the economy where it needed to be in order to support the economy. The Liberals basically let money rain. They were printing money like crazy, and we predicted a couple of years ago that this would happen.

Now, because of these converging factors, all of them, the economy, interest rates and the inflationary pressures that are going on right now, we are in a situation where Canadians are hurting, and I said this the other day. We had better start listening to what they say. I know I am listening to my constituents, but we all need to do a better job of listening and understanding where that anger and anxiety are coming from, because they are coming from fear. People are afraid right now, because debt levels are so high and interest rates are going up, and that is causing significant challenges.

We were talking about this a couple of years ago, and I remember my mom, when we were together two or three weeks ago, reminding me of something I said two years ago. She was upset about some of the government policies that were going on, and I said that until and unless it starts affecting people in their pocketbooks, people will not be concerned about what the government is doing. Now, we are at that point and people are genuinely concerned, because it is impacting them in their pocketbooks.

Many of us were projecting this, including some of our finance critics, our industry critics and others. They were standing up, and I was standing up, saying this is a disaster waiting to happen. What it comes down to is this: People of integrity expect to be believed, and when they are not, time will prove them right. Unfortunately, right now, with all that is going on, time is proving us right about the things we were predicting two years ago.

I really worry for my constituents. I worry for Canadians in general, because despite the lollipops, gumdrops, rainbows and unicorns the government is projecting right now, I do not think that reflects the reality. I know it does not reflect the reality of what is happening on the ground and the anxiety people are feeling, especially those who overleveraged in an inflation-induced real estate market.

I think it was CMHC that recently said that 52% of Canadians have variable rate mortgages. Just think of how susceptible they are to these increases in interest rates, and the impact that these are going to have on their household budgets and their ability to pay not just for housing, but also for the costs and inflationary pressures that are being borne right across the economy by the supply side because of the price of gas.

Gas is $2.09 a litre. For people in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil who have to go to Mississauga, Markham, Vaughan or other communities around the GTA, and who are doing that five days a week, they are putting $115 or $120 in their little cars. Business owners and construction workers, for example, are putting $245 or $250 worth of gas in their trucks and getting three or four days out of that. They are not even getting three or four days out of that when they are driving to Mississauga or Markham every day. That adds up and eats into the household budgets.

Not least, we need to be concerned about our seniors: those on fixed incomes and those who are seeing, because of the stock market right now and as a result of what is going on in the economy, their investments start to diminish. They are watching that closely. It is creating even greater fear and even greater anxiety for them.

When we sit here and talk about a hybrid Parliament and try to project or predict something that is going to happen in September, I am not sure why we are not dealing with those particular issues that are of grave importance to Canadians. We are dealing with this, when Canadians are moving on. When Canadians, health experts, legislatures around the world and legislatures in Canada have all moved on, we are sitting here debating something that we should not be debating.

There is another thing that I would say in terms of the tide turning, and it kind of gives me a chuckle. Dale Smith sits up here almost daily in Question Period. I do not know if he has missed any, quite frankly. We have been on the opposite sides of issues. I have a lot of respect for the work that Mr. Smith does. He kind of leans or works toward the government on a lot of issues. Even he, in a series of tweets over the past couple of days, has said that the acoustic injuries and possibilities of permanent hearing loss are well documented, and that this is taking an unconscionable toll on the interpretation staff.

In another tweet on June 20, he said, “Imagine telling the interpreters, 'Sorry, but you have to face the possibility of permanent hearing loss, but we can't,'” here he uses a slight expletive, “'ourselves to take reasonable COVID precautions in order for us to do our jobs', which is unacceptable”.

There were a few more tweets that he put out there.

Like me, he is a traditionalist. He believes that we are near the end of the pandemic, and that we have to return to some sense of normalcy. We actually have to signal to Canadians that this beautiful place is back to normal, and that all is right in the land. That is not to say that we do not have to be cautious or we do not have to remain diligent as to what could happen. I do not disagree that there may be some other things that we may be facing, but that does not mean that at this current moment we move into what I predict would become a permanent solution of this hybrid Parliament.

We do not move in that direction at this point. We could certainly come back in August or September to deal with it at that time. As I said earlier, we have seen a lot of hypocrisy and a lot of theatre by the government on this issue. I am not diminishing, in any way, the toll that this has taken. I had two friends who died directly as a result of COVID, but we are certainly past the point of where we were not just in March 2020, but at the height of some of the new variants.

We have a 95% vaccination rate in this country, and that is a credit to Canadians who decided to take the vaccine. I had never injected myself with anything. I was a firefighter. I never took a flu shot. I just did not feel comfortable doing that, but I did take a vaccine. I have actually taken three shots right now, and I am not ashamed to admit that. I did that because I know how concerned my mom and dad were. I wanted to make sure that I protected myself, first and foremost, but it was also to protect them as well. I made that determination for myself.

There were many Canadians who felt the imposition of a mandate or the suggestion that they should be vaccinated. Even friends of mine who took the vaccine and had adverse reactions to the vaccine were told by their doctors that they should not get another shot. In one case, someone spent three days in hospital because of a severe allergic reaction to her first dose. Her medical doctor suggested that she not get another dose because of this allergic reaction. Despite the effort of trying to get a vaccination, that effectively made her a prisoner in her own country. I was down in Florida in March with her husband and she could not come.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Online Streaming Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:45 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading of Bill C-11.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, we saw this with Bill C-11: Conservatives blocking witnesses at committee, blocking the tabling of amendments, blocking systematically improvements that needed to come to Bill C-11. Fortunately, we were able to—

Online Streaming Act

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand in this place and speak to Bill C-11.

I have to begin by saying that I was one of the members of the heritage committee in the last Parliament when Bill C-10 came forward. I greatly appreciated working with my colleague from the NDP, the heritage critic in the last Parliament, and I thank him for his intervention today. I learn so much every time he speaks. He is such a very clear communicator. I greatly appreciate the contributions that he has made to this debate this evening.

I also want to recognize some of my friends in this place right now who were on that committee, with whom I very much enjoyed working. Unfortunately, I will not say that was the same for all members of our committee, but I will get into some of that detail in a little while.

To start with, I want to talk about just how vital this Bill C-11 legislation is. It is so important that we take the opportunity to level the playing field between the web giants, these big multinational corporations, and the artistic community in Canada. I am talking about the artists and the venues that support those artists, which are then in turn supported because we have a strong artistic community. The theatres, newspapers and radio stations, all of these things that get support when we level the playing field are so important. I am going to go through some of the organizations in my riding and say a little about them later on.

I want to just highlight a couple of things we have heard about over and over again from the Conservative Party. That is that Bill C-11 applies to user-generated content. They know that is not true. They know that except for very specific examples that is not the way this bill has been set up. We know that this bill provides opportunities for indigenous people. It provides opportunities for programming for Canadians to hear and be exposed to indigenous language programming. It supports minority communities.

Many people do not know this about Edmonton Strathcona, but there is a huge and very vibrant francophone community in my riding. It is a part of why I have spent so many hours, not very successfully, I will say, trying to learn French so that I can speak French in this place and recognize the vital role that francophones play in our community in Edmonton Strathcona.

These are the things that we are pushing for with Bill C-11. When I sit at committee I hear, of course, that the Liberals brought this bill forward and they support the legislation. The NDP strongly supports this legislation as well, and the Bloc Québécois supports the legislation. The Green Party, which I think one of my colleagues mentioned, under—

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, much of the work was also done during the study of the old Bill C‑10, so we need to look not only at the study of Bill C‑11, but at all the debates on the Broadcasting Act.

People in the cultural community, especially those in Quebec, told us there was an urgent need to act and warned against missing this opportunity. That is why it was so important for us to press the government to move forward and pass this bill. Too much time has been wasted already.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to Bill C‑11, it feels like Halloween. Some members tried to scare people. They disguised themselves and it was just awful.

My colleague is absolutely right. The concept of discoverability is very important. We see that with the new digital broadcasters. There are algorithms that more or less decide what we see on the page when we open the app or the site. YouTube is perhaps the best example of that.

If the song, video or show is not available or easily found by the person who uses Netflix or Disney+, this Quebec or francophone culture will not be consumed. Rules are needed, and it will be important for the CRTC to be clear in its directives to ensure that Quebec and Canadian works are visible and relatively easy to find when the person goes to the digital broadcaster's site. If not, if those works end up 158th on the list, no one will ever see them and that will not advance Quebec or Canadian culture.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and his very pertinent question.

When we talk about cultural content, of course we think of the artists we see on stage, the actors and actresses in a TV series or film. They are the stars, the ones who go to galas and win awards. That is all fine, and we congratulate them.

However, my colleague is quite right to point out that there is a whole industry behind the scenes, including stage technicians, people who look after the sound and lighting, and people who provide the food. There is the whole administrative side, including the accountants who work for the cultural industry, for example. There are dozens of quite different jobs, and these employees do not appear on screen. They are not the ones we see, but they are there and are driving the industry forward. Their jobs enable them to bring home an income to support their families, pay the rent and buy groceries. I think Bill C-11 is good news for all those people.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to digress a little, but it is relevant.

Caroline Rivera has been on my team from the very beginning, for the past 11 years. I am sure that Carolina, who is of Colombian heritage, would join me in congratulating the leftist winner in yesterday's presidential election in Colombia. I congratulate Colombia's new president, Gustavo Petro, and vice-president, Francia Marquez, Colombia's first Black woman vice-president.

This momentous and historic event reminded me of a quote from another Latin American politician who inspired not only his own country but also an entire continent. He said:

[Member spoke in Spanish]

[Translation]

Let us work together as progressives, as left-leaning men and women, to build a fairer and better society. Those were some of Chilean president Salvador Allende's last words in 1973 from his presidential palace.

That is all I have to share about yesterday's current events and history from down south. I now want to talk about the history that we are making right here, in the House. I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, of Montreal and of Quebec in support of this essential and long-overdue bill. The funding ecosystem was outdated and obsolete, and the act had not been thoroughly reviewed in the past 30 years. We ended up with a broken and completely unbalanced system in which creators and our artistic industry, our artists, artisans and technicians, were penalized while others were passing go and saving $200. They were not collecting the money, but they did not have to spend it.

My point is that funding for a whole lot of our television, film and music creations flowed in large part through the Canada Media Fund, which was funded by cable companies back when they had the market to themselves. We said they were the ones with the pipeline and the container, so they would have to pay to put content in the pipeline. That is why the cable companies of this world—Videotron, Shaw, Rogers and Bell nowadays—had to contribute to a fund to support the production of Quebec and Canadian cultural content. It worked pretty well for several years, I must say. It is absolutely crucial to making sure our stories are told and our culture is shared here at home and around the world.

We reached a tipping point when the system stopped working and became unfair and inequitable. That was when new online broadcasters hit the scene. Now they are the ones pocketing mega profits by streaming tonnes of content live and online. I am talking about companies such as Netflix, Disney+ and YouTube that did not exist 30 years ago of course. They were not planned for. We found ourselves in a situation where cable companies, which had fewer and fewer subscribers and therefore less and less revenue, were the only ones paying into the media fund, so the fund was shrinking. Meanwhile, all the new digital broadcasters that were growing so fast did not have to pay a penny.

It was hurting our producers, our creators, because a large part of that money was not being invested or spent. That meant that some productions were shelved.

The other important point to remember is that we are also dealing with web giants that do not pay their taxes. They do not contribute at all to the general coffers, to our collective wealth, to help pay for our public services. Some will say that that is a whole other debate. Yes, it is a debate about the taxation of web giants, but it is also relevant here because web giants are also not paying their share in this situation. That is extremely important.

An estimated $3 billion is invested in an artistic, television, film and musical production. By requiring these digital broadcasters, these web giants, to pay their share, Bill C-11 will add more than $1 billion to this industry. We are restoring the balance, injecting money from the web giants who have, unfortunately, been benefiting for years from not paying. We need this bill to restore the balance and to support our creators in a much more effective and visible way.

There is a lot that could be done with this money. It would mean more productions, more content, more jobs. This is about our identity and about jobs in the cultural sector. It will translate into more sets, technicians, artisans, directors, screenwriters and writers. It is absolutely essential and important.

I believe that this will help us ensure that those in the music industry, who are currently paid peanuts by streaming services such as Spotify, will potentially earn more thanks to the rules that will be established. Members will recall the very frank statement by singer Pierre Lapointe at a ADISQ gala. He spoke about the amount of money he earned, a few hundred dollars, for hundreds of thousands of views or streams of one of his songs. We are obviously well aware that this system could not continue. It did not make sense and it had to be fixed. That is what we are doing, albeit a little too late. This should have been done sooner for many of our creators, but it is not too late to do the right thing. We could not continue with the existing situation.

Bill C-11 is important. The NDP was also successful in getting amendments passed that improved the government's original bill. We are very proud of that. I had a request from people in Montreal who asked us to clarify and better define the mandate of Radio-Canada International, which has unfortunately suffered cuts over the years. At the very least, they want to save what is left, so that our news is broadcast around the world in several languages.

Speaking of languages, one of the first amendments we passed to improve and amend the broadcasting bill had to do with all indigenous or first nations productions. They will receive more support, more money to share their stories, their realities and their experiences in their communities, in French and English, but also in indigenous languages, if they so desire. We strengthened those measures and have done the same for other groups of citizens, such as racialized people and people with disabilities. These were priorities for the NDP. We put forward these amendments and we succeeded in getting them passed.

Another issue is more support for community television and community radio, which are really very important in many regions and many parts of the country. I think it is important to flip the curve that put community television and radio at a disadvantage. This injects a little more money and support.

Yet another issue is enhanced protection for local jobs in Quebec and Canada, greater protection for our creators' intellectual property, more protection for freedom of expression and, to enforce all that, more powers enabling the CRTC to oversee it all for the good of society as a whole.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I simply want to again applaud the expertise of the member for Drummond, who worked so hard and so thoroughly. I also applaud the brilliant idea of reviewing this law every five years.

Could my colleague tell us what he thinks the future holds for Bill C‑11 and what amendments he predicts will be made in five years?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague across the way made, but I take a different approach. He made reference to Bill C-10 and the amendment process. I think it clearly demonstrated the interest of the government, when modernizing the legislation, to get it right. We saw a number of amendments that, in fact, ultimately changed the form of Bill C-11, and I think that is good for the industry as a whole and for future Canadian content.

The member made reference to the word “freedom”, and I think there is a fear factor out there, as some are trying to say that this is a limit on an individual's freedoms. Could he provide his thoughts with regard to the issue of the Conservative Party in essence saying that this is an attack on individual freedoms?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start my speech with an aside once again. I am definitely making a habit of starting my speeches with an aside. I want to do this and I think everyone will be fine with it, because last Friday was graduates' day. In Quebec, we celebrated students graduating from high school, CEGEP, vocational school and other schools. We applauded their efforts and their determination at an important step in their studies. I therefore wanted to take a few moments to commend graduates in the riding of Drummond. I am thinking in particular of Elsa Darveau and Ève Turgeon, two young ladies that I adore. Back home, I want to applaud my stepson Christophe and his girlfriend Sophia who are also headed to CEGEP. I want to commend and congratulate everyone graduating in Quebec and Canada, and all those taking this big step in their studies.

I hope that this will be the last time we rise to speak to Bill C‑11. I am optimistic that it will be. We worked on Bill C‑10, we worked on Bill C‑11. It is time to pass this bill that our cultural and broadcasting industries have awaited for such a long time.

I must say that we put a lot of hours into Bill C‑10 after it was introduced in 2020. The spotlight was on us, as members of Parliament, and we were being congratulated and patted on the back by our colleagues and others, but there is a whole team working behind the scenes. I want to acknowledge my support team, which did extraordinary work during our study of Bill C‑10 last year and during our study of Bill C‑11 now before us.

I especially want to thank my assistant Mélissa, who did an amazing job planning more than 60 meetings with stakeholders from all across the industry and who worked non-stop to prepare for the committees. She did an amazing job. I thank my friend Éric, who contributed his thoughts and experience, our research friends, Michael and Vincent, and the whip's team, Paul, Marie-Christine and Charles.

I want to say a special thank you to my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, who is here in the House today. Last year, she held meetings on Bill C-10, and she put in a lot of effort. It was a bill that she cared a lot about. I imagine she is pleased today to see that Bill C-11 will be passed. She was a singer in a former life. Actually, that is not true. She will always be a singer. In fact, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has the opportunity to benefit from her talents at just about every meeting. I think this bill was particularly close to her heart because she has made a living from singing and she knows how important the Broadcasting Act is to the entire cultural industry. I therefore thank my colleague for her wonderful help.

I feel like I am giving a thank-you speech at an awards ceremony, but I think it is important. I hope others will follow suit.

I also want to say a big thank you to the interpreters, the committee staff, and the clerks' office staff, who do an absolutely incredible job, always behind the scenes. Without them, I do not think we would be able to get anything done. I want to sincerely thank them as well.

With that, I want to focus on a number of very important things that were added to Bill C‑10, which I spoke about earlier. My pet analogy is that Bill C‑10, as introduced on November 3, 2020, was like a blank paint-by-number. The numbers were there, but they were in need of paint to fill in the structure and content of a bill that was lacking on both fronts.

Earlier, the parliamentary secretary talked about Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11 as though they were essentially one and the same. He is not completely wrong about that, but he should have said that it was actually the final version of Bill C‑10 as amended and the version of Bill C‑11 as introduced that were virtually the same. That is an important distinction because a lot of work was done on Bill C‑10. Specifically, a lot of work was done to take out significant sections of the Broadcasting Act, for example, paragraph 3(1)(a) on the Canadian ownership and control of broadcasting entities. Last year, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to Bill C‑10 to replace it with the following: “the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and foreign broadcasting undertakings may also provide programming to Canadians”.

The wording has changed a bit in Bill C‑11. Without getting into it too much, we would have preferred the wording from Bill C‑10, but this is still an important amendment.

We often say that the Bloc Québécois put the protection of French back into the broadcasting bill. That is true, and it is in Bill C‑11 because we managed to add it to Bill C‑10. Here is what the new subparagraph 3(1)(i.1) says: “reflect and support Canada's linguistic duality by placing significant importance on the creation, production and broadcasting of original French language programs, including those from French linguistic minority communities”.

There is an important nuance here that I think is worth bearing in mind and repeating. The bill talks about “original French language programs”, not programs in French. If we had stuck with “programs in French”, as the bill seemed to suggest before we amended this clause, then content dubbed in French would have been given equal weight regardless of the original language. What we were calling for, and it was entirely legitimate for us to do so, was original French content, meaning broadcasting companies would be required to produce original content in the language of Molière, Vigneault, Leclerc, Lévesque and myself.

I am talking a lot about Bill C-10 because we added a few things to it, some of which also made their way into Bill C-11, so they have been discussed again.

One of them was the issue of discoverability, which really got people talking. It has become quite hackneyed and used to spread appalling misinformation. I talked about discoverability in the House last week, and I think it is pretty straightforward as a concept. It aims to ensure that local content is promoted, easy to find and available on any broadcasting platform.

I cannot imagine anyone thinking to themselves that, yes, we produce great content but that we need to make sure that no one can find it, so as not to completely confuse the algorithms of the big foreign companies, which will stop liking us.

I was elected by Quebec voters, who want me to protect their interests. I was not elected by multinational corporations that are based abroad and who report virtually no revenue, pay virtually no taxes and contribute virtually nothing to our broadcasting system and our cultural industry in Canada.

I therefore have no problem imposing discoverability requirements on these businesses, because I find that it makes sense. I find it contemptible that this requirement has caused so much outrage and been used as justification by those who claim that this broadcasting bill essentially amounts to censorship.

Another very interesting addition made to last year's bill is the sunset clause. This emerged from the realization that the Broadcasting Act has not been updated, revised or amended for more than 30 years, and that if nothing were done, it would more than likely be quite some time before a new act were adopted or amendments made to the new Broadcasting Act.

Why would we not require a re-evaluation at specified times to make the necessary amendments and adjustments? That is one of the fine additions included in Bill C-10, and then in Bill C‑11, and it will require the House to review the Broadcasting Act every five years. If some things are not being done properly today, we will not have to wait 30 years to correct them.

Bill C‑11 has had quite a strange trajectory. We can agree that the process was a little messed up. In other words, it was short-circuited or neglected. I apologize; perhaps I could have used a better term.

It did not help that the Conservatives decided they were going to oppose the bill in any way they could, by filibustering during some very important meetings, even though the study process had already been planned out when the committee received the bill. In response, the government opted for a closure motion, which made it tough to talk about amendments and advocate for amendments.

This meant that the committee was not able to have the types of discussions it would normally have when amendments to bills are proposed. I think that the discussion can open members' minds. I wanted to hear my colleagues make arguments, even the ones I find far-fetched. In committee, we are meant to discuss, listen to what others say and keep an open mind. This is how we can amend Bill C‑11 as effectively as possible.

A few Bloc Québécois amendments were rejected. I think the main reason they were rejected is that we did not have the opportunity to explain them. There was no room for debate, particularly on the control we want to have over online companies, or rather the control we refuse to have over them.

It is unbelievable. When we tried to force American, Chinese and international companies, foreign companies, to hire Canadian and Quebec human resources, creative resources and talent as much as possible, I was told that it is impossible because the companies are already investing a lot of money. I was told that we cannot force them to hire locals because that would be too upsetting. That is what I was told. These companies and the web giants say that they are already contributing a lot and that it would be inconvenient if they were forced to use Canadian resources as much as possible. To that I say, they are always nibbling away at the advertising pie and taking the revenues for themselves.

I really want members to understand this. People in this flourishing industry are on the verge of switching careers. They no longer have an income, and media outlets are closing up shop, yet web giants tell us they do not want us to impose those kinds of constraints. Our doormat of a Canadian government lies down and has no problem letting them walk all over it.

I sincerely hope the government will take a somewhat firmer stance, especially when it comes to orders the CRTC can give. The CRTC does actually require good faith negotiations between the companies that create programs and those that distribute or broadcast them, and obviously that includes online platforms in our current system. That means the CRTC would need the tools to impose fair negotiation rules should good faith negotiations not happen. That idea was turned down too.

I was told it would not work, that the government could not give the CRTC tools to respond should negotiations not take place in good faith. That means big corporations will be able to walk all over our little-guy production companies and carry on exploiting our Quebec and Canadian content creators for profit.

Who might need these negotiations to be protected? Small programming businesses might need that, although many of them have grown. Consider APTN, for example. APTN's wonderful model is being emulated around the world. New Zealanders were inspired by what APTN has done in Canada and created a similar channel. CPAC is another example. I think everyone here is quite familiar with CPAC. We can also think of The Weather Network. These are all businesses that need this protection, but they are not getting it because we think that if we are too strict with online businesses, they will be angry. Do we really think they will go away because they are angry? They make billions of dollars.

Here is another thing that really frustrated me. We hear about balancing the market, making the market fair to ensure that our traditional broadcasting companies are not penalized in relation to online companies. In that regard, I am quite happy that the part II fees, which imposed significant and onerous financial conditions on licensed broadcasters, have been dropped. I think dropping these fees should really help them, or at least give them a little breathing room. However, the CRTC still cannot issue orders.

Let us talk about one of the amendments that I thought did not make much sense:

The [CRTC] may, in furtherance of its objects, make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings that the Commission considers appropriate for the implementation of the broadcasting policy set out in subsection 3(1), including conditions respecting...any change in the ownership or control of a broadcasting undertaking that is required to be carried on under a licence.

I said that the idea of a licence should be removed because we want that to apply to online undertakings. However, that was rejected. People did not want that to apply to online undertakings. It is as though they were still scared of the big online company monster. It is as though they were afraid of stepping on the toes of the giant.

We are afraid to step on the toes of the giant, but that giant is crushing us and we are saying nothing about it. We think it is amusing because we can watch our movies and our shows. We do not even realize that our creators are starving.

Bill C‑11 will pass. The result of the vote will be close, but it will pass. I hope that the fears of those who have profusely expressed them will be allayed when they eventually realize that the “censorship” and “control” of what they envisioned are fabrications. These arguments are pure fearmongering and really have no merit. All the rambling that took place over the past few months and the Conservatives' systematic filibustering when Bill C‑11 was being studied in committee has only resulted in the postponement of important studies, such as that of bill C‑18.

More than 450 news businesses have closed their doors. This is a crisis. Because so much time has been wasted for unfounded ideological reasons, a slew of media outlets, including small regional media, are on the brink of closure, and I find that outrageous. I think that these people should show their frustration by pounding a table and making sure their MPs hear them. It is absurd that Bill C‑18 cannot be studied sooner and that we must wait until the fall to discuss this urgent matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is the hon. member's reference to the TV and movie filming of Deadpool in Vancouver that made me think to rise and ask this question of him.

That is, of course, important programming and an important industry for the Vancouver area, but I want to ask him if he is aware of the fact that most of that kind of production value in Canada pays Canadian actors what is called “at scale”. They are not paid anything like what the U.S. actors who come in and get dropped into the community are paid, and a lot of the working crew comes in from the U.S. It does not employ Canadians. That is a lot of what I hope Bill C-11 may change in the future. I hope for a chance to really create a level playing ground, so that when Canada is used as the backdrop for films, even around a Canadian story, Canadians are not treated as second-class citizens.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Banff—Airdrie for his opinion of the direction the government has given to the CRTC to implement Bill C-11. What does he think of the direction? I have not seen it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, talk about seeing something that is just not there. I think conspiracy theory 101 is the lesson from the other side here. What Bill C-11 is all about is fairly straightforward. It is the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. It is as simple as that. Maybe the Conservatives get a gold star nowadays if they mention the word “freedom” in their speeches. I do not know where the member is getting the information from.

If the member wants to be consistent with what he said, does that mean the Conservative Party of Canada's new approach to the CRTC is to get rid of it? Are they saying the CRTC regulations should not be applied to other media streams? Is that what the Conservative Party's position is today?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of speech is a fundamental right in Canada. It is enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in fact. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

These rights are what makes Canada a modern democracy. They are not trivial principles. They should not be up for debate. Interfering with fundamental rights is the sign of a dying democracy, yet the Liberals have shown, time and time again, that they are dead set on desecrating this right by regulating and censoring the social media content that Canadians are able to see online.

I just want to go back a little with the history. This bill was first introduced back in November 2020, as Bill C-10, and by February 2021, the Liberals had removed a clause from the bill exempting user-generated content, which extended the legislation to encompass everyday social media content created by Canadians. Before the bill could pass in the last parliamentary session through both Houses of Parliament, I raised a point of order and exposed the Liberals' reckless approach to implementing this bill. I submitted in my point of order that several of the amendments to Bill C-10 that were made in committee needed to be struck down because the government's committee government members had grossly exceeded their authority in more ways than one.

This point of order, which was upheld in its ruling, effectively defeated the chances of the bill being able to proceed before the Liberals called their early election back in 2021. Then, of course, to no one's surprise, when Parliament reconvened after that election, the bill was re-introduced as Bill C-11, which we have before us.

In order to ensure its passage, the Liberals decided to pass Motion No. 11 in the House, which has allowed them to push through the passage of this legislation by bypassing standard procedure. When that was not enough, the Liberals decided to pass several motions to shorten the committee's study and to limit witnesses, and then accused Conservatives of filibustering every time we opposed one of those anti-democratic motions.

Last week, the Liberals finally moved closure through Motion No. 16 to force the bill through committee clause-by-clause consideration with limited or, in many cases, no debate. On June 14, just last week, the Canadian heritage committee was forced to sit from 11 in the morning until 12:15 at night to complete clause-by-clause of 172 pages of amendments, over 100 of which were passed without allowing for so much as one second of debate.

I would say that bypassing debate and rushing through an unprecedented bill is an insult to Canadians, and it only allows the government to avoid accountability. Parliament has a democratic responsibility to thoroughly examine the implications of Internet regulation, and Canadians deserve to know the truth about this deeply flawed bill. The Liberals are stifling freedom of speech by curtailing parliamentary process.

Ironically, by limiting MPs' ability to speak, the Liberals are symbolizing the censorship contained within this bill. The government does not just want to regulate the Internet and hinder freedom of speech, it is also determined to interfere with parliamentarians' right to speak and debate the same legislation that is looking to interfere with people's rights and freedoms.

Back to the bill itself, under the auspices of amending the Broadcasting Act, the legislation contained in Bill C-11 infringes on the rights and freedoms of every single Canadian who uses social media. This bill would give bureaucrats at the CRTC sweeping powers to regulate online social media content based on famously irrational criteria. It would allow the CRTC to decide what content it considers to be Canadian enough, and then force social media companies to promote that content and bury the so-called un-Canadian content, so it would be nearly impossible to find. This would effectively result in censorship.

Moreover, analysts are saying that the bill could allow the CRTC to automatically subscribe Canadians to a certain list of Canadian YouTube channels, such as the CBC, without even asking their permission. It already mandates that cable providers do this in the subscriptions they offer to Canadians, so for the CRTC officials, I am sure doing so online would only be the next logical step in their mind.

Essentially, the government has decided that Canadians are not responsible enough to choose for themselves what they want to see on social media, so it is turning on the parental controls. This notion that Canadians need to be made to watch certain content that has been deemed as socially and culturally appropriate by the government and discouraged from watching other content is the result of an out-of-touch, paternalistic approach to governing what seems to stem from Liberal elitism.

As it stands now, Bill C-11 would determine what content is Canadian enough based on a famously flawed and outdated points system, which was developed in the 1980s, decades before the advent of social media. This black and white points system designed for legacy media, has resulted in a series of truly embarrassing rulings from the CRTC in recent years. For example, an Amazon Prime series focused entirely on the Toronto Maple Leafs was ruled to be not Canadian enough under this points system. The film adaptation of the famed Canadian novel The Handmaid's Tale was also deemed to be not Canadian enough, and Deadpool, the award-winning Marvel movie based on a Canadian character, filmed in Vancouver and co-written by a Canadian, was also deemed to be not Canadian enough under this system.

Maybe we should take some comfort in the fact that the minister responsible has promised to review and update these criteria for determining what is Canadian enough, but, then again, maybe not. Strangely enough, the minister boasted about a meeting with the German minister of culture to consult with her about how to update these criteria for determining what should be considered Canadian content. He decided it would be a good idea to get on a plane, fly across the Atlantic on the taxpayer dime, and talk with Europeans about the best way to approach Canadian legislation on what is Canadian content. Maybe the minister could have consulted with Canadians instead. They are the people he has actually been elected to serve. This is just an idea.

Of course, the minister has said that he will not reveal how he is planning to change the rules until after the bill passes through Parliament. By doing this, he is leaving both Canadians and parliamentarians completely in the dark about what his legislation is going to look like in practice. It begs this question: What content will the Liberal government deem to be Canadian enough on people's social media? Will it have to be made by Canadian citizens? In that event, what about permanent residents or people here on study or work permits? Will it have to be produced in Canada? What would that mean for Canadians living abroad who make social media content? Will it have to be only in an official Canadian language? What would that mean, then, for cultural groups in Canada who speak another language?

Perhaps, and I suspect this is the actual plan, the Liberal government will require that content producers subscribe to a certain set of values to be truly considered Canadian content. The Liberals already demand faith-based groups to adhere to the Liberal Party's stance on certain issues to meet the eligibility criteria for the Canada summer jobs program. Therefore, it would be fair to assume that they will likely do the same in determining what content would be considered Canadian on the Internet or on social media.

The most alarming power given in this legislation is slipped into an unassuming clause buried in the text of the legislation that quietly allows the CRTC to create regulations “respecting such other matters as it deems necessary for the furtherance of its objects”. These 14 little words give the CRTC a blank cheque to act however it likes and arbitrarily create regulations whenever it feels it is necessary. CRTC bureaucrats are not elected officials, and they do not answer to Canadians. They should not be able to unilaterally create new regulations. It would be undoubtedly undemocratic to give them such broad, sweeping powers.

Under Bill C-11, the minister responsible assured Canadians that amateur content such as cooking videos or cat videos that people upload online would not be regulated under this proposed regulation, but officials at YouTube Canada were quick to respond to this comment by asserting that they had studied the legislation and the bill certainly would give the government the power to regulate amateur content.

I certainly know who I would believe with respect to that. That means that any content posted on any social media service could be subject to these arbitrary standards. One thing is clear. The Liberals are determined to censor our social media content, and that, by itself, is wrong.

On top of that, with the legislation being this broad, it is impossible to discern why something could be censored or the motivations behind it even. The Liberals are essentially saying to Canadians that they are going to censor what social media content we can access. They will not even tell us how they are going to censor it, but that it is okay and to just trust them on this one. I do not think so. I do not think most Canadians think so. We have seen far too many examples of the government trampling on charter rights to trust it.

We have seen how, under the Prime Minister, the government tested facial recognition technology on millions of travellers at Toronto Pearson International Airport without their knowledge or their consent. What happened to freedom?

We have seen how the government has been collecting cellphone data since the beginning of the pandemic without the consent of Canadians. What happened to freedom?

We have seen how, during a largely peaceful protest in downtown Ottawa, the government invoked the Emergencies Act to use unjustified and extraordinary powers against its own citizens. What happened to freedom?

We have seen how the government has discriminated against people based on their personal medical choices to bar them from air travel, despite a complete lack of scientific evidence. What happened to freedom?

In a recently revealed submission to the Department of Canadian Heritage, Twitter protested the recent proposals that would allow the government to block website access on the Canadian Internet saying that the measure would be similar to the kind of censorship found in places like China, North Korea and Iran. The submission goes on to say that the proposed measure “sacrifices freedom of expression to the creation of a government run system of surveillance of anyone who uses Twitter”. What happened to freedom?

The government is obviously not interested in respecting the rights or freedoms of people. The alternative to Bill C-11 is freedom. The only solution is to keep the government out of the equation.

Canada has long been home to many renowned actors, film makers, artists, performers and social media icons. It is belittling of the government to think that the only way Canadian art and culture can survive is through punitive legislation that forces people to watch it. The quality of Canadian content speaks for itself. The last thing it needs is to be propped up by a Liberal censorship regime.

Without government intervention, social media can continue to be a free market of ideas, content and information. Under this system, individual Canadians are left to decide for themselves what they want to see on social media. They will watch what they want to watch and ignore what they do not. Only under this self-regulating system can freedom truly exist.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months hence.”

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a multi-billion-dollar industry. As I said in my speech, the industry employs 165,000 Canadians, and it is not just traditional broadcasters or traditional industries but digital creators too, and we do not want to separate them; they are all artists. Digital creators and traditional creators are all creating and benefiting our economy. It is important that we stand up and contribute and grow that number of 165,000 people employed in this industry, and Bill C-11 will help us along that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this rare occasion, I actually had an amendment passed on Bill C-11, and it was with the aid and assistance of the hon. parliamentary secretary.

I wonder if he would like to expand on that experience of collaboration in the interest of community broadcasting and engagement of citizens through community non-profit activity, an aspect of Bill C-11 that has not been referenced much so far in this round.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to creators large and small across the country. We had Gord Sinclair of The Tragically Hip before our committee. The member for Kingston and the Islands will not like me phrasing it this way, but a band from a small town in eastern Ontario that grew to be a huge success across the country benefited from previous legislation. He came to our committee to say he wants to see the next Tragically Hip and that Bill C-11 will do that.

We have been hearing that from artists across the board who have had significant success, and some who have not. The artistic community has been united in their support, from what I have heard on Bill C-11, and it is something I ask all members of this House to pass so that we can get that help to our artists.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. I am going to give him a break from questions about censorship and the CRTC's control over the Internet, if Bill C-11—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as for controlling what Canadians watch, the Broadcasting Act regulates television. I do not make the member watch Roughriders games, nor does the government or the CRTC make him do that. If he wants to watch the BC Lions, he is free to do that. If he wants to watch American football, he is free to do that.

With respect to algorithms, the law specifically prohibits the CRTC from regulating algorithms. With respect to what Mr. Scott said, what the member and Conservatives have left out is that Mr. Scott said the current legislation, as drafted, already allows the CRTC to regulate online platforms, but that Bill C-11 builds a wall around it. Platforms will have obligations; users will not. That is how it has been for the last 50 years under the CRTC for traditional broadcasters. It will continue to be the same for online streamers.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to lead our consideration of third reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This is not our first time dealing with this type of legislation. Bill C-11 is largely the same as the previous bill, which was adopted by the House on June 2021. The main difference between the two are changes in the approach to social media and the correction of drafting errors.

Our government reintroduced reforms to the Broadcasting Act in February of this year. Our goal with this legislation is to modernize the act so that it continues to serve Canadians in an increasingly digital age. Bill C-11 also delivers on our government's promise to update the act in support of Canadian content.

We Canadians are known for our rich and diverse culture. This is no accident. Rather, it is a consequence of bold action taken in the past. Our culture is the result of deliberate decisions Canadians have taken to support it, not the least of which is the Broadcasting Act, a crucial piece of cultural legislation.

The Broadcasting Act is not new. It was last amended in 1991, when I was still at Mary Ward elementary school in Niagara Falls. The years since have seen a rapid innovation in all sectors regulated by the act. The Internet has gone from a rarity to something that we hold in the palm of our hands. TV Guides have been thrown out in favour of on-demand streaming. Music has become ubiquitous, thanks to robust digital libraries. Films are now more available and instantly accessible, more than ever before. It is like having a Blockbuster store right in our own home. If we are talking about 1991 references, that is a good one to make.

In short, how we produce, access and think about content has changed dramatically. Our updates to the Broadcasting Act will continue to serve Canadians now and in the future as well as it has in the past.

I would like to highlight four main ways the online streaming act will serve Canadians.

First, Bill C-11 will ensure greater representation in our entertainment media for minority communities in Canada. Diversity is a cornerstone of Canadian identity but it is not a given. Representation matters. We must make sure that all Canadians can see themselves reflected in the stories they engage with.

Bill C-11 makes it possible for minority communities to be better seen and heard in our digital media. Some of these communities include francophones, indigenous peoples, minority language communities, LGBTQ+ persons and persons with disabilities. Canadian programming is telling those stories. It is up to us to make sure those voices are heard loud and clear, and that even more diverse voices can join them. Kim's Convenience, a show produced by CBC, follows a Korean family who runs a small business in Toronto, a distinctly Canadian experience. Schitt's Creek, another Canadian television program, leads with LGBTQ2S+ characters.

It is stories such as these that make us proud to be Canadian. They make us feel at home and they also make us feel seen and heard. We must not underestimate the power of seeing these kinds of stories on our screens. We must take action to make a welcoming space online for a diverse chorus of voices. This action includes taking steps regarding allocation of resources, which brings me to my second point.

The audiovisual interactive media sectors contributed over $19 billion to Canada's GDP in 2020. It is an important segment of the Canadian economy, yet industry trends are worrisome. Current market trends anticipate a decrease in the production of Canadian television content by approximately half a billion dollars by 2025, compared to 2020. That is a 13% decrease and 13% fewer Canadian voices to be heard.

The year 2020 was not an optimal year either. That year, Canadian television production declined by $320 million compared to 2018. These numbers are not figments of our imagination. They are facts. The industry is telling us that it needs our support and we should listen. Bill C-11 proposes interventions that can change the trajectory of these projections. If passed, the Department of Canadian Heritage projects that Canada's cultural production ecosystem could benefit by more than $1 billion annually in mandated contributions. Greater financing means that additional funding would be available to Canadian productions, which would lead to more diversity in our broadcasting.

The risk is not purely economic. We are also risking the livelihood of tens of thousands of Canadians. Film, television and broadcasting production sectors represent 165,000 jobs. We need to protect the stability of those employment opportunities, especially as we come out of a pandemic.

The pandemic limited the revenue steams of Canadian artists and creators. Many had to reinvent how they share their gifts with the world. We all benefited from their resilience. We found solace in their music, we travelled through film and we experienced community through television. Creators are there when we need them, and Bill C-11 is our way to give back to them.

Creators told us they did not want to be subject to regulations in the online streaming act, and we listened. Their work will not be considered commercial, regardless of how much money they make. Our legislation would ensure that productions of digital-first creators do not face additional hurdles. Traditional broadcasters have long been subjected to certain requirements that bolster Canadian creators. We must ensure that new broadcasters, such as streaming platforms, offer our sectors the same backing. Bill C-11 would make that a reality.

My fourth point is to do with the support of artistic innovation. We wrote Bill C-11 to advance artistic innovation, not to hinder it. One of the ways we would be advancing innovation would be by changing our primary regulatory tool. As it stands, broadcasters must obtain broadcasting licences from the CRTC before they can operate in Canada. This is the bread and butter of current regulations. In this legislation, we have adopted a new approach: the condition-of-service model. Under our new model, broadcasters, both traditional and digital, could operate in Canada as long as they respect the conditions laid out by the CRTC.

The new conditions of service could be updated at any time. Previously, updates would only be made during the licensing renewal process, or every five to seven years. Our proposed model would give the CRTC the ability to seek contributions from broadcasters in support of Canadian storytellers, be they musicians, TV producers or filmmakers. All of these updates would ensure that regulations can evolve alongside the industry, rather than chasing to keep up.

I would like to change gears for a moment. I have laid out the four key things the online streaming act would do to improve cultural development and equity in Canada, but let us take some time to look at what the act would not do.

I will start with the most fundamental point. Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet. I will say it again, because we hear it from the other side: Bill C-11 would not regulate the Internet. Traditional broadcasters have been regulated by the Broadcasting Act for decades. Television personalities were never regulated by the Broadcasting Act. This principle would not change under Bill C-11. The legislation would update our definition of “broadcasters” to include the platforms many of us get our content from.

The online steaming act would regulate foreign streaming companies, such as Netflix and Spotify, and domestic ones, such as Crave. Social media platforms that function as broadcasters, such as YouTube, could also fall under these regulations, but only the social media service itself would have responsibilities under Bill C-11. Content creators would not be subject to regulations. Platforms are in, and users are out.

Bill C-11 would not control what Canadians view online. On the contrary, it would pave the way for folks to view more Canadian content. With Bill C-11 we would be making it possible for Canadians to create more stories that resonate with their fellow Canadians. This fact goes back to my earlier point about the need for equal representation on our screens and in our earphones. We want to ensure that Canadians in the cultural industry face no closed doors when they tell their stories. The online streaming act would not limit the choices of Canadians, and this bill would create more choices for consumption, not less.

I want to assure every Canadian that, if this bill becomes law, their ability to choose what they watch and what they listen to would not change. We will always protect Canadians' freedom of expression.

The legislation would not overturn the Broadcasting Act. It would modernize the Broadcasting Act so that the good of that legislation continues to be experienced by future generations of Canadians for years to come. History has shown us the importance of supporting broadcasting through legislation. Thanks to the Broadcasting Act and the work of parliamentarians who passed and amended it, we grew up consuming and loving Canadian content. This content has played a role in establishing our collective identity.

Our country is vast. Geographic separation can isolate us from province to province, territory to territory and region to region. Our shared experience of viewing and listening transcends the distance. It is one of the things that unites us. The actions and achievements of past parliamentarians made it possible to hear languages we did not speak, to see coasts of our country we had not seen and to listen to music unlike what we heard in our homes.

Our job is hold open even richer cultural experiences for coming generations of Canadians. Part of my identity as a Canadian is thanks to people who saw value in giving me those experiences. I would like to return the favour for future generations.

The COVID pandemic was a challenge for many of us. We watched local businesses struggle, community theatres close and film productions cease. Despite all of this disruption and chaos, many large streaming platforms had pandemic gains. Netflix is one example. The company gained 16 million new subscribers at the beginning of the pandemic. Fairness is paramount, and streaming services should hold no preference. As they solidify their place in our media landscape, they must be subject to wise and fair regulations. Bill C-11 could require online streaming platforms to contribute to the production of Canadian audio or audiovisual content. This bill could also require them to financially support the training of Canadian creators. This kind of financial support makes a big difference in the lives of many people.

Bill C-11 is before us today, thanks to the dedication of Canadians, public servants, industry professionals and parliamentarians. The Broadcasting Act guided the creation of great Canadian content for many years. We are grateful for the experiences it enabled us to share in the current era it helped us usher in, but we cannot let past decisions determine what tomorrow looks like. It is time for Canada to take greater control in today's digital era to fight for greater representation; to strengthen cultural growth and cultural sectors; to safeguard jobs and music, film and television production; and to evolve with the times and not fall behind them.

I am proud to stand behind legislation that will help Canada do that. I would like to commend the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his passionate defence of this legislation. His leadership has been critical in getting the bill to this point. I would also like to thank the Minister of Environment for the work he did on this legislation when he was the minister of Canadian heritage.

Now it is our turn to act. In passing this legislation, we will bring about a new era of Canadian content creation. We will ensure a promising future for our artists, our creators and our storytellers. We will shape what future generations think of when they picture what it means to be Canadian. Let us give them a future they can see themselves in.

With that, I invite my hon. colleagues to support this legislation.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to an order made on May 2, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-11 at the third reading stage.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved

that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-11.

Call in the members.

The question is on Motion No. 1.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Bill C-11

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are down to the last week for the government to attempt to ram through legislation through the final session since the last unnecessary election in the fall.

There remain more questions than answers about Bill C-11. Is user-generated content covered under the act or not? Does the wording of the bill allow for platforms to censor or not? With the government bulldozing through fulsome debate on this legislation, it appears that these questions will remain unanswered.

The irony of stifling the freedom to speak in the House on the very bill that has the greatest consequences of freedom of speech in our country's history cannot be understated. Whether it is of the heritage minister, the public safety minister, the emergency preparedness minister or the Prime Minister, this bill is another example of the government's disdain for the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

Online Streaming Act

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask the member if his party understands that the proposed changes in Bill C-11 include user-generated content creators generally but provide exceptions only to professional content providers who are generating revenue.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I share his concerns. He also made reference to people that he and his party consulted. Unfortunately, we have noticed that it is always the same person who is consulted, while the member for Drummond has long consulted all the organizations that represent content creators and the creative industry. They are in favour of Bill C‑11 and they also agree that it is urgent to pass it.

I would ask my colleague to explain to us the source of all these concerns expressed by the only person, just about, that they consulted.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about Chad, who lives in the Upper Stoney Creek portion of my constituency. Chad is a digital creator who is concerned about the threat Bill C-11 poses to his livelihood. Chad is not alone by any means. We have seen dozens of Canadian content creators testify at the heritage committee to their deep concern with regard to this bill.

Chad told me that Canadian content creators are thriving with open social media platforms and, in fact, 90% of all viewer traffic on Canadian YouTube channels comes from international audiences. Let me put that another way: Canadian content creators export 90% of their product. Every Canadian knows that the world is a consumer of Canadian content. Our talented comedians, musicians and other artists are the content creators, just like Chad, who do a fantastic job of making sure that people from around the world get a glimpse of our great nation. Therefore, why is the government failing Canadian content creators again? Prominent YouTube artist J.J. McCullough, who testified before the heritage committee, said, “I also worry that the dreams of the next generation of Canadian YouTubers will become less achievable once they're forced to navigate intimidating new regulatory hurdles my generation did not.”

It is the same government that is already failing young Canadians in so many ways. As they struggle to fill up their tank to drive to work each week, as they are no longer able to achieve the dream of home ownership, and as they struggle to keep up to the costs of living because of generationally high inflation rates, now the government introduces a bill that would place hurdles on the ability of young Canadians to succeed in one of the few sectors of the economy that has flourished during the last two years. Instead, it is putting big print media companies first. With respect to this bill, if it were really concerned about content creators, then why would it not put content creators first? Why are the Liberals so against it?

I know that Professor Michael Geist was a speaker at one of the committees. He is the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He expressed this concern and I will quote. He said, “Canada punches above its weight when it comes to the creation of this content, which is worth billions of revenue globally.... We are talking about an enormous potential revenue loss for Canadian content producers.”

The article then states, “Geist says [that] would make platforms including YouTube and TikTok 'force-feed Canadian content' that people might not usually choose to watch, rather than curated content matched to their preferences.” It then continues, “If people do not select Canadian content they are offered, or if they indicate they don’t like it or choose another video instead, it could lead to content that wasn’t chosen, disliked or not watched to the end automatically being downgraded around the world.”

Therefore, why would this bill be placing power in the hands of the government to make these decisions? I might add that this is the government that cannot manage the passport system, as we have seen with the ridiculously long lines at Service Canada offices across the country. Why would we trust the same government to regulate content creation, which is a space which, by its definition, needs to be nimble, flexible and dynamic?

The concerns over Bill C-11 are not limited to detrimental effects on the livelihood of Canadian content creators, but extend to the right of free speech, which is a core identity of Canadians. If the last few years have taught us anything, it is that open social media platforms are vital and crucial for us as we maintain our social connections. Podcasts and the simple joys of sharing videos of puppies and kittens and such with friends could be heavily regulated and restricted if this legislation goes through. These are examples of social media content that have seen great success without government regulation, but that would be controlled by the CRTC, a bureaucracy which would needlessly clamp down on social media platforms.

The government is failing Canadians in the sense that it is introducing legislation that would reduce choices in content that have given Canadians relief over the course of the past number of years. What also gives constituents and I concern is the threat to the ability of Canadians to freely express themselves without government interference.

Poet Maya Angelou once said to watch people's feet, not their lips. The Liberal talking point is that they want free speech and do not want to curtail it. This happens to be the very process to discuss Bill C-11, and it is a sham. We are seeing the Liberals stopping and silencing debate, not just in committee, but also in this chamber. This is ironic, because the Minister of Canadian Heritage was recently reported in the Globe and Mail saying that the Senate is not going to look at this before the summer, and recently the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, estimated that it could take two years to implement Bill C-11. What is the rush? Why is there curtailing of debate on this bill in this House? Canadians need to stop watching the Liberals' lips and start watching their feet.

The impact that this legislation would have on freedom of speech is a serious concern for many in Flamborough—Glanbrook, who have sent hundreds of emails and made dozens of calls to my office, and I have to say the overwhelming majority are opposed to Bill C-11. As an example, Christina and Albert from Mount Hope emailed my office to express their concerns about the vagueness of the legislation and how it would allow for almost unhindered regulation of the Internet by the CRTC and, in turn, would influence what social media posts Canadians can see. Christina and Albert were also concerned with the possibility that those views that differ from the government’s might be more readily clamped down on in social media, because the CRTC would have regulatory control over the Internet. There are similar concerns from Harry in Lynden, in my constituency, as well as Arie in Mount Hope. Their overall concern is the limiting of the content they might watch or the content they might create and post.

I share the concerns of my constituents. We are proud as Canadians that Canada is seen internationally as a beacon of democracy, but this legislation and the limitations it would have on free speech are a betrayal of those freedoms that we certainly cherish and promote worldwide.

I know my time is winding down, so let me conclude.

For these reasons, Canadians are rightly concerned about this bill, its contents and the process by which it is being pushed through this chamber. This is why I stand with the people who have contacted my office and taken the time to call or write, with the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook and with my Conservative colleagues and urge everyone to vote against Bill C-11.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, as my hon. friend opposite did, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-11, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my father, as Father's Day is coming up this weekend. I thank him for all his love, guidance and support over the years. He is currently undergoing chemotherapy and is not feeling 100% himself. However, my three brothers, my mother, all of our extended family and I know he will be back to 110% soon. I just want to say we love him.

I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-11. Although I believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be renewed, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-11 because, in many ways, it is simply a revival of the flawed and failed Bill C-10 from the previous Parliament.

The government claims that Bill C-11 is being introduced to protect Canadian content creators. However, the bill fails, as many such entrepreneurs are opposed to this legislation. The bill fails, for example, Chad, who lives in Upper Stoney Creek in—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I was glad to see that amendments were made regarding user-generated providers. I wonder if the member could help clarify what the amendments would mean if Bill C-11 were to pass.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, digital creators are a future source of our culture. They are going to continue to tell stories. Many of them are already artists in the existing ecosystem here.

In no way will this bill have the CRTC regulating their content. The CRTC is working with the platforms themselves. That is why there is flexibility between the regulation and the legislation we have right now. The legislation will give the CRTC the tools to work with the platforms, but according to proposed subsection 2.1 of Bill C-11, the user content itself, even for digital first creators, will not be subject to the Broadcasting Act.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, in plain language, that means that any users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters. They will not face any obligations under the act. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue.

With this approach, the experience for users creating, posting and interacting with other user-generated content will not be impacted whatsoever, while still standardizing the treatment of commercial content such as TV shows and songs across the platform. We studied this and it is very clear. It is a little hard to explain in legalese, but the bottom line is that music content creations are exempt.

The other misinformation that has been floating around is on freedom of expression issues. Just to be clear, clause 12 of the online streaming act explicitly states that any regulation the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. It states:

For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.‍1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings.

Freedom of expression is protected under the charter and would be protected in the online streaming act. Artists are at the forefront of protecting freedom of speech. It is our arts that allow us to push these conversations. Every single arts stakeholder I have met supports this bill and free speech. I am putting that misinformation aside.

I am a recording artist. The arts sector is how I was proudly able to make a living for my entire life before having the privilege of serving my community and my country as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Conestoga. As an artist, I felt support from fellow Canadians. I felt support from Canada. We are proud of our artists, and they deserve our respect and support.

During the pandemic, we turned to our artists to make sense of the experiences we were going through. It was the stories, the books, the shows and the music that got us through the pandemic. I have said on more than one occasion that science is getting us out of the pandemic, but arts is getting us through it. We need to support our arts sector. It is one of the hardest-hit sectors in all of the economy and is taking the longest to recover as we move out of the pandemic. That is another reason this bill is so important. We need to show our artists that we support them.

I sit on the heritage committee and was at every meeting on Bill C-11 and at every meeting on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. I have studied this. I met with countless stakeholders, individuals and organizations, and they are expressing the fact that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated. Our arts and culture industry is telling us how vital and urgent this legislation will be for it, and we are listening.

I try not to get political in the House, but I find that politics has been creeping back in. The Conservatives have used every tactic in their tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. They did not allow the committee to get to clause-by-clause with their filibustering. They went as far as to filibuster their own study motion at one point. They said they had questions for the CRTC and then filibustered a whole meeting while the head of the CRTC and officials sat there and could not appear to answer the very questions we wanted to ask. The Conservatives said they wanted to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and then filibustered a whole meeting while the minister sat there. He could not appear to answer the questions we needed to ask. It has been deeply disappointing, because those stalling tactics are wasteful and prevent us from helping our artists.

I will not stop advocating in support of our artists. I appreciate the co-operation of every party except the Conservatives. We have worked together to move things forward. We have co-operated, we have contributed to amendments and we have had conversations. I truly do not understand why the Conservatives are supporting the foreign tech giants over our own Canadian artists.

I would like to quote Marla Boltman from an organization called Friends, who summed it up very nicely. She said:

Requiring contributions from foreign tech giants that extract billions of dollars from our country will help sustain our industry while driving investment and innovation in the creation of Canadian content that continues to reflect our diversity of voices and who we are as Canadians. Foreign contributions will level the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and foreign platforms.... If you benefit from the system, you must contribute to it.

I could not agree more.

Bill C-11 is about fairness. It is about supporting our cultural sector. It is about having the power to shape our culture and make sure that everyone can see themselves in our culture. It is about being proud of who we are and being proud of Canadians. That is why I think it is important to keep moving on this important legislation, and why I will be supporting it.

I just want to say that, as a musician myself, some of my earliest memories of playing were in our small apartment on the piano. My dad would pick up his bass. He used to play bass in the day. That is part of the way I learned how to play music, just playing some rock and roll songs. I actually thought my dad wrote all those Beatles' tunes we used to play. I did not find that out until later.

As it is Father's Day, I want to say a personal happy Father's Day to my dad and to all the fathers and father figures out there who have supported the next generation of artists.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11. For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and our radios. This is no accident. We support our cultural sovereignty. It is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, it is our present and it is our future. It is how we tell our stories to each other. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. That is why we have the Canadian content that we are so proud of.

Here is what has changed. Online streaming platforms are the new broadcasters, yet they do not have to play by the same rules. Online streaming is the norm. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. That is why the government introduced Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This bill ensures that online streamers contribute in an equitable but flexible way to the creation of Canadian content, and ensures that Canadians can find that content on their platforms.

Now, let us talk about what this bill would not do. This bill would not impose regulations on content that everyday Canadians post on social media. This bill would not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. This bill would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms, and this bill would not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.

We have heard a lot of misinformation. My colleague just mentioned previously that a lot of emails have come in with a lot of confusion and misinformation, and I believe that is deliberate. I was going to address two of the issues that we might be hearing some of the most misinformation about in the Online Streaming Act.

First is the fact that user-generated content is excluded. People ask where that is in the legislation. The bill explicitly excludes all user-generated content in social media platforms and streaming services. I will read the subsection. Subsection 2.1 of Bill C-11 states:

A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service — and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act.

In plain language, that means that users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters and therefore they will not face any obligations under the act. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver East on a per-capita basis, we actually have the largest number of artists in our community. They are actually very much looking forward to the passage of Bill C-11.

Can the member explain to the Conservative members why this bill is so important to artists?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a disturbing undercurrent that we saw bring the United States right to the edge of having a coup d'état. The kind of disinformation that drives people from the far right, the far-right extremists, is something we have to be very acutely conscious of. The comments from Conservative MPs that, somehow, Bill C-11 is going to allow the government to follow people on cellphones, and the odious comparisons with the murderous dictatorship in North Korea are unbelievably inappropriate comments made on the floor of the House of Commons.

This is very disturbing. We have to push back against Republican-style disinformation from many, but not all, Conservative MPs. Some Conservative MPs still respect Parliament. The ones who do not, though, need to be called out.

That is why we have spoken specifically on the bill and specifically on the provisions that we have improved. It is an effort to get real information out to Canadians. Shame on the Conservatives for what they have said through the course of the last few months.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I just wanted to suggest that Conservatives actually read legislation.

Second, they should actually listen to witnesses when they come before committee, rather than blocking them from testifying.

Third, they should actually offer improvements to legislation. That is the role that we have here. That is why the NDP has been the real effective opposition in the House of Commons. Yes, we are seeking to oppose when it is warranted, but above all we are seeking to make sure that things in the House of Commons are done in the best interests of Canadians. The NDP influence on Bill C-11 has been undeniable, in terms of improving it, including aspects of freedom of expression.

That is the kind of work all members of Parliament should be doing.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise. I certainly salute the numerous colleagues, such as the member for Shefford and the member for Kingston and the Islands, who have actually addressed the bill. They have obviously read it. This is very important.

What is unbelievable to me is the over-the-top, crazed, Republican-style rhetoric that we have heard from the Conservatives over the last few weeks. This is very simple. There were the equivalent of five weeks of hearings, and the vast majority of witnesses who came forward, as members know, were in favour of the bill but wanted improvements. I will be pleased in a moment to talk about how the NDP was successful in improving the bill, playing our role yet again as the effective opposition party and pushing to make sure that bills are better.

After the equivalent of five weeks of hearings, for two weeks the Conservatives blocked witnesses, refused to let the amendments that had already been submitted be discussed and debated, and blocked everything. They completely filibustered so that nothing could move forward. We have seen the same sad travesty here in the House. The Conservatives, ever since they basically imploded six months ago, have refused to let anything good go through the House for the benefit of Canadians. It is sad. The Conservative Party used to be a respected opposition party, but what it has done over the last few months undermines that.

I will say that there are members of the Conservative caucus whom I have a lot of confidence in, including the member for Perth—Wellington. I wish that his voice was heard more often in the Conservative caucus.

That being said, what did the NDP do? The New Democrats brought forward a series of amendments. We wanted to make sure the bill was stronger. That is our role. As the effective opposition in the House of Commons, we tackled it from five standpoints.

First, when we looked at Bill C-11, we wanted to make sure that we renew broadcasting in Canada and that online companies actually pay their fair share. We are talking about $1 billion in investments. That means tens of thousands of jobs right across the country. This will mean a significant renaissance of the Canadian creative and cultural industries. There is no doubt.

We also wanted to make sure we broke down barriers for marginalized peoples in Canada, so we tabled Bill C-11 and successfully got it through the committee. It is now before the House for consideration at report stage, and hopefully it will get to third reading as well. There are substantial improvements that break down barriers for Black and racialized Canadians in broadcasting, for indigenous peoples, indigenous culture, indigenous voices and indigenous languages, and for people with disabilities. Canadians with disabilities have been excluded from the broadcasting system and from online streaming for far too long. Those are important barriers that the New Democrats broke down, and we are proud of our accomplishments. We want to compliment the members of the heritage committee who voted for those far-reaching amendments.

Second, we wanted to renew community broadcasting. The disinformation and Republican-style rhetoric of the Conservative Party, and the hate we have seen with the “freedom convoy” that many Conservative MPs endorsed, are things that really need a renewal at the community level. Hate and disinformation come from the fact that we do not know our neighbours, and the erosion of community media and community voices has unfortunately contributed to the amplification of the hate and disinformation in our country that we are all seeing.

The NDP tabled this, and again a majority of members of the heritage committee agreed with the idea that we have to reinforce community voices, community media, community broadcasting and community radio. I would like to thank CACTUS and numerous other community organizations that offered important amendments so that we could improve community broadcasting and know our neighbours better. The best antidote to the hate and disinformation we are seeing from the Republicans in the United States and the far right in Canada is to ensure that we know our neighbours and appreciate them. That was an important second series of amendments we brought forward.

Third, we wanted to reinforce freedom of expression. Unanimously, members of the heritage committee agreed, and that means freedom of expression is now paramount in this legislation.

Fourth, we wanted to make sure that Canadian jobs and Canadian broadcasting were enhanced. We have $1 billion now, which is substantial. It is a massive increase in the resources available to Canadian cultural industries. We wanted to make sure it assures there are Canadian jobs, so we tabled with success a number of amendments that enhance the Canadian employment and Canadian jobs component.

Finally, we wanted to ensure more accountability for the CRTC, and we were successful in that endeavour as well.

As a result, what we have is a Bill C-11 that is better and more improved. We are happy that we were able to use our effective opposition voice not to destroy, block or stop any consideration, but to improve this important bill.

It is worth mentioning that the vast majority of witnesses who testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage were in favour of this bill. Even the Conservatives have to admit that these witnesses said that the bill must be passed. Dozens and dozens of organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Canadians from across the country told us that this bill should be passed, but that it had to be improved.

The NDP proposed amendments to improve accessibility for marginalized people, people with disabilities, indigenous peoples and racialized people in Canada, and these amendments were adopted. These measures will improve the bill overall. We also succeeded in getting the number of local and community programs increased. The fact that the CRTC will now be more accountable to Canadians is another NDP success. Canadian jobs are another very important aspect of the bill. We wanted freedom of expression to come above everything else, and the NDP's amendment in that respect was successful.

The reality is that the equivalent of five weeks of meetings were held with regard to the bill before us, during which we heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses. We can say that we met the expectations of these witnesses by ensuring that the bill is better now than it was when the committee got it.

Even though I am disappointed with the Conservatives for holding up all the work for weeks, refusing to hear from witnesses and consider amendments, and refusing to do everything necessary to improve the bill, I think that what did come out of the committee study was an improved version of Bill C-11. There is more transparency. All of the work that we have done over the past few weeks has resulted in a better bill.

I would like to say one last thing. Bill C‑11 and the fact that we have managed to make more Canadian voices heard are another way to counter disinformation. There is not just disinformation around Bill C‑11. In the United States, Republican disinformation is currently a major issue because it is warping democracy and undermining the very essence of voting. This hate coming out of the United States, this disinformation, must be kept out of Canada as much as possible.

We saw the hate expressed by the so-called “freedom convoy”. At that time, we saw that these people wanted to take down our democracy, take down Canada's Parliament. Some of the Conservative members supported that. The way to counter disinformation is to provide more information. That is also one of the objectives of the improved version of Bill C‑11.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member for Lethbridge gave the example of a Canadian content creator on YouTube who worries about not being included in the digital landscape, if Bill C‑11 is passed, and about their voice being silenced by the government.

In an effort to set the record straight, could my colleague indicate whether this theory is correct?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑11 at report stage. Let me start by saying that this bill matters a lot to the Bloc Québécois and has since the last Parliament.

I spoke in favour of this bill in a speech last month. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work of my colleague from Drummond, who has devoted himself, body and soul, to this bill ever since its previous incarnation as Bill C‑10. He deserves every bit of the applause I am hearing right now.

I will begin my speech today with a reminder about how important Bill C‑11 is to the discoverability of francophone culture. I will move on to a reminder about the importance of local media, and I will wrap up with an expression of hope regarding the importance of fighting misinformation, which has had such an impact on this parliamentary session.

As I was drafting my speech, I came across the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The CDCE states that Bill C‑11, which updates the Broadcasting Act, is one of Canada's important and long-awaited cultural policies. On its website, the CDCE has what I think is a very good summary of the importance of Bill C‑11.

It ensures that Canadian creations and productions have a prominent place on our airwaves and on our screens, and that the companies generating revenues from access to culture in the music and audiovisual sectors contribute to their creation, development and distribution.

Canadians are increasingly accessing culture through online platforms. Much of the broadcasting ecosystem is transitioning to digital content. This has a number of benefits for the public and for creators: increased access to a variety of stories, music and ideas, increased opportunities for creators to launch their work, and renewed ability to reach audiences in Canada and around the world...

Many large corporations take advantage of this digital age without any obligation to contribute. Artists, creators, producers, publishers and other professionals of the music and audiovisual industries, as well as for Canadian society, do not reap the potential benefits of investment in the Canadian cultural ecosystem. C-11 was introduced to correct this unfairness.

Unfairness is indeed a problem.

The purpose of the new bill essentially remains the same as the previous one, namely to apply the Broadcasting Act to the web giants by forcing them to contribute financially to the creation and discovery of Canadian cultural content.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, will receive new powers that will allow it to determine which online services will have to be regulated and what quotas will need to be respected. Bill C‑11 will help better regulate video streamers such as Netflix, Apple and TV Plus, Disney+, Prime Video, but also companies that specialize in streaming music online such as Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music. The bill will require them to contribute to Canadian content when commercial items such as albums are downloaded and distributed on platforms.

However, the exclusion clause, namely clause 4.1, addressed earlier, has been revised. Now creators, users and social media influencers are exempt from the legislation. The money a creator earns from their content is immaterial in the eyes of the new legislation. So‑called amateur content on social media would be exempt. The legislation focuses specifically on commercial products.

The level of monetization of the use of content in full or in part by a broadcasting undertaking regulated by the CRTC will, among other things, be taken into consideration. The CRTC will also have the option to impose conditions associated with discoverability and the development of Canadian content.

The bill will not touch the algorithms that can influence the recommendations made to users, and that is very important. The Department of Canadian Heritage says it wants to focus on discoverability outcomes and not intervene directly with respect to web giants' algorithms. There are still questions to be asked, for example, on whether the two are not already intertwined and whether greater discoverability of Canadian and francophone content is necessarily dependent on algorithms.

In our case, it is the outcome that counts. Quebec, francophone and Canadian content must be much more accessible on platforms. Ottawa is trying to give the CRTC the power to hold discussions with each of the digital companies to determine how much they should contribute to Canadian content based on their business model. The CRTC will be able to impose administrative and monetary penalties on those digital broadcasters that refuse to comply with the Broadcasting Act.

Finally, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is proposing other legislative changes in his bill that will apply to all broadcasters, traditional or otherwise. The law should also strengthen programs produced by Canadians that cover news and current events—from the local and regional to the national and international—and that reflect the viewpoints of Canadians, including the viewpoints of indigenous persons and of Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds.

After everything we just talked about with regard to this legislation, I also want to mention the gains that the Bloc Québécois was able to secure with Bill C-11.

The Bloc Québécois did a lot to improve the previous version of the bill, namely Bill C-10, by ensuring the protection and promotion of original French-language programs; the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian content, including French-language original content, in an equitable proportion; the promotion of original Canadian content in both official languages and in indigenous languages; a mandatory contribution to Canada's broadcasting system if a company is unable to make use of Canadian resources as part of its programming; the requirement for first-run French-language content, in order to ensure there are new French-language shows on Netflix, for example, and not old ones; and a sunset clause that would provide for a comprehensive review of the act every five years.

This is very important, because we will thoroughly review C‑11 and meet with the various industry stakeholders and experts to get a sense of what is happening in the industry. We will have to keep evolving this law. We will not hesitate to try to improve it, if necessary, and we will surely propose again many of the hundreds of amendments that were rejected in the spring. Some of our proposals would have made improvements for local, community and independent players, for example.

We have to keep in mind we want a piece of legislation that will not be obsolete as soon as it is passed. Technology is developing very quickly, and we need a long-term vision to ensure that the act does not become outdated after just a few years. Flexible legislation is important, especially since Quebec's and Canada's cultural sectors have been waiting for decades for this act to be updated.

The cultural sector made a simple demand just a few days after Bill C‑11 was introduced. We need to ensure that this bill is passed quickly. The sector has waited long enough.

In May 2021, on Tout le monde en parle, even the former minister of Canadian Heritage said that every month that goes by without us enacting Bill C-10, now Bill C-11, represents more than $70 million that does not go to our artists in Quebec and Canada.

Second, do not forget that, like Bill C-18, which specifically focuses on assistance to print media and is based on the Australian model, Bill C-11 also fits into the context of this media crisis.

Since their inception, Facebook, Twitter and Google have been appropriating news articles and reports without giving any compensation to the authors or the media outlets concerned. For too many years, the digital giants have therefore been instrumental in dismantling our traditional media. This phenomenon began with national advertisers deserting traditional media for Facebook and Google, later followed by local advertisers, who also stopped buying advertising in local weeklies in favour of the giants.

Advertising on digital platforms is now the property of Google and Facebook, which alone are pocketing 80% of online ad revenue. Moreover, digital giants pay nothing for journalistic content that ends up on their platform, and they disregard the copyright of journalists whose work others share on social media.

Third, I really want to talk about misinformation, especially since there has been so much of it in connection with Bill C‑11: cat videos that will not be allowed to circulate, freedom of expression denied and information controlled, like in Russia. I have heard so many shocking things during the debates on this issue.

Just this week, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed concerns about the impact of misinformation on the health of our democratic institutions. He pointed to the demonstration in downtown Ottawa that paralyzed the city for three weeks, but he emphasized the importance of our shared responsibility to fight ignorance and hatred, which lead to misinformation. He expressed one wish for people in positions of authority, such as ourselves, namely that we pay more attention to the statements we make and their veracity.

I also replaced a colleague at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during its deliberations on radicalization and online hate. We cannot continue to ignore our role as elected representatives in the deterioration of public discourse on topics like Bill C-11 and in the divisiveness that exists. I hope to see this place debating a bill to address online hate sooner rather than later.

As a final point, I do not know whether this will be my last speech of the session, so I want to remind everyone listening of my unwavering commitment to the people of Shefford. I always keep in mind that I am accountable to my constituents, first and foremost, and, in this case, I am thinking of our local media in particular. I want nothing but the very best for the people of my region who have a right to access francophone cultural products, and for our artists, who have such an important and vibrant presence in our communities. They have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, so they need some good news. Let us do something for them and pass Bill C-11.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

The online streaming act would help ensure a strong place for Canadian stories and music in the digital world. It would make the online streaming platforms contribute their fair share to our culture. The bill is based on the simple premise that those who benefit from the system must contribute to it. This has been the approach in Canada for over 50 years, and the results speak for themselves. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have to invest in our culture and arts. That is why we all have the Canadian content that we love so much.

I grew up on a small, quiet street in Kingston, Ontario. Five doors down from me were the Sinclairs and across the street from them were the Bakers. Little did I know, as an eight- and nine-year-old paperboy delivering papers around the street, that every time I passed by the Bakers' house and heard this loud music coming from the basement I was actually witnessing the formation of The Tragically Hip. Later on, they became the incredibly successful band that we have all come to know and love in Canada.

Gord Sinclair, one of the members of the band, appeared before committee. I listened to his testimony at committee and would like to share it with the House because I think it is extremely important and properly illustrates why this type of legislation is very badly needed. I believe that it belongs in Hansard.

Gord said this in his statement:

My name is Gord Sinclair, and I am a member of The Tragically Hip. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

The Hip set out from Kingston, Ontario, in the mid-1980s, and our journey—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Madam Speaker, considering the current trend of the current government, I certainly do not take it for granted that I am able to stand in this place and freely deliver a speech in the House of Commons, particularly when I am critiquing government legislation.

Bill C-11 would put the CRTC in charge of regulating the Internet. That is what we are discussing today. Former CRTC commissioners and other qualified critics have spoken to this legislation and have made it clear that it is an overreach and a violation of Canadians’ right to freedom of expression.

From the beginning, I have been a vocal opponent of this bill and I have laid out my case for that. However, today I will remind Canadians and this House of the concerns I hold, shared by colleagues on this side of the House. Because of my outspoken nature on this bill, I have been ridiculed, criticized and even called names by those across the way. That has been hurtful and it has been harmful, but I have proceeded. The reason for this is that I am not elected to serve the government. I am not elected to make sure its legislation gets through. I was put here by Canadians for Canadians, and it is with them in mind that I stand in this place. It is with them in mind that I also fight against this incredibly draconian and regressive piece of legislation that attacks their charter rights as Canadians.

There are two things I wish to address today: one, the process that was followed with this legislation; and two, the content.

Let us start with the process. I would be remiss if I did not mention the travesty that took place this past Tuesday. While most Canadians were sleeping, the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage met and were forced to vote on amendments without them being read into the public record, which simply means that numbers were given and members were asked to vote. The public was unsure of what we were voting on and what it meant for them. There was zero transparency. There was no debate, no discussion and no questions. “Just shut up and vote” was the message given. The process was cloaked in secrecy and was an inexcusable assault on democracy. Having been forced through the committee, the bill is now before the House and will soon be forced on to the Senate.

Let me dive into the content of this bill. The heritage minister has been extremely misleading. He has told Canadians that more government control over Internet content will somehow promote Canadian culture and help artists. This could not be further from the truth.

My Conservative colleagues and I have met with industry experts and with digital-first creators, those who produce content for TikTok, YouTube, etc., and they have dispelled these myths. I would like to use their voices here today in order to defend their cause.

Oorbee Roy, known as Aunty Skates on TikTok, is a 47-year-old South Asian woman from Toronto. She made it clear that her success is based on freedom and not control. She said:

That I'm not the right fit is a story I've been told my whole life. I'm too brown. I'm a nerd. I'm too old. I'm female. I'm not feminine enough. I'm not the right demographic, but I've never been the right demographic. My voice has been suppressed far too many times. That's not an easy thing to do, because I have a pretty loud voice.

Somehow along the way, I discovered a platform that allows me to tell my story as I see fit in my own voice. Other people are indeed interested in my story. Somehow this tall, brown, old and somewhat-out-of-shape mom who skateboards resonates with people all over the globe. Authentic, inspiring, genuine content—that's Canadian content.

Canadian YouTuber Lilly Singh explained it best when she said, “For Canadian creators who don't fit the mainstream mould, the openness of YouTube provides the opportunity to find their niche among billions of people.” Again, freedom is what leads to success.

Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, said, “We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.” She went on to say, “If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations.... This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.”

If Bill C-11 passes through the Senate, it will not create a level playing field. Instead, many digital-first creators will be harmed as the government, through the CRTC, picks winners and losers. Not only that, but, in the name of protection, the CRTC will build a wall around digital-first creators, and this wall will actually prevent them from being able to reach a global audience, which is what they depend on for their success. We should know that our Canadian digital-first creators are amazing and they are achieving tremendous success around the world. Their success, however, will be severely thwarted by the bill.

Scott Benzie, from Digital First Canada, explained:

The bill has the intent of promoting Canadian content to Canadians. While that's admirable, most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery.... [L]ocal discovery...is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance on TikTok, Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry.

Let us talk further. Let us talk about freedom and choice, values that all Canadians hold dear. Right now, virtual codes, known as algorithms, are set up on the Internet to show Canadians more content that they love. Personal choice is honoured in this process. Bill C-11 would change that. Instead of using algorithms to give individuals more of what they want, the government will insist that YouTube and TikTok and Google use algorithms to give more of what the government wants Canadians to see. It is incredibly dictatorial. It is dangerous.

Jeanette Patell, from YouTube, explained:

Bill C-11 could deeply hurt Canadian creators and viewers [in other words, all Canadians]. For viewers who rely on us to serve them content that is relevant to their interests, artificially forcing an open platform like YouTube to recommend content based on government priorities would backfire.

Matthew Hatfield, from OpenMedia, gave a great analogy:

We would never consider a situation where the Canadian government would go to Canadian bookstores and say, “We've thought about what Canadians need, and these are the types of titles we want you to put in your front window.” However, through the discoverability requirements we have in this legislation, that seems to be what we're doing.... It's inappropriate. It's an overreach. If we're supporting Canadian content, it needs to be in ways that are respectful of and responsive to what people in Canada want.

Let us be very clear. The bill is not about protecting culture. It is about giving the government more control over public discourse, the things that we can see, post and hear online. To have a government agency regulate the dissemination of information online puts Canada in step with places like North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia.

The current chair of the CRTC, Mr. Ian Scott, has confirmed that this is the case. He has said that user-generated content, in other words our content, my content, anybody’s content, will be wrapped up in the bill, but then he goes on to say not to worry, because even though he is given those wide-sweeping powers, he will not use them and we should just trust him. If he is asking us to trust him, why not just take those provisions out of the bill?

That is exactly what these amendments would do. We are asking that those powerful provisions that allow for an abuse of power be taken out of this bill and that Canadians be respected.

The best way to promote Canadian culture is through the protection of free speech. Giving Canadians the freedom to create, express their views, and speak freely is what supports the proliferation of our rich Canadian culture. Our culture is held within the Canadian people, all of them. However, the government has grown far too comfortable with taking control.

As I come to my conclusion here, I wish to thank all of the digital-first creators who weighed in and expressed their views. I also wish to thank the industry experts and the freedom advocates who worked tirelessly to expose the danger of this legislation. I want to thank the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have had their voices heard. It is for them that I contend today.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-11. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by echoing the comments of thanks by the opposition House leader. To all those who serve the House and for everything they have done, particularly over the last year, I offer our deep and sincere thanks. The opposition House leader rightfully named all those we rely on to do the jobs on a day-to-day basis that we do in serving Canadians.

We will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-9 concerning the Judges Act this afternoon. Tomorrow, it is our intention to call Bill C-11 on online streaming at report stage.

On Monday, we will be returning to the second reading debate of Bill C-21 respecting firearms. In the afternoon, we will go back to Bill C-11 for debate at third reading. We will also focus on finding a way to expedite the bill currently on notice concerning the self-induced extreme intoxication defence standing in the name of the Minister of Justice.

Finally, we have had discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 25, 2021, with regard to the participation in the proceedings of the House and its committees, the provisions related to the COVID-19 vaccination be suspended beginning on Monday, June 20, 2022.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that on Tuesday we saw democracy thwarted. We saw a cloak of secrecy used. At the command of the NDP-Liberal government, Bill C-11 was forced through committee without adequate consultation with witnesses and adequate debate on amendments. There was no listening and no discussion. It was just rammed through. That was their mode of operation. It was censorship upon censorship.

Canadians are rightly frustrated and very concerned by the assault of the House on their online freedom. My question is very simple to the minister and the Prime Minister; either or both could answer. Do they truly believe that this is transparency, according to what they promised Canadians?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of fact that on Tuesday, the government, under a cloak of secrecy, did in fact thwart democracy. At the committee, the NDP and Liberal government took Bill C-11 and forced it through without adequate debate or adequate testimony from witnesses.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we just heard, the Liberals have shut down debate on Bill C-11. In fact, MPs voted on over 100 amendments without any debate at all.

The Liberals are actually changing what Canadians see online without debate and behind closed doors. It is clear from expert testimony that this bill would allow the CRTC to regulate user-generated content. That is why, through a series of vital amendments, the Conservatives tried to fix this bill. Our common-sense amendments were shot down by the Liberals and the NDP without any debate.

When will the government listen to some reason and fix this disastrous bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Conservatives will always stand up for our arts and culture sector, but in the dead of night, the Liberals rammed through dozens of amendments to Bill C-11 without debate or explanation. In fact, the Liberal chair of the committee would not even allow Canadians to know what was being voted on. Not one amendment to clearly exclude user-generated content was approved. Canadian—

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I normally do not want to see bills rushed through this place. The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock may know that I supported the Conservative vote on not rushing Bill C-11 through in the way that it was rushed through earlier this week.

However, in this case, this bill has had an unusual course. In the last Parliament, it actually started on the Senate side, so it has already been studied in the Senate. On top of that, of course, there were deep consultations with the Canadian Bar Association and others in developing the legislation. On many issues, Canadians are inadequately consulted, but maybe if it does come forward, I would hope that we do find a way to move it quickly, because it should have been passed probably about five years ago, if not 15 years ago.

Canadian Heritage

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report in both official languages.

This is the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, in relation to Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I want to give specific thanks to all the officials, the clerks and the interpreters who helped us with this extraordinary committee work as we went through clause-by-clause, specifically to Mr. Philippe Méla, the legislative clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

(Bill C-11 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

On clause 37, we have NDP-24.1.

I shall read you the legislative clerk's note on this. It says that Bill C-11 amends mainly the Broadcasting Act in various ways. This amendment seeks to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act by requiring the commission to collect statistical data to be included in the report on its activities in accordance with subsection 13(2) of the act, based on the implementation of section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In our opinion, the amendment, by requiring the collection of statistical data not envisioned in the bill, goes beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. This ruling applies also to CPC-29.1, because it is identical to NDP-24.1.

Shall I move on further now?

Shall NDP-24.1 carry?

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

I move that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by adding on page 7 after line 9 the following:

(iii) ensure the delivery of programming at affordable rates;

That is as one of the components of online undertakings.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a very simple amendment. It simply deletes a few lines. I'm sure we will pass these slowly on division.

This one deletes line 42 on page 6 all the way to line 14 on page 7. The effect of this removes the discoverability aspects of Bill C-11. We're doing this because we still haven't had a policy directive from the minister to the CRTC in terms of how discoverability will be implemented and how this will come into practice.

We've heard speculation all throughout it, and a lot of this could have been remedied with a simple, clear direction from the minister to the CRTC. Barring that and looking to the future, we are proposing that we remove this from the bill.

Obviously, at some point it's going to pass, and the CRTC will be tasked with implementing this. I recognize where our votes are on this committee, but at the same time, this is something we feel strongly about. We want to see Canadian productions and creations excel and thrive here at home and around the world. I think there's a real concern and hesitancy among many domestic creators on how discoverability gets implemented. It may, in fact, harm some Canadian creators.

In not wanting to see Canadian creators be hurt or harmed in their ability to find success globally, we are proposing that these clauses be removed from the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Bill C-11 has a policy objective in proposed paragraph 3(1)(p) about providing “programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities” and that it is to be “provided within the Canadian broadcasting system”.

In the current act, there is language there that talks about “as resources become available for the purpose”, which the government is proposing to strike, so there is no longer a resource qualification, but the aspiration is set very high. To that end, the CRTC already engages with broadcasting services about closed captioning, described video and audio description. There are discussions around trial periods for persons with disabilities.

The comment I would make with respect to Mr. Nater's proposal is that these two elements that he has identified are indeed things that the system can do to support persons with disabilities, but there is a broader range of mechanisms, and we expect that there would continue to be a broader range of mechanisms. We had proposed leaving this level of detail up to the CRTC and providing that flexibility for it to work out what makes sense as technology evolves.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have more delightful news.

Really, NDP-4 and NDP-5 were, I think, earlier versions, because we sent in a revised version more recently, a few days ago. They aren't really touching what the NDP amendment is, so it has been distributed under NDP-4, which I will offer instead.

It is that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 37 and 38 on page 6 with the following:

digenous persons—within community elements which are positioned to serve smaller and remote communities and other elements of the Canadian broadcasting system;

This has already been circulated in English and French, and it replaces NDP-4 and NDP-5.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a simple clarifying amendment that harks back to what we said earlier, ensuring that official language minority communities are supported in Bill C-11. It clarifies changing the language from “needs and circumstances” to “needs and interests”.

I believe this is a positive change, not a contentious one, and that it actually will strengthen the agencies of these communities within our broadcasting system.

I hope this one will see support.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, this amendment suggests that we “include the greatest possible contribution from the Canadian production sector, whether it is independent or affiliated with or owned by a broadcasting undertaking”.

In fact, with this amendment, we want to make a change to the current act. It's not an amendment to what Bill C-11 proposes. We want to add this wording to correct a situation, so to speak.

When the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1991, independent producers were a developing industry. It was not yet a force in the industry, but it was developing. At that time, the intention was to encourage self-employed people in the production industry by means of a provision in the act that encouraged the greatest possible use of their services.

Today, it is somewhat the opposite. Independent producers and self-employed cultural workers, particularly in the production field, are an important part of the industry and are often the reference and the first resource that broadcasting undertakings call upon for production.

In this context, it is entirely appropriate to amend the wording of the Broadcasting Act, 1991, by adding the following after line 22 on page 6 of the bill:

(5.1) Subparagraph 3(1)(i)(v) of the Act is replaced by the following: (v) include the greatest possible contribution from the Canadian production sector, whether it is independent or affiliated with or owned by a broadcasting undertaking;

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm glad we can still vote on amendment BQ-6, the purpose of which is to remove paragraph 3(1)(f.1) that Bill C-11 seeks to add to the act. I believe that foreign undertakings should not be given preferential treatment over Canadian undertakings. However, that is precisely what this paragraph gives them: they are encouraged to use Canadian resources, but they are not required to do so. In my opinion, this is a way of maintaining inequity in a market that needs to be rebalanced.

I therefore ask the committee to accept this amendment, which consists of deleting paragraph 3(1)(f.1) that Bill C-11 seeks to add to the act.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

From what I understand from the explanations Mr. Ripley has just given us, we are going to listen to the multinationals' complaints rather than to the Canadian industry and producers.

Here, undertakings are being asked to use “Canadian ... resources ... in the creation, production and presentation of their [Canadian] programming,” and not for all of their programming. I obviously don't expect an undertaking to be required to produce a Swedish miniseries in Canada.

In this case, I understand that we are listening to these undertakings' grievances rather than pursuing the objective of Bill C-11, which is to make the market fair, both for Canadian undertakings and for foreign undertakings that benefit from the Canadian market.

I find it hard to justify bending to the arguments of these multinationals, when we want them to invest in production by calling on Canadian talent and creators, who are as capable as foreign talent, if not more so, of producing Canadian programming that tells our stories.

I don't think that's a good argument. Mr. Julian's proposal, which is similar to the Bloc Québécois' proposal, reflects the expectations of the industry, the market, our producers, our talent and our artisans. I therefore think that this amendment is appropriate.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The government's position on this has been that one reason for Bill C-11 is to bring non-Canadian broadcasting services into the system.

Generally speaking, these broadcasting services have global business models whereby they are making productions for global audiences and not exclusively for the Canadian audience.

The issue that this committee and the committee in the previous Parliament have grappled with is how to square the current standard in the current act, which talks about making maximum use, but only applies to Canadian companies whose operations take place in the Canadian context—it makes sense to ask them to make maximum use, no less case predominant use, because the reference point is exclusively Canadian—with the fact that moving forward we will now have non-Canadian services that are expected to contribute to the policy objectives of the act.

The reference point of maximum use in the context where the operations of those businesses are global, from the government's perspective, has been challenging. The government has heard from those companies that they do not think it is a realistic benchmark.

The language that's currently in Bill C-11 is reflective of the work that the committee did in the previous Parliament to set out a “maximum use” standard with respect to Canadian services. With respect to foreign services, it pushes them to make, as the language in the bill says, “the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources”. It also clarifies that they should “contribute in an equitable manner”, i.e., in a fair manner. The CRTC has to look at their contributions compared to the contributions of Canadian broadcasters to make sure that the system is fair and everybody is pulling their weight.

The proposal being put forward would create one standard applicable to all and would be that higher maximum use standard. I would also highlight that the language in the current law, i.e., the current Broadcasting Act, has a bit of flexibility in the current standard. It talks about how, “unless the nature of the service provided by the undertaking, such as specialized content or format or the use of languages other than French and English, renders that use impracticable, in which case the undertaking shall make the greatest practicable use of those resources”.

I would just note that the standard being proposed no longer even has that degree of flexibility incorporated, so it is quite a high standard that the committee would be proposing for all broadcasting services.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Méla, BQ-6 consists of deleting from Bill C-11 the lines that in fact correspond to proposed paragraph (f.1). BQ-5 relates to proposed paragraph 3(1)(f), while BQ-6 relates to proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1).

There may be some confusion in the lines, but in the end we are talking about two separate portions of a proposed amendment.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to support CPC-7, but I want to be clear as well.

In Bill C-11, there is no provision for censorship and there's no shutting down of freedom of speech. We all know that. There have been certain Conservative MPs, like Mr. Scheer, who've tried to pretend the contrary, but we all know, and anyone who has read the bill knows, that you cannot refer to censorship when it comes to Bill C-11.

This, however, and it's a little ironic, is a Conservative amendment that does introduce an element of censorship. It prevents the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content, and it prevents the broadcasting of programs that include pornographic material that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion.

I want to be clear to committee members. This is the only element of Bill C-11 that introduces censorship. It is ironic that the Conservatives have proposed this amendment, but I support it because, in this case, the censorship, the preventing of broadcasting, is in the public interest.

I want to say that I'll be voting in favour. I believe that the public interest is upheld through this. Committee members, and anyone who is watching this committee through the House of Commons web broadcast, should know that this introduces an element of censorship for the first time to Bill C-11, and it's Conservatives who have introduced this amendment.

I'm supporting it because it is in the public interest, but those who say that Bill C-11 has some censorship in it will finally be right, because if this amendment passes, it does introduce an element of censorship into the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I also wanted to say that this meeting is pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, and to government motion 16 adopted by the House of Commons on Monday, June 13, 2022. The committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

You know everything about how to mute and those on the floor wearing masks, etc., so I will just reiterate that I know you know all of that and you know how to get to interpretation, etc.

(On clause 3)

The Chair:

When we left, we had finished CPC-4, and we were going to go to CPC-5.

Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a serious subject and it needs to be taken seriously. I agree with Mr. Housefather that this would be the only part of Bill C-11 that actually prevents the broadcasting of programs. It is interesting, given what I've seen online from Conservative MPs railing against censorship, that there are no provisions in Bill C-11 that deal with censorship. This amendment, I would suggest of the four—there are three from Mr. Viersen and one from Mr. Nater—actually does prevent the broadcasting of programs.

I think, though, there is a welcome amendment. Given the concerns that are around both protecting children but also ensuring that the broadcasting of programs that are produced through sexual exploitation or coercion, that is something I think we do have to take into consideration. Mr. Nater and Mr. Viersen, between them, have produced four very similar amendments. Each one of them seeks to do the same thing but is worded differently. Obviously, we have to make a choice as members of this committee as to which approach we prefer.

I would set aside CPC-4, CPC-5 and CPC-6, which are very similar but have different wording. I would look at CPC-7, which reads:

(v) seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content, and

(vi) safeguard the human rights of women and marginalized people by preventing the broadcasting of programs that include pornographic material that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion;

I will be voting down the other amendments. I will be voting for CPC-7. As I mentioned, each one of them is similar, but to my mind, CPC-7 is the best approach. It is important to note that this would be, if we pass this amendment, the only part of Bill C-11 that actually prevents broadcasting, that stops broadcasting.

It is ironic. We should note that the Conservatives are introducing the only amendment that prevents broadcasting, that censors broadcasting, in the entire Bill C-11. I certainly hope that Conservatives, if we adopt this amendment, will speak to that and say that they introduced the one portion of Bill C-11 that actually addresses the issue of preventing the broadcasting of programs, or censoring programs that are harmful. If Conservatives are being honest, they will say to the folks they are in communication with that they introduced the one element of Bill C-11 that prevents broadcasting.

In this case, I believe it is in the public interest, and I commend them for that. That's why I will be supporting CPC-7, which is the best of the four, and I will be voting against CPC-4, CPC-5 and CPC-6.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

While I appreciate all the work that my colleague, Mr. Viersen, has done in this area, but this is somewhat funny in the sense that this entire discussion has been the Conservatives arguing that content is about to be regulated by the CRTC. This is introducing an amendment for content to be regulated by the CRTC. I can't even get over that. This is exactly what this amendment does.

It is saying that user-generated content should now be regulated to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit content, etc. Now, if we're talking about illegal content, there's another bill that hopefully will come forward shortly that will deal with illegal content, including the illegal content that may potentially be existing that's referred to in subparagraph (vi) here, but I don't believe that this is appropriate. This is actually asking the CRTC to get into content.

We have the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council that already deals with this type of issue. I don't think the CRTC needs to, and certainly not by introducing it to Bill C-11 and going into user-generated content.

I actually do not support the amendment and I would also note that, in terms of preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content, that's a question for parents to decide what their children can and cannot see if they're minors, not the government.

In any case, I don't support this amendment, and it really goes against everything the Conservatives have been saying at this committee for the last month.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, we're still in the broadcasting policy element of this. I think we foreshadowed this debate a few minutes ago in discussion with Mr. Julian's motion. I'll read this one into the record. I move that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 5 the following:

(iii.6) provide opportunities to Canadians from racialized communities and of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds to produce programs and broadcasting undertakings, including programs that reflect the diverse lived experiences of Canadians and that express the cultural and historically significant stories of Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds,

I don't think I need to explain much more. I think it's fairly self-explanatory and builds on many of the conversations we've had in the last hour within this committee. We heard this, perhaps not always directly, from witness testimony. It's certainly in some of the briefs provided to our offices, in terms of written submissions.

I'm happy to move this amendment and, hopefully, we'll find support around the table.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will read out the text of my amendment, which moves that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 12 on page 5 with the following:

served, including with respect to the languages in use within those communities and to their ethnocultural and Indigenous composition, and the high engagement and involvement in community broadcasting by members of those communities, including with respect to matters of public concern,

This is an amendment that gives greater prominence to the role of community media. It's an important way to amplify diverse voices on diverse issues. We know we want a strong community broadcasting system that keeps Canadians engaged. It doesn't change the scope of the bill and it's something I heard from several stakeholders, including CACTUS, the Community Radio Fund, the National Campus and Community Radio Association, and Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.

I hope everyone will support this.

Thanks.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

This will come as no big surprise, Madam Chair, given that Mr. Housefather and I moved very similar amendments. This change in the wording was one of the first things brought to light when Bill C‑11was introduced. I believe it was an honest mistake when the bill was drafted.

Of course, I think this is easy to decide on, but I'd like to ask Mr. Méla for clarification. Because the wording comes up fairly regularly in the bill, we have several amendments with exactly the same intent. I want to make sure that if we vote for this amendment here, the outcome of the vote will apply to all other amendments that seek to correct the French wording with respect to original French-language content.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hopefully, this will be a simple non-controversial one. Again, the original language that we used in Bill C-10 was “original French language programs”.

For some reason, the terminology was changed in Bill C‑11. It's very important to ensure that we are talking about truly original French-language programs, not programs dubbed in French or translated into French. All the various francophone groups that have appeared before us requested it.

I have therefore prepared this amendment, as well as several others to come, to change the terminology so that it's correct in English and in French.

The amendment would say “original French language programs” in English, as opposed to the production and broadcasting of “original programs in French”.

In the French version, it would be “émissions de langue originale française”.

I feel it's pretty straightforward, but if you have any questions, I can answer them.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to say that there were a number of stakeholders who spoke to this issue as well, so it's important to ensure that in the system, and in Bill C-11, we:

(iii.11) provide opportunities to Black and other racialized persons in Canada to support them in reaching their full potential by taking into account their specific needs and interests, namely, by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs by and for Black and other racialized communities,

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to tell Mr. Nater that I actually do support this amendment. This one I agree with, based on what he said. I'm hopeful that everyone else will agree with me, since I took the liberty of saying that.

I do have one amendment, which would be that it should read, “Canadian programs” and not “Canadian online undertakings”. “Online undertakings” are defined in Bill C-11 as “online undertaking means an undertaking for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus”.

I hope it would be considered a friendly amendment just to change “online undertakings” to “programs”.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Here is a brief explanation of this amendment. It is talking about exporting Canadian content and making sure it is promoted and can succeed globally.

I would note that it wasn't too long ago a Canadian Heritage delegation was in Europe, celebrating and spreading Canadian content and the Canadian industry over there. This is something I think we should be promoting, from a broadcasting perspective and a creator perspective.

This would be an amendment to the broadcasting policy for Canada. It reads that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) Subparagraph 3(1)(d)(ii) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(ii) encourage the development of Canadian expression by providing a wide range of programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity, by displaying Canadian talent in entertainment programming and by offering information and analysis concerning Canada and other countries from a Canadian point of view, and foster an environment that encourages the development and export of Canadian online undertakings globally,

That would be my amendment.

I think it's important we do what we can to promote and export Canadian talent and creations around the globe.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Essentially, what we're talking about here is discoverability. Mr. Julian raised the point that platforms already curate material for their audiences. That is correct. We heard that from YouTube and, I believe, from others as well.

However, the comparison he's drawing here, that if platforms do it themselves then why not put the government in control of the curation, is a terrible argument. It would be the same as or akin to saying that bookstores already determine where their books are going to be displayed, but why leave it up to them? The government should be put in control of that. Clothing stores already position their clothing within the storefront window in order to showcase certain things, to draw attention to the purchase of certain things. Let's not leave that up to the stores. Instead the government should be in control of that.

I recognize that Mr. Julian and I hold different views in terms of what government responsibilities should look like. I think what we heard from many witnesses, however, was that it is best to leave choice with Canadians rather than dictating to them what they should or should not watch or read or access online.

Scott Benzie is one individual who came forward, from Digital First Canada. With regard to discoverability, he commented that it may appear noble to want to show people Canadian content or to increase accessibility to Canadian content, but in actuality what will end up happening is that the government will be picking winners and losers. Some individuals, some content creators, will be bumped up in the queue and therefore made more discoverable, and others will be bumped down and therefore made less discoverable. When that happens, those individual artists or new media creators are no longer responsible for their own destiny, which is what they're enjoying right now and what makes the ecosystem so vibrant. Instead it will be the government determining that. The government will determine to what extent certain content is accessible within a platform such as YouTube.

That not only hurts Canadians, then, who are looking for certain content that would be of interest to them, but it also hurts the creators. It hurts those who exist within new media platforms who are making a go of it. Right now they can curate something that they know their audiences are going to love. They can use strategies in order to reach more people who love that same content.

Now, if Bill C-11 passes, the government is going to determine that it knows best and, therefore, it will force certain content in front of your eyeballs. If you don't like the content that is forced in front of your eyeballs, then you might not watch it. If you don't watch it, then that material continuously gets downgraded and pushed to the back end of the Internet. Meanwhile, that frustrates you as the viewer but it also hurts that individual or entity that came up with that content. Instead of its being shown to those who would take an interest in it, it's shown to someone who actually is going to, again, condemn it to the back pages of the Internet.

This is extremely harmful. Arguably it is censorship. It is determining what Canadians can or cannot access online. It is determining the audience that these digital creators would have access to.

I'm baffled, actually, by this. Here in Canada we have incredible digital-first creators. I'm perplexed as to why we wouldn't celebrate their success and want them to represent Canada to an even greater extent by being able to continue to reach not only a domestic audience but also a global audience. If this bill moves forward, it will build walls around these digital-first creators. Again, it will make sure that their content is shown to some Canadians, but it will actually prevent it from being able to reach beyond Canada's borders.

That's unfortunate, because, right now, for Canadian content or digital-first creators here in this country, 90% of the audience is global, on average. In essence, then, this bill hinders them. It prevents them from achieving success. It's incredibly harmful.

I'm confused as to why we would move in that direction. You might recall that Morghan Fortier from Skyship Entertainment came to the committee. With regard to discoverability, she said:

Bill C-11...is a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad....

Minister Rodriguez has insisted that [user-generated content] will not be included in Bill C-11, but this is untrue. Last week, the chair of the CRTC, Mr. Scott, confirmed that [user-generated content] is in the current draft of the bill.

She also said:

In order for these platforms to operate successfully, global discoverability is the key for a lot of these content creators. I think a lot of that understanding is lost when you look at a geographically niche broadcast enterprise, which the Canadian industry has been for a very long time.

In other words, her argument is this: Bill C-11 will capture many of these individuals who are making a go of it within unique online platforms. It will determine whether or not they get to win or lose, in other words, and whether their content is discoverable or has to be hidden. That is incredibly detrimental to those individuals working very hard to make a go of it.

I have to plead with the committee that we take into consideration our digital-first creators in this country, that we advocate for them and that we ensure their content is not forced in front of the eyeballs of Canadians or hidden from the eyeballs of Canadians based on some sort of government regime enforced through the CRTC. Rather, these individuals should be given the freedom required to succeed within the digital space.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

We heard testimony...and just one example is OUTtv, which on market forces basically was excluded from a number of streaming distributors. The market forces do exclude programming. The idea that Canadians obtain the programming of their choice when market forces, the big web giants, basically set the conditions, I think is somewhat misguided. That's why we have the uneven playing field that really calls for Bill C-11.

I'm reminded of that famous quip by Tommy Douglas that it's every man for himself, said the elephant, as he danced among the chickens. This is the kind of situation that develops when market forces are the only thing that are put into place, which is why Bill C-11 helps to level the playing field. Yes, there is a provision of market forces, no doubt, but there's also a bit of a counterbalance so we have a level playing field.

I'll be voting against this amendment.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is CPC-1.1. This amendment reads that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by adding after line 22 on page 4 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Act is amended by adding the following after subparagraph (i):

(i.1) reflect and be responsive to the preferences and interests of its audiences,

(i.2) to the extent possible, rely on market forces to ensure that Canadians obtain the programming of their choice,

The effect of this amendment...and this gets to the broadcasting policy for Canada. The part of the Broadcasting Act that's being amended is the actual broadcasting policy for Canada and some of the broad principles, for lack of a better word, that guide broadcasting policy in Canada. It's twofold.

The importance of this, I think, is actually the Canadian public: the consumers, the individuals who seek entertainment, who seek content being responsive to what they want, the interests they have, the shows, the creations they're interested in. It includes that as part of the broadcasting policy.

Of course, the element of market forces ensures that we are not arbitrarily putting our fingers on the scales and picking winners and losers among Canadian creators. The principle of this is including it in the broadcasting policy for Canada and really looking at the rights of consumers, the rights of individuals to be able to seek out and find and be responsive to the content they're searching for online and within Canada.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Nater.

I agree with the assessment that the bill, as currently drafted, is trying to do two things. There is a current policy objective in the Broadcasting Act about the system being effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. As Mr. Champoux made allusion to, that has historically been done by issuing licences to only Canadian-owned and Canadian-controlled companies.

That said, part of Bill C-11 recognizes that many Canadians now subscribe to essentially non-Canadian services. One core objective of the bill is to bring those services into the system and have them contribute.

The current drafting of the bill speaks to the importance of the system continuing to be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians—in other words, Canadian over-the-air broadcasters, cable and satellite companies would need to be Canadian owned and controlled—but it recognizes that there's an exception for foreign broadcasting undertakings providing programming to Canadians.

Having listened to Monsieur Champoux, I would not say that it is open to a future government to dismantle the Canadian ownership and control requirements that are currently in place. Paragraph 3(1)(a) of the bill says “with the exception of foreign broadcasting undertakings”. It makes that distinction, from the government's perspective, between Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon, which are not Canadian owned and controlled, and Rogers, Bell and Quebecor, which are Canadian owned and controlled.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, the way Bill C‑11 proposes to amend the text of the act represents a significant change from what was decided with Bill C‑10. We're talking about non-Canadians not being eligible for a broadcasting license, a requirement that would be maintained in the instructions given to the CRTC. However, another government could decide to remove this requirement through an order in council. As a result, what the lawmaker intended would be weakened in the act.

In my opinion, we don't want Canadian online businesses to be easily acquired and controlled by foreign interests. That is the thrust of the motion I'm putting forward. Instead, we encourage the CRTC to play a role in promoting the Canadian nature of the system. This does not in any way restrict foreign ownership and foreign activity in the Canadian broadcasting system, but we do further encourage the CRTC to put in place measures that provide incentives to consolidate Canadian ownership of businesses and Canadian control of the system.

I hope that answers Mr. Nater's question. If not, I'm sure Mr. Méla and Mr. Ripley can provide greater depth on the issue.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I think the amendment speaks for itself. We wanted to get a bit closer to the definition we had adopted for Bill C‑10. We want to be sure to recognize the presence in our system of foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide programming to Canadians.

The amendment proposes that Bill C‑11, in clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 10 on page 4 with the following:

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians, and it is recognized that it includes foreign broadcasting undertakings that provide programming to Canadians;

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is CPC-2. The amendment states that Bill C-11, in clause 3, be amended by, (a), replacing lines 7 to 9 on page 4 with the following:

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall be effectively

It also would amend the clause by, (b), replacing lines 11 to 15 on page 4 with the following:

(a.1) foreign broadcasting undertakings may provide broadcasting services to Canadians by means of online undertakings provided they do so in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the broadcasting policy for Canada;

That's CPC-2.

This effectively provides that the Canadian broadcasting system continue to be owned by Canadians but also acknowledges that, in the global and digital marketplace we live in, there will be online undertakings that obviously already are being provided by foreign entities and will continue to be provided by foreign entities, with the acknowledgement and the understanding that they ought to consider and respect the same policy objectives that are outlined for Canadian providers, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Is there anyone else? No, then I will ask the clerk to please call the vote on amendment CPC-1.04.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

I'd like us to move to the final amendment on clause 2. That would be from Mr. Louis, Kitchener—Conestoga.

I will read his amendment. It is that Bill C-11, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 3 to line 1 on page 4 with the following:

enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and to support and

Is there any discussion?

There is none on the floor, none virtually—

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

What's clear here, regardless of the amount, is that this creates a massive loophole, and I think that's the consideration that we must have as a committee. It doesn't matter about the amount. It just matters that any company that claims that amount is then completely subtracted from the act, which means they can do whatever the hell they want and the CRTC doesn't have any sort of jurisdiction. Not only does that create a huge imbalance. It means that the companies that are the most dishonest, the online undertakings that are the most dishonest, are the ones that can benefit the most from this uneven playing field, this loophole that leads to some companies being able to, through dishonest practices, simply pull themselves out.

All parties have said that they support the intent of creating a level playing field, and all parties support the idea that web giants should pay their fair share. It seems to me to be very destructive to those principles that all parties support, if that we create this loophole that dishonest online companies could use to simply say, “These provisions don't apply. I'll do whatever the hell I want.” We have heard testimony from our departmental witnesses that it is a laborious practice that does not guarantee an adequate outcome to get around those dishonest players.

We cannot create with Bill C-11 what we have created with overseas tax havens.

The PBO estimates that $25 billion a year goes to overseas tax havens. Think of the housing crisis, the crisis in indigenous communities, what seniors are living through, families struggling with the cost of living, all of those things, and $25 billion goes to overseas tax havens in a blink of an eye, every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Why would we want to create the same kind of massive loophole in Bill C-11?

It makes sense to take the approach that, if we want to have a level playing field, online providers are part of this approach on Bill C-11, and I fail to see how a loophole in any amount listed can be.... As a dishonest practice within an online undertaking, particularly a foreign one that is perhaps in a jurisdiction where Canada doesn't have the ability to intervene, they can just choose whatever figure they choose to declare, even if it's a dollar, and then they're automatically basically exempt from the act. That doesn't make any sense at all.

We're basically going over the same amendment with different dollar figures. Regardless of the amount, it creates a significant loophole for dishonest business practices and actually skews the whole principle of a level playing field, which is the intent of the bill and which—I'll mention it just one final time—all parties say that they support. Why would any party propose to create a big loophole that throws that out of whack?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thanks, John. I was informed by the clerk that we are starting a new meeting, so I then adjourned that meeting with the clerk and he has that listed at the time I adjourned it. I did not realize. I thought we were continuing. I gather that this is a new meeting. The next one is going to be a new meeting as well. Thank you.

Again, the meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, as you all know. For those attending virtually, please ensure that you mute your microphone when you are not speaking and open it when you intend to speak.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy, again, everyone who is in the room is required to wear a mask. Again, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Once again, please use your icon—you all know that now—for interpretation.

Finally, for those on Zoom.... Mr. Uppal knows that so I won't repeat it for him.

We are now moving into C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, clause by clause.

(On clause 2)

The last time we left I think we were entertaining a subamendment from Mr. Champoux. Does everyone have that subamendment?

Yes, Mr. Champoux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Welcome to meeting no. 35 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Again, I want to remind everybody that, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, and to government motion number 16, adopted by the House of Commons on Monday, June 13, 2022, the committee is resuming clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

As you all know, today's meeting is—

Government Policies

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, airports are in chaos. The passport office is snowed under. Inflation is out of control. Ministers are misleading Parliament. The government's current priorities are an incoherent mess.

Bill C-5 would drop sentencing requirements on violent offenders and drug traffickers and open the door for sex offenders to serve community sentences near their victims. Bill C-21 pretends to address gun violence, but literally only affects people who obey Canada's existing strict firearms laws. Bill C-19 would remove any pretense of fiscal control from the undisciplined and unserious government. Bill C-11 is a bill that would give the CRTC the power to control what Canadians find and post on the Internet. None of these bills would do anything to fix any of Canada's serious problems.

If these are the government's priorities for the next two weeks, I suggest it quit now and spend the summer coming up with a real agenda to help Canadians.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I have a question for Mr. Ripley. I'm curious if, within Bill C-11, the term “commercial content” is used, and if so, how that might be defined.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

This is just a bit of a cleanup exercise. In Bill C-10 we consistently used the phrase “official language minority communities”.

In French, Bill C‑10 used the expression “communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire”.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑11 has different terminology, and it uses various formulations. I would like us to revisit the terminology in Bill C‑10.

It was a demand of the French-speaking communities from outside Quebec and the English-speaking community in Quebec to use the terminology they would normally use to refer to themselves, which is “official language minority community”. That is one cleanup. I've done it throughout the bill, and I wanted to define it.

The second thing I will just raise, because you'll see it also, is “original French-language programs”. Also, in the bill, there is no clarity, so I've brought in amendments to clarify that it means programs that are originally in French, not original programs dubbed into French.

Those are the two things I wanted to raise, and this is just one clarifying thing, what an “official language minority community” is, and to use it consistently in the bill.

Thanks.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to make one final comment on this definition. It's something that I've brought up throughout this process on Bill C-11, and that's the policy directive. I've brought it up in the House of Commons. I've brought it up during closure motions.

Frankly, this definition wouldn't be needed had we seen the policy directive. At some point in the next months or years after this bill receives royal assent, the minister will issue a policy directive to the CRTC that will include discoverability, but we have yet to know how discoverability will be interpreted by either the CRTC or the directions that the government will provide to it.

We are operating here in a black box. We don't know how the minister will define it, so that is why we've gone to the step of having a clear approach to it through this definition. I think it's important that we do that. Canadians expect us to have that, and anyone who operates online regularly, whether on search engines or whether on a foreign or domestic streaming platform, would understand how the search functions work and be able to access the content they're interested in having.

I'm going to leave my comments there. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

What I might suggest, in that instance, would be something like an inclusive definition, so the decision would include—again, I'm thinking on the spot here, so you'd want to give it some thought—things like a licensing decision, such as, for example, an order made under section 9, an order made under section 9.1, a regulation made under section 10 or a regulation made under section 11.1. You would leave some breadth for courts to be able to assess, in a specific instance, whether the CRTC actually made a decision that engaged administrative law.

I certainly appreciate and understand what Mr. Champoux's objective is in this, and I know Bill C-11, as it is currently drafted, seeks to achieve a balance between the appropriate role of oversight by cabinet and the courts in CRTC decision-making. Perhaps, for the benefit of the committee, part of that puzzle.... I would draw your attention to clause 34.01 of the bill, which is the provision that requires the commission to consult with all interested persons on all orders made under sections 9.1 and 11.1, in order to make sure they continue to be responsive.

Part of the challenge, from where we sit, and based on Mr. Champoux's explanation, is that right now, we have a system in which a licence is typically renewed every five to seven years. Yes, that licence renewal can be petitioned to cabinet. The framework proposed by Bill C-11 would be more of a regulatory-type framework. We envision a framework whereby the CRTC will regularly update its regulations and orders.

If I understand Mr. Champoux correctly, his objective is that every one of those instances could be petitioned to cabinet. Again, that goes to my earlier comment about ensuring there's an appropriate balance between which decisions truly should be reviewed by cabinet versus which ones are best left up to the CRTC, acknowledging that there are other avenues through which its decisions can be appealed on questions of law. Its decisions can also be judicially reviewed if stakeholders truly feel there's something incorrect with a decision the CRTC has made.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

As it stands, Madam Chair, people can appeal to the Governor in Council to discuss licencing decisions. Through Bill C-11, we are balancing the broadcasting market to include online businesses in the regulations in the most appropriate way possible. The CRTC could therefore issue orders to online undertakings that have a major impact on the broadcasting system, just as licences have an impact on traditional broadcasting undertakings.

By adding this definition of the word “decision”, we're opening the door to orders that will be issued by the CRTC, in the same way as licences—and that will have, we can imagine, the same effect, the same scope and the same consequences—that can also, be appealed to the Governor in Council. We're not trying to bog the system down with this definition, we're not trying to open the door to all kinds of challenges on the smallest comma of a decision that will be made by the CRTC.

I think we need to give ourselves that opportunity to appeal. This is consistent with what we're trying to do with Bill C-11. I think the presumption that we're going to bog down the system with all kinds of appeals to the Governor in Council with the definition we're proposing to add is a bit of a stretch. If that were the case, I believe there are ways to remedy the situation afterwards. I really believe in the appropriateness of this definition allowing for appeals to be made against orders as well, and not just against licence renewals and licencing decisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, all right.

I think we're going to move now to whether clause 2 in Bill C-11 shall be amended.

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

Okay. I'll speak briefly to this.

The community groups across Canada, whom I think we've all heard from, are very concerned that we actually protect community broadcasting. This comes from the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, the National Campus and Community Radio Association,

the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, the Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada and the Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec.

They are very concerned that we specify that what we're talking about in this section is community broadcasting that is fully community-run.

While Mr. Julian's amendment, as further improved with Mr. Bittle's amendment, speaks to “including” not-for-profit organizations, my amendment, more in keeping with what the community broadcasters want, says that the broadcasting undertaking must be “predominantly” not-for-profit or community-owned.

It's trying to carve out very specifically that when we speak, as we do in Bill C-11, of a “community element”, we are very specifically focused on predominantly the not-for-profit sector and community-owned broadcasting.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My motion, as you know, has been.... All the things you said about how motions proceed don't apply in my case. I am not allowed to table my own motion. It has been deemed to have been tabled. I am not allowed to withdraw my amendment, should it turn out that we'd rather not have it there. I can't do that. All I can do now is speak to it. I can't vote on it. I have to ask others to please consider whether we want to listen to the voices of community broadcasting and bring this motion in as part of the current package that's about to go to a vote.

Thank you very much, everyone.

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

No. You passed a motion in this place, Madam Chair. I would like to speak to the motion you passed, because people have short memories. I'm cursed with a good memory.

It's a violation of my rights that I'm here at all. I would point that out, so that people understand. If not for a motion that this committee proactively decided to pass that gives me the right to speak to each motion.... I'm here under duress. I'd rather not be here.

I would have had the right, if this committee hadn't passed the motion, to present this amendment at report stage. That's a right I would have had. Every member of a party with fewer than 12 people is already deprived of many rights, such as sitting as a permanent member on committees. It's astonishing—and I would love it if you all reflected on it—that people in my position as members of Parliament start with fewer rights than people in parties with more than 12 members. The larger parties still find the number of residual rights that I may still have to be uncomfortable and, therefore, my rights should be continually reduced.

In this case, every committee—absolutely exposing the fiction that we claim committees are masters of their own process—magically passes an identical motion. Every word is the same. They have done this since around 2017. They did it after the 2019 election—actually, it was done in 2014, so after 2015, the same motion was passed in every committee. After 2019, the same motion was passed in every committee. After the 2021 election, the same motion was passed in every committee.

Those are the terms under which I am here under duress. I would rather not have had this committee pass that motion. I would present this amendment at report stage. I can't do that. I'm here now and I have the right to speak briefly to each amendment. I like to get it on the record every time I come before committee that this was not my idea of a good, fair and inclusive process to participate in the passage of legislation, which is the right and duty of every member of Parliament.

That said, Madam Chair, I would still like to pursue the point that's raised in PV-0.1 in your package, which was submitted under the terms of the motion passed by this committee. If I may, Madam Chair, I would like to speak to the point of difference between an excellent improvement that is about to be made in Bill C-11 in clause 2, but which could be improved if the committee decided it liked my amendment.

Can I proceed with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We will proceed now to Mr. Julian's amendment to Bill C-11, clause 2.

I presume you all have that amendment in front of you.

Peter, did you wish to speak to it, read it or whatever?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It will depend on when we finish with the clause-by-clause, Mr. Nater. I don't know when that will be. Let's hope that it's going to be in time for Wednesday.

Now, if the committee has not completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9 p.m. on June 14—and I want to repeat this, “by 9 p.m. on June 14, 2022”—all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved and the chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without any further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

That's all very procedural, but I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood it. At 9 p.m. tonight, there's a hard stop for debate on any clauses.

With that having been said, if everyone is ready, I think we should begin clause-by-clause, again, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Now, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, which is the short title, will be postponed, so we begin with clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Before me, I have clause 2. There is an amendment from the Conservatives, the first amendment. If that Conservative amendment is adopted, then we will move on to NDP-1, BQ-1, etc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Welcome to meeting No. 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to the orders of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Pursuant to government motion 16, adopted by the House of Commons on Monday, June 13, 2022, the committee is commencing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, and although most of you are familiar, I would like to suggest, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021, that members attending in person must wear a mask at all times, except when eating. Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, we will also remember that members who are working virtually from home must mute themselves unless they are going to speak. I'd like to also ask you to make sure that you address everything through the chair.

I will recognize you by name when you put your hand up. The clerk and I will be working in tandem. She tells me what's going on on the floor. Even though I can see it, I cannot really distinguish whose hand is up, so she lets me know whose hand is up. If there's anybody joining virtually—and I notice that Mr. Uppal is virtual—use your “raise hand” signal at the bottom of the screen, so that I can know when you want to say something.

Remember again to plug in your mikes on the floor for interpretation, and for those who are virtual, the interpretation is in the globe icon at the bottom of the screen. That's about it.

Now I want to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause in succession, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once an amendment is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House, and that report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives who are trying to heckle me now can take a look at Hansard and see that the member for Provencher asked me the question of whether I was concerned about Bill C-11 and the government following people on cellphones. I have Bill C-11 right here on the desk, and there is not a word about cellphones or the government following people on cellphones. Conservatives are inventing things around Bill C-11. Is it because they never read the bill or is it because they believe in deliberate disinformation? Either way, they simply do not have credibility on this bill.

The Conservatives have simply shown themselves not to be a responsible opposition party. They cannot invent things that are not in the bill. They cannot not read the bill and then show up in the House of Commons and simply throw out things that are not true. We have seen on social media how Conservatives have tried to equate this with some kind of censorship.

When Canadians read through the bill, they will see that the intent of Bill C-11 is very clear. It is levelling the playing field with the web giants, ensuring that there are more Canadian jobs, ensuring that we actually have Canadian content, and that we can develop the kind of prosperity in our sectors that we have seen under the traditional Broadcasting Act.

For Conservatives to pretend that there is a wide, wacko number of things that are not in the bill, never were in the bill and are not listed in the bill, and to pretend that has some kind of credibility in connection with the bill, is very rich.

We had Conservatives blocking witnesses who were trying to testify. We had Conservatives filibustering for weeks, refusing to have consideration of the improvements that must necessarily be made, in the opinion of the New Democratic Party and in this corner of the House. We see Bill C-11 as an important step forward, but we have heard testimony from many witnesses who want to see improvements. We have been tabling amendments as we go along and as witnesses have come forward, making sure that the bill actually reflects that important witness testimony and is improved.

Again, Conservatives refused to set any sort of deadline around amendments and refused to put in place a kind of structure around amendments. In this place, there is the incredible work of the legislative clerks that takes days to do. We have the translation facilities that are so important, because as a bilingual country we need to make sure that every document is accurate in English and French. With Conservatives refusing to submit amendments, it meant that work had to take place not in the way that it had for every other party that submitted their amendments a week and a half ago. It meant we were now going to have to cater to the Conservatives and spend a few hours making sure that the Conservative amendments were not mis-drafted and that they were available in both official languages.

The other parties already took care of that. The other parties, being responsible and not having a “the dog ate my homework” approach, actually believed that it was important to get the amendments to the legislative drafters in time and that it was important to make sure the translators, who do such a remarkable job in the House of Commons, actually had the time to put together those translations.

This is another way the Conservatives have been wreaking havoc in the House of Commons, rather than submitting the amendments. Why would they refuse to be responsible and respectful to the workers in this chamber who do such valuable work in drafting legislation and amendments, and in translating them? It shows a profound disrespect. Conservatives have been wreaking havoc in so many ways with a profound disrespect that they have for parliamentary institutions.

Here we are. We finally have an opportunity, as the House of Commons, to call the Conservatives on the Canadian heritage committee to account. These are the same Conservatives who blocked important testimony from witnesses who had a lot to offer: witnesses who should be questioned in some detail about their approach on Bill C-11. These are the same Conservatives who refused to submit amendments, the same Conservatives who blocked additional witnesses and the same Conservatives who have delayed, by weeks, consideration of clause-by-clause that should normally occur once we have heard from witnesses.

The Conservatives have done all of that at the Canadian heritage committee. Now, in the coming minutes, we will be called upon to judge them on their actions. I believe that the majority of the House of Commons will say that the Conservatives were wrong to do that.

The Conservatives, at committee, need to get to work. They need to work to improve the legislation the way the other parties at committee want to do. When the Conservatives get what I can only call condemnation from the House of Commons that they have not been acting appropriately, they have no one to blame but themselves.

It also indicates a bigger problem within the Conservative Party. As we will recall, right after the election, there was one of the culminating moments of this Parliament so far. It is a moment we were all proud of. We had the ban on conversion therapy come forward, and it was passed at all stages unanimously. That was a remarkable victory for common sense and equality. The ban on conversion therapy passed.

After that, there were all kinds of divisions within the Conservative Party, and ultimately, the member for Durham lost his job as leader of the Conservative Party. Since then, the Conservatives have dissolved into factions. I regret this because I know there are moderate MPs in the Conservative Party who I have a lot of respect for. Then there are other Conservative MPs who endorsed the hate and disrespect for democracy that was embodied in the so-called “freedom convoy”.

Right outside this House, there was a so-called “freedom convoy”, which called for the overthrow of a democratically elected government, expressed hate, flew the Nazi emblem and confederate flags, which are disgraceful emblems of hate, yet some of the more extremist Conservative MPs endorsed those aims and the so-called “freedom convoy”. One of them is even running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton. What does that say about the Conservative Party when we have seen this disintegration of its respect for democratic institutions?

Again, I note that there are moderate Conservative MPs who do respect democracy. I think their voices, tragically, have been muted within the Conservative caucus, but when Conservative MPs, including the interim leader of the Conservative Party, endorse the aims of the so-called “freedom convoy”, it should cause all of us to question what the direction of the Conservative Party really is. It was not a high point for the Conservative Party. Subsequently, we saw the concerns around the vandalism and violence with the so-called “freedom convoy”. It is simply not anything that any member of Parliament should be endorsing.

The aim that we have seen over the last few months seems to be that the Conservative Party is essentially refusing to let any legislation through. I have said before, and it bears repeating, that there are two block parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the block-everything party. The block-everything party is the Conservative Party, which has simply refused to let any legislation through. That has included important legislation, for example, that would provide supports to farmers and teachers. The Conservatives blocked it.

There was the budget implementation act, which the NDP was proud to have negotiated through confidence and supply. For the first time, an adequate and substantial investment in affordable housing was going to be made to meet a housing crisis that has been so hard on so many Canadians. The NDP and the member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, negotiated that. For the first time in decades, we would see, coming down the pipeline, enough investments in affordable housing to create tens of thousands of affordable housing units, but they would not be based on market prices.

In my part of the country, New Westminster—Burnaby, a one-bedroom apartment can be $2,000. That is not something that most people in Burnaby or New Westminster can afford, but when there is affordable housing based on 30% of people's incomes, then it become affordable. Then, regardless of people's income category, they can afford to have a roof over the heads and put food on the table. This is all a result of the confidence and supply agreement.

As well, the national dental care plan, for the first year, would be put into place for all children 12 years of age and under. We know that good dental care early in life allows for better dental care later in life as well.

As the Speaker would know, because I know how closely she is tied to her constituency, people in our country, millions of them, have never had access to dental care. We can see what that does to their teeth over the course of years without access to dental care. I have seen constituents whose teeth are literally rotting out of their mouth. Now for the first time, over the next couple of years, thanks to the NDP push and the confidence and supply agreement, we are going to see national dental care.

Dental care for those 12 and under and housing were very much part of the budget implementation act, yet the Conservatives blocked them as well. I say that sadly because there is no doubt this would make a difference in people's lives, but the “block everything party” just blocks by reflex. It just wants to block every piece of legislation. That makes no sense when Canadians need the supports in the legislation before the House.

The Conservatives' refusal to accept, in this case, the ability of the heritage committee to put in place and improve Bill C-11 and add the amendments that we have heard from many witnesses will make the bill better, and the Conservatives' refusal to allow amendments to be tabled and allow a discussion to be held, have brought us to tonight and Motion No. 16, which I will again cite as a motion to stop the Conservatives from wreaking havoc at the heritage committee. It will allow us to finally improve Bill C-11, after hearing from witnesses and after weeks of delay due to the Conservatives blocking everything. It will make Bill C-11 better, and make it, in a very real sense, a bill that creates more Canadian jobs, levels the playing field for Canadians against the web giants and ensures that we will have a vital broadcasting industry for years to come that will tell Canadian stories to Canadians.

With that, I will conclude my speech. It is now eight o'clock, and I believe the bells will be ringing and soon we will be called to vote. I will be voting yes on Motion No. 16.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to close debate tonight on motion 16, which I have also entitled the “stop Conservatives from wreaking havoc at the heritage committee” motion.

What we have seen over the course of the last few weeks is Conservatives wreaking havoc at the heritage committee. Bill C-11, as so many speakers have pointed out over the course of the last few weeks of debate in Parliament, would do important things to actually help to foster Canadian content, help to build the industry in Canada and make sure that there is more Canadian employment. There are many aspects of Bill C-11 that are important and that actually would make a difference.

How have Conservatives acted in committee? We saw it. After having an agreement for the equivalent of five weeks of hearings into Bill C-11, we saw the Conservatives systematically obstruct and wreak havoc at committee. They did a number of things, and they are important to put on the record.

First off, when there were witnesses outside—and I will point notably to the chair of the CRTC and also to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, all of whom came to answer questions from members of the committee, and they were often tough questions—what did Conservatives do? They actually blocked them from testifying and answering questions.

Who does this? We are parliamentarians and we are supposed to be asking the tough questions. Conservatives said, “No, we are going to just talk out the clock and refuse to let these people actually come in, testify and answer questions about the bill.”

Weeks ago, about a week and a half ago, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all filed their amendments, yet we saw Conservatives systematically obstruct and wreak havoc within the committee by refusing to actually file the amendments that are to be based on testimony from the witnesses we did hear. I should note that it turned out that the Conservatives finally admitted to actually filing their amendments on Friday. The idea that somehow this was accelerating a process that was unfair to them is simply false; they also tabled their amendments.

We heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses. We also had a whole slew of amendments suggested, and people and organizations also submitted written testimony to the heritage committee. Our job, as members of the heritage committee, is to take all of those suggested amendments, all of that witness testimony and all of the memoirs that were submitted and improve the bill, and it is important to note that the vast majority of witnesses support Bill C-11.

We have not had a single Conservative stand up in the days of debate we have had around Bill C-11 and actually admit that most of the witnesses who came to committee support Bill C-11. Not a single Conservative has admitted to that. That is a problem. There is a question of credibility when we are hearing from witnesses saying that Bill C-11 is necessary and would make a difference, that it would level the playing field between the web giants and help create more Canadian jobs and more Canadian economic prosperity, when not a single Conservative is prepared to admit that most of the testimony has been in Bill C-11's favour. I think that fundamentally undermines their credibility on this issue.

I will say something further about the Conservatives' lack of credibility on this issue: We have had absolutely wacko claims by Conservatives. Members will recall Conservatives saying that somehow Bill C-11 had something to do with the government actually following people on cellphones.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member this. He has referred to Bill C-10, so we know that similar legislation came to this House of Commons before. As well, in Bill C-11, there have been improvements made, so there has been ample opportunity for the Conservative members to read the bill and understand the bill.

I am wondering if we can get to the amendment stage, the clause-by-clause stage of the bill, and whether the member has some actual amendments to propose.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and bring the voice of Chatham–Kent—Leamington to this chamber. I want to thank my colleague for splitting his time with me.

I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 16. Actually, I am not pleased to speak to it, but I am honoured to have this opportunity on Motion No. 16, the programming motion on Bill C-11.

Canada is home to some of the best talent in the world. Our artists, our actors, our musicians and other creators in our arts, culture and heritage sector continue to develop incredible Canadian content on a daily basis. The development of the sector is alive and well, with young talent consistently emerging across the country. These exceptional artists and creators deserve nothing less than an even playing field and to be supported with all the tools they need to thrive in their industry. They deserve fair compensation and a competitive economic environment that enables them to continue sharing their stories through their medium of choice, whether it be television, film, music, prose, theatre, the concert hall or perhaps the fastest-growing medium, the online content on the Internet.

I can personally relate to this field, as my oldest daughter is making her way through life as an artist, teaching music, singing opera and producing opera, albeit live at this moment, and living a gig-economy lifestyle.

The last time any major changes were made to the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, over 30 years ago. Given the rapid pace at which technology has been advancing in the past decades, it is undeniable that we have seen major technological changes in that time. Unfortunately, the legislation and regulatory framework have not changed with it. The government and, consequently, the CRTC need to adjust the way Canadian arts, culture and media are treated to match these changes. What we see, however, is the government failing in its attempts to bring the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century by adapting existing policy to reflect the digital reality of our times and failing to help future-proof it for future technologies and challenges yet to come.

Let me be clear: Conservatives support a requirement for major streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney to reinvest back into the production of Canadian content in both official languages. These requirements would also incentivize these platforms to partner with independent Canadian media producers. What is crucial, however, is that Canadians who upload content to social media platforms continue to enjoy the freedom of speech and the ability to express themselves freely within the confines of the law.

Sadly, Bill C-11, much like its failed predecessor in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, would give the CRTC unprecedented powers to monitor online audiovisual content. These powers would include the ability to penalize digital content creators and platforms that do not comply with these regulations. These powers would be used and applied to Canadian content at the discretion of the CRTC, based on three criteria: whether it directly or indirectly generates revenue, whether it has in whole or in part been broadcast on a more traditional broadcasting platform, and whether it has been assigned a unique identifier under any international standard system.

As most digital content generates some kind of revenue, and given that most social media platforms have a system by which to provide a unique ID to their content, the CRTC could regulate almost all online content under this bill, including independent Canadian content creators who earn their living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. This represents a major concern about the freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach in this bill, just like Bill C-10, in how it could affect Canadians.

Canada is known as being a world leader in many fields. Contributions by Canadians have revolutionized medicine, communications, agriculture, domestic life, entertainment and much more. Experts have testified that this bill would represent an unprecedented move and that Canada would once again become a world leader, but this time in its heavy-handed practice of regulating user-generated content. Not a single other country in the world has taken this approach. This is not an area Canadians should be proud to pioneer.

Instead, what we are seeing is a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns with the approach their government is taking to their livelihoods and entertainment, respectively. This attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and restrict the free speech of Canadians was unacceptable under Bill C-10, and it is equally unacceptable now.

I want to talk about what this bill would not do. This bill would not reduce the regulatory burden faced by Canadian broadcasters, nor would it reduce the cost to Canadian broadcasters. The part II licensing fees in 2019-20 alone amounted to over $116 million. I would rather see that money go into creating new Canadian programming and content than into CRTC coffers.

In the previous version of the bill, Bill C-10, there was an exclusion for user-generated content, which was then excluded at committee. Now, in Bill C-11, the government has reintroduced an exclusion on user-generated content on social media; however, this is written in the most convoluted and bureaucratic of languages. The exclusion to the exclusion is so broad that the government, through the CRTC, could again regulate a large amount of content uploaded to social media.

What concerns me and my colleagues, and we have certainly been hearing about it from our constituents, is the impact this is going to have on our Canadian digital content creators. It is estimated that there are 28,000 full-time jobs in Canada created by content creators who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels through places like YouTube. This type of digital-first Canadian content creation is something we should be supporting instead of hindering.

We have heard from creators across Canada who are concerned that government-approved Canadian content is going to be put ahead of independent Canadian content. More to this, Canadians also want to see Canadians telling Canadian stories, but what is not clear is how the CRTC is going to adjust the criteria to ensure that real Canadian stories are being told.

Our artists deserve an even playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, as technology evolves and carries on into the future and as we move further and further into the digital reality and online spaces. We need them to tell our stories, whether through music, movies, television or online content. Without that, part of our history will be lost.

I think we can all agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated to reflect our current technology growth, but the last thing we want is Canada to fall further behind or to pass a law that would detrimentally affect our artists.

We need to support our Canadians artists in all the various forms and mediums they use to tell their stories. Our young talent continues to develop and contribute to our national culture. It is part of our role as elected officials to pave the way for the next generation's success. We should not be passing bills that disrupt the creation of new content. We need to help innovation happen. Innovation happens every day here in Canada through many venues, and we need to enable our creators to benefit from and export our talent around the globe.

Our artists, musicians and creators are deeply invested in the future of the industry and the future of this particular piece of legislation. These creators and artists deserve to be treated fairly and to have the tools they need for success, and they need to be heard at committee; dozens have yet to be heard.

We have been there for Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by asking the tough questions, both here in this chamber and at committee. We carefully reviewed every aspect of the bill and expected the Liberal government to make the adjustments necessary by adopting amendments that were brought forward to protect Canadians' free speech and the livelihoods of independent content creators.

Proposed section 4.2 and any provision that enables the inclusion of user-generated content need to be removed. There needs to be a clear definition of “discovery”, and there needs to be an update to clearly articulate what Canadian content is. What is the definition of it? Very importantly, the policy directive to the CRTC on how this whole legislation will be implemented needs to be made public.

We have been clear in our position on the bill. We will not be supporting the bill until we are confident that Canadians do not need to be concerned about their rights and freedoms on the Internet. Our concerns have not yet been addressed, and I will not be supporting this motion to ram through Bill C-11 at committee, as the Liberals have done at every stage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough issue for me, as an individual MP, because I do not like a motion that says we are going to fast-track all amendments, close things down and push something through on this basis, as the government is proposing to do on Bill C-11.

I am honestly still trying to decide how I will vote on the Conservative motion. I would rather we stay in this place and do it right, even if it took sitting into July. I do not know about taking until September. That is what I am struggling with right now. I also know in the previous Parliament, with Bill C-10, and in this Parliament, and I do not want to make this personal in any way, shape or form, but the tactics of the Conservative Party cannot be described as anything other than obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

I would like him to try to tell me what he thinks would happen if the government did not push this through. Would we have a chance to improve this bill and then get it passed?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from the NDP's intervention. It is always nice and appreciated to give a Canadian shout-out to a Canadian artist. That is appreciated.

On the revenues, as I said in my intervention, we need to make sure that companies such as Netflix, whether of a national or foreign nature doing business in Canada are paying their fair share, and also contributing to Canadian content using the revenues they have and the power they have to generate Canadian content of Canadian stories, creating Canadian jobs and so forth.

The example I laid out concerning The Handmaid's Tale speaks of how broken the idea of Canadian content is. Bill C-11 is not the solution. It does not tackle those problems appropriately, and I think it is going to leave a lot of confusion in the industry about coming into Canada and creating authentic Canadian content and jobs for actors and producers. There is also all the behind the scenes we see from a wide variety of platforms and the media viewing aspect of things. We are to be left behind.

We need better clarity on this. This bill does not do it. Just saying a title and that it is for artists does not actually mean it is going to benefit all those it says it is going to.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way was talking about receiving emails from people who had concerns about the bill. I know that members in the House can say whatever they want in the House and then post it on their Facebook, Twitter and so on. I am curious if the member has had any communications in his householders on Bill C-11 and what he says to members in his community about it that is resulting in people contacting him from across Canada. The previous speaker mentioned that he gets tons of emails from across Canada, as do I, from people not in my riding, about certain legislation.

Does the member opposite feel his party is maybe playing into the fact that they are igniting this fake outrage about this piece of legislation?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight once again to speak to the government's proposed Bill C-11. In the last Parliament, it was Bill C-10, and it certainly generated a lot of feedback and frustration from Canadians across the country. We have been witnessing that here again in the last couple of months with this bill in its current form.

I have been receiving a lot of emails and advocacy petitions from constituents, both online creators and those who consume the content. They are concerned about what this bill entails and, frankly, among several things I will get into, what it does not entail. I believe that kicking the can to the CRTC and other organizations is a slippery slope and not a good precedent, based on the precedents that have caused a lot of frustrations to build up over the years.

I want to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

We are debating this motion tonight because of an attempt by the government and its NDP partners to try to jam this legislation through the House of Commons once again. I know there are still numerous witnesses who want to provide their perspectives and voices at the heritage committee and share the legitimate and reasonable concerns they have and the clarifications they wish to see that they are not getting from the government and its partner.

One of the problems we have that is typical of the Liberal-NDP strategy when it comes to legislation, which we are seeing in Bill C-5, the criminal justice reform legislation, is that if members do not support the Liberals and NDP on the bill, it means we do not care about racism. If members want an end to federal mandates and the chaos we are seeing at the borders and airports, it means the members hate vaccines and health care workers. Now, with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, if we do not support their way and their ideas, we hate content creators and arts and culture in this country. It is an either-or, a divisive approach, but it is not surprising. It is one that we see more and more.

I will repeat what I said in the last Parliament because Bill C-11, as we have it, is very similar to what we saw in Bill C-10, and a lot of the concerns we had last time are not addressed or clarified in the bill in its current form.

Let me start with a positive in terms of agreement in Parliament. The Broadcasting Act was created in 1991. I do not remember it. I was about five years old at the time. Boyz II Men, Paula Abdul and Bryan Adams had some hits then, but since that original piece of legislation, a lot has changed in how Canadians create content and get it out there as well as in how they consume it.

We have the Internet, social media platforms, YouTube, Spotify, TikTok and so forth. There is an agreement that we need to have a level playing field with these large conglomerates of a foreign nature and how they do business in this country. At the same time, we also need to make sure that we protect the individual freedoms and rights of individual content creators, like those on YouTube who have been able to explode in not only the Canadian market but also the international market with the evolution of the Internet and social media platforms.

There are serious flaws, and I have a perfect example. My colleague from Perth—Wellington, the shadow minister for Canadian heritage, raised this as a perfect example today. We all want to make sure Canadian content is created and is fairly represented on Netflix, Hulu, Crave and all the different platforms. He alluded in the chamber today to this bill not creating the specific measures to clarify some of the red tape about what is Canadian content. A perfect example that was illustrated was The Handmaid's Tale. I do not agree with Margaret Atwood and a lot of her politics, but I will admire her and give her respect as an artist and an author and for what she has done over her incredible career. A proud Canadian she is.

The Handmaid's Tale, a blockbuster TV series, was filmed in part in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area. One would think Margaret Atwood and filming in the province of Ontario, the GTA, would classify as Canadian content. It does not. That speaks to the need to define this content better, to set better parameters and better definitions when it comes to this. Sadly, the bill would not do that. One would think it would when we talk about the modernization that we face.

I want to specify my concerns during my time. This comes perhaps from my background before being in the House, as a mayor at the municipal level, and perhaps it is a bit affected by my experience in the past few months on the public accounts committee, which reviews Auditor General reports on programs and efficiencies and how they run.

I want to reiterate my concern with regard to the vague definitions particularly around user-generated digital content, claiming there is an exemption, but section 4.2 is there. The government says not to worry about it. The CRTC says not to worry about it. I do not think Canadians have a lot of faith in that approach to what we have.

The CRTC is a public entity, but considers itself very independent. I have a lot of frustrations with the organization that I will not get into tonight when it comes to providing Internet service to rural and remote communities. That is a speech for another night.

Particularly, what is happening is that the government's legislation is extremely vague. Conservatives have been standing up in committee and in the House, not just in this Parliament but also in the last Parliament, and I have foreseen and I am foreshadowing what I know is to come. We see it over and over again. The government says, “That is not our intention. Do not worry.” The legislation would pass and then it would go to the CRTC, after which, at some point down the road after the bill is passed, after it has come into law and been enacted, suddenly we would see algorithms or we would see content. At that point, the CRTC would say, “We are independent. There is nothing you can do. This is the law that was passed and this is the way it is interpreting it.”

The minister has tried to claim that user-generated digital content and YouTube creators, TikTok creators and Canadians who have been able to burst onto the scene, not just in this country but internationally, are free from having their content regulated. They say that they have no interest in looking at that.

If that is the case, the government should be going for what we have been advocating for: it should specifically rule it out and make it black and white. It should make it very clear so that there is not a little door poked open for the CRTC, when it is batted over there to look after, all of a sudden to decide that, in the public interest, it is going to be doing this.

This is the time for Parliament, for Conservatives, for us to stand and be on the record to say that there are amendments. There are a lot of things that need to change, but there are specific amendments at least on that. I believe that just speaks to the rushed attempt that we are seeing from the government. It speaks to the secrecy of what it is trying to do. It is trying to pass the buck over to an independent organization, one that is overly powerful in my personal view, to interpret these laws, at which point the government can later say that it was its goal but secretly it was not the government's problem but somebody else's.

It is government creep at its worst. We have seen it before. We see it at the public accounts committee, in terms of leaving it to bureaucratic organizations to organize, and the success of that.

In my time remaining tonight, I want to acknowledge some of the comments made by a Canadian YouTube creator who spoke at the Canadian heritage committee a few weeks ago, J.J. McCullough. I go back to what we could agree on: Modernization is needed for the Broadcasting Act to make sure that large companies such as Netflix pay their fair share and also create Canadian content for us to have as Canadians. J.J. McCullough noted the following, which really hit home when I heard his testimony:

The tremendous success and even worldwide fame of many Canadian YouTubers in the absence of government regulation should invite questions about the necessity of Bill C-11. An unregulated YouTube has been a 17-year experiment, and the result has been an explosion of popular Canadian content produced by Canadians of every imaginable demographic....it is important to understand that it is simply impossible to regulate a platform like YouTube without also regulating creator content.

We have seen more Canadians become known. We have seen more Canadians make a living on these platforms. What the government is proposing is not that if one does not support this, one does not care about Canadian artists. We are standing up for individual content creators to say that platforms like these have given them the opportunity to make a living, to get known and to get Canadian brands, Canadian stories, Canadian music or other things we could name out there.

Our colleagues will stand up for those individual creators in making sure that we get the government to better define the very slippery slope it is on, not just with Bill C-10 in the last parliament. It is repeating the same mistake with Bill C-11.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I joined the ranks of journalism, as well. I know it well and went on to be an online content creator and know what it can do. I am sorry I am not speaking in French. I am working on that.

I am actually really curious, because my office has received hundreds of emails opposed to Bill C-11 from very concerned people. Has his office also received the same concerns, and how does he respond to his constituents?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we both started our careers in radio, but I have to say that I started a few years before you. I know that is somewhat hard to believe.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on the progress he is making in learning French. Last year, it was much more difficult for him to speak French. He just asked me a question entirely in French and I congratulate him.

It is not a secret. We talk about it often in the House. French in general is at risk and in decline, and it must be protected. It is true for the French language in everyday life, but it applies even more so to francophone culture. We are a francophone island in the sea of North America, and we are being invaded by American culture. We must protect francophone culture as best we can, especially Quebec culture, but francophone culture across Canada also. With bills such as Bill C‑11, we can make this difference and this distinction by protecting our culture.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank the member for Avalon for sharing his time with me today.

Allow me to make a quick digression to talk about my family. I just returned to Parliament Hill after waging my own battle with this nasty virus that has been talked about so much over the past two and a half years. I am fine now. We fought it off as a family. I want to thank my partner, Caroline, who is recovering as well, her daughter Alexandrine and my daughter Lily Rose. The girls and I are warriors, and we are fine now.

I am happy to be back, but not so happy to be debating Bill C‑11, or more specifically, Motion No. 16, which is preventing us from talking more about Bill C‑11. There are both pros and cons here.

It is never feels good to forgo our duty and privilege as parliamentarians to debate bills as much as necessary before voting for or against. The debate needs to stop at some point, however.

One day I will be able to say that I was there in 2022. I was also there in 1991. Some might think I am not old enough for that, because I do not look my age, but I was working as a radio host in 1991 when the Broadcasting Act was modernized. At the time, I have to say that we had the same concerns, fears and criticisms that are being expressed today about what we are trying to add to the act through Bill C‑11.

We heard criticisms about what is now being called discoverability, but used to be called quotas, those infamous quotas of Canadian content, those French-language music quotas for the radio.

I can say that in 1991, radio stations had quotas to meet, and it was a source of frustration for me and most of my fellow radio hosts at the time because it took a real effort. We could not get away with just playing the big hits from the U.S. anymore. We had to make the effort to discover content that we knew nothing about, since French-language music and Quebec artists were nearly impossible to find at the time.

The same was true for Manitoban artists, with the exception of Daniel Lavoie, who was one of the French-Canadian artists who was doing well at the time. Fortunately, there was a place for him on the radio waves. Discovering the others, however, required showing curiosity, going to the record shop, then listening to albums and deciding to try something that people generally had not heard on the radio.

Those quotas allowed us to offer our artists something they would not otherwise have had: a showcase on Quebec radio. As a result, this music has gained popularity over the years, and now it is being increasingly played and increasingly requested on the radio. Thanks to that, Quebec has now a French-language music industry driven by francophone artists and a thriving music industry in general, independently of language, because the market has been well protected and has fostered homegrown content.

Therefore, it is not true that the concept of discoverability that we are attempting to impose on today's various broadcasters, primarily those online, is bad or evil, nor is it an infringement on the freedom of choice and freedom of expression of music consumers in Canada and Quebec.

The future will confirm what I am saying now, because it has been proven time and time again in Quebec. There is a good reason why there is such massive support for this bill in Quebec. Clearly, what we are trying to include in the bill is well-thought-out and positive.

I was around in 1991, and I was still around 2021, when the bill was called C‑10. Earlier, I heard a member say that the only difference between last year's bill and this one was the “1” in the title. One thing I know for sure is that, when Bill C‑10 was introduced on November 3, 2020, it was like a big, blank paint-by-numbers document. All the real work had yet to be done.

Some 130 amendments to this bill were put forward. The Bloc Québécois suggested some extremely important amendments that were debated and adopted so as to include discoverability of not only Canadian, but also Quebec, francophone and indigenous language content. For Bill C‑10, we had to reintroduce the concept of Canadian ownership to prevent our own homegrown undertakings from being swallowed up by giants for what to them is pocket change.

We added all kinds of things to Bill C‑10, and those things are in Bill C‑11. The fact is, the bill we are debating this year—or, rather, will be debating for a short time this year—is not the same as the one we debated last year. There is still room for improvement. We may run out of time for that, but I will still urge my committee colleagues to do the right thing and work efficiently and collaboratively. That may be wishful thinking.

The Conservatives want to hear from more witnesses. That was one of the arguments they used to hold up the process during the committee's recent work on Bill C‑11, yet they were the ones who proposed limiting our time with witnesses to 20 hours. I remember because I was there. We agreed to that proposal.

During those 20 hours, they could have invited the witnesses they say they did not have time to invite, like APTN, which is an extremely relevant witness and one of the first witnesses we should have heard from, but no. Our colleagues in the Conservative Party decided to invite YouTubers, TikTokers, creators of digital content. This is their choice and their legitimate right. Still, did they really need to invite the 160,000 creators who make YouTube videos in Canada? I think we got the message. We could have moved on to more relevant witnesses.

However, I am somewhat responsible for what happened. Since we had already heard from many witnesses and met with dozens and dozens of organizations since the beginning of this great adventure dealing with the broadcasting bill, I myself convinced a bunch of organizations not to testify, telling them that we would be able to study the bill faster clause by clause, and saying that we knew what they wanted and that we would represent them properly. I apologize to my Conservative colleagues, because I am perhaps somewhat responsible for the fact that we did not consider it essential to receive witnesses for hours and hours, as they would have liked.

It is important that this bill pass. I would really have preferred for it to pass in a more democratic manner, and for us to have a healthy debate on it. That did not happen in committee. However, it is important that it pass, and it needs to be flexible so that it can be adapted to new technologies. Soon online platforms will have the final say on what music and content we consume in our cars. Who knows where will be next. However, the CRTC must be given the opportunity to set out the rules and regulate this industry that is so dear to us, and it is up to us to do just that.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Avalon, for whom I have tremendous respect. We are both members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We all appreciate his work as chair, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank him. I also want to thank him for his speech. I was very happy to hear him talk about independent producers, who are literally the driving force behind the cultural economy in Canada and Quebec.

I would like my colleague to tell us about the work that committee members, specifically my colleague from Drummond, have done on the discoverability of French-language content. Can he comment on why it was important to protect French-language content in Bill C‑10 and, of course, in Bill C‑11?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Drummond.

The government is committed to implementing a digital and cultural policy agenda that will serve Canadians' interests not just today but well into the future. It will support our cultural and artistic ecosystems, including our many talented creative sector workers. This is urgently needed.

Today, I am pleased to speak to the important elements of the online streaming act. First, I will have the pleasure of talking about Canadian independent producers and the important role they play. Second, I want to talk about the importance of ensuring that Canadians can find and access Canadian stories and music.

Delaying Bill C-11 would do harm to our production industry. It would leave the creative ecosystem in a very uncertain and difficult place, without support and predictable funding for Canadian programs. Ultimately, the online streaming act aims to foster an environment where Canadian music and stories can thrive and be discovered. The time to act is now. There is a lot at stake.

However, just like last time, the Conservatives have proven that they have no interest in making our broadcasting system fairer by levelling the playing field between tech giants and Canadian broadcasters. They have decided to use every tactic in their tool box to delay and block our study on Bill C-11. It is disappointing but not surprising. On this side of the House, we are committed to supporting the incredible creators across our country, telling stories that reflect our diverse experiences and building cultural bridges that bring us together.

Turning an idea into a cultural product is no simple task. From coast to coast to coast, our creatives have undeniable talent and an unparalleled work ethic. Canada's independent producers are an example of this.

A Canadian independent producer is a Canadian person or entity, usually a corporation, that creates an audiovisual media project that is not owned or controlled by the broadcaster or distributor. In other words, independent producers make movies, TV shows and documentaries that are not subject to creative control by a TV channel, network, streaming service or cable company. They are crucial to creative risk-taking, authentic storytelling and diverse representation in our audiovisual sector.

In film and television, independent productions cover a wide range of formats and genres, from art house films to popular animated kids shows and everything in between. Popular independent programs include comedies like Letterkenny, French-language originals like M'entends-tu? and science fiction like Orphan Black. There are also many acclaimed indie films, such as Ruba Nadda's Cairo Time and Kim Nguyen's French-language film War Witch. These are only a few examples of the range of quality programming that our independent producers create.

To successfully realize a project, independent producers do many things. They invest in development, make pitches, secure financing, hire creative and technical teams, scout locations and navigate complex trade, tax and labour arrangements to make projects happen. Not surprisingly, Canadian independent producers often work closely with Canadian musicians for scores and soundtracks.

There are over 600 independent production companies in Canada, most of them small and surviving project to project. Canadian independent film and television accounted for $2.9 billion in production volume and more than 81,000 jobs in 2019-20. Many of these independent production companies are undercapitalized and often face difficulty obtaining project financing. In Canada, once a finished project is in hand and all the rights for its creative elements are clear, the producers then make money. However, it is a risky business with a lot of upfront costs.

While we may recognize Toronto landmarks in the background of an episode of Suits or even in the foreground of Pixar's Turning Red, these are American productions. They work with Canadian talent below the line: the “best boys”, “grips” and “gaffers” listed in movie credits. They work with our visual effects, post-production and virtual production studios, such as Stoic in Vancouver, Deluxe in Toronto and MELS in Montreal. They are valuable, without a doubt.

Canadian productions, and specifically independent Canadian productions, are important for ensuring that cultural industry investments touch down and take root in the places where our stories come from. For example, the long-running Canadian television series Heartland is set in Alberta. It is produced by Calgary-based Seven24 Films and Dynamo Films and has a big local economic impact. For just one season of Heartland, they spent over $28 million on production, saw each dollar of federal tax incentive produce more than $11 in GDP and hired more than 1,400 vendors across Alberta.

Independent Canadian productions also tell untold stories and develop diverse programming. Consider Indian Horse, a film adaptation of Richard Wagamese's novel about a talented Ojibwa hockey player who survives the racism and residential schools of his time. Its independent producers were committed to engaging with local indigenous communities, providing jobs and working with elders to ensure respect for cultural protocols.

Diversity is one of Canada's greatest strengths. Without independent producers taking risks, we would never have films such as Water in Hindi and Edge of the Knife in the endangered Haida language. In children's and family programming, Canadian independent producers are innovators. The Kratt brothers are pushing boundaries in the multiplatform arena, while WildBrain has become a global programming powerhouse.

Our stories and our creative talent are at the heart of the online streaming act. The legislation lists several important factors for the CRTC to consider in its definition of Canadian programs, including, for example, collaboration with Canadian producers, Canadian ownership and exploitation of IP by Canadians. This would give the commission the flexibility to require all types of broadcasting undertakings, including online streaming services, to financially contribute to the development of Canadian programs and Canadian talent. That is what Canada's important independent production sector needs to continue to thrive.

A strong independent production sector ensures Canadian stories are told by and for Canadians. However, it is not enough to encourage the production side alone. It is important that Canadians can find and access Canadian stories and music. As we see more of ourselves reflected in these popular mediums, it creates a sense of pride and a sense of unity, which are precisely what we need in these difficult times.

The influx of streaming programs has meant access to endless content, but it can be difficult to find or even recognize Canadian programs. This is in part because online platforms are not required to showcase Canadian programs in the same way as traditional broadcasters.

Our independent productions, and especially Canadian music, deserve to be discovered and supported. However, in the current context, it is a challenge for independent producers to remain visible in the marketplace.

With major artists like Kanye, Adele and Ed Sheeran dropping new music every few weeks, new content simply outpaces our ability to consume it. While we find pride in Canadian artists such as Drake, The Weeknd and Shawn Mendes dominating streaming playlists, we know that production and quality music alone are not enough to get noticed. If that were the case, we would see artists such as k-os, Hawksley Workman, Ada Lea and the quartet Corridor find the global success they deserve.

Word-of-mouth marketing is no longer sufficient. Our musical tastes are increasingly dictated by algorithms. What we are asking for has proven successful in the past. Forty-one years ago, the federal government stepped in with requirements for CanCon to save our singers and musicians from being lost to the radio hits from the United States. We are adapting this policy to safeguard Canadian music for the future.

Without prominence, Canadian stories and songs will not be discovered, heard or remunerated. Discoverability is important. It is an opportunity to be introduced to up-and-coming Canadian artists such as Morgan Toney, a young Mi'kmaq fiddler from Nova Scotia.

I will end here, as I know my time is short. Anything I did not say I can hopefully get to in a question or two.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about holding the web giants accountable. MindGeek and Pornhub claim to be one of the largest sites on the Internet with over 11 billion viewers every year. There is enough content on their website that, if someone had to watch it all, it would take them 572,000 years. MindGeek and Pornhub are a major part of the problem on the Internet. It is probably one of the biggest web giants, if there is such a thing, in the world.

I am very disappointed that Bill C-11, while attempting to tackle holding so-called web giants to account, does nothing of the sort when it comes to a company that is in our own backyard and based in Montreal. This bill does nothing to tackle the exploitation that this particular web giant has participated in.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised—and that is putting it mildly—by the member's speech. As the saying goes, “give a dog a bad name and hang him”. His speech was a bit like that. He spoke about pornography and child exploitation, but that is not at all what Bill C-11 is about. I would invite him to introduce a different bill on that topic.

Bill C-11 is about forcing the web giants to make room for our creators, our artists. That is what we are talking about. Please do not tell me that we are rushing things. We have been working on this for two years, and artists and creators have been waiting 30 years for the act to be revised.

I just want to say to my colleague that I am really surprised by his speech. I do not think I really understood where he was going with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what my whole speech was about. There is an area of the Internet that we need to work on to ensure that children are not gaining access to it and ensure that it is not ending up in front of the eyes of children. This is something that is going to be hard. It will be difficult, and it will take effort. However, one of the things that I have been frustrated with is that the government does not put in the effort to get pieces of legislation that we need across the finish line.

Bill C-11 would do nothing to prevent the exploitation of children online, and I am very disappointed to see that is not being addressed. I have moved amendments for Bill C-11 to work in this area, but as it stands, the bill would do nothing to prevent sexual exploitation online.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is duly noted.

I would like to think that the Liberals would have learned their lesson after the debacle of Bill C-10 in the last Parliament, but only this government would be able to introduce a bill that is even worse than the original. The Liberals claim they are trying to level the playing field between traditional and online media. However, it is already incredibly difficult to start a radio station in this country, but it is very easy to start a podcast. Why would the government not make it easier for traditional media to operate instead of policing online content?

In all of this, the Liberal-NDP coalition has refused to listen to Canadian experts, content producers and other witnesses at the heritage committee to fix this incredibly flawed bill. Today's motion only limits the ability of parliamentarians to hear from witnesses, and to debate and study the proposed amendments. Essentially, the Liberals and the NDP are censoring MPs from speaking on their censorship bill.

One of the greatest concerns is proposed section 4.2 of the act, which outlines what is considered a program for the purposes of regulation. In answer to this question at committee, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was adamant that social media posts would not fall under the definition of a program, yet the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, said the exact opposite when he testified, “Proposed section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria.”

He, on another occasion, reassured Canadians they had nothing to worry about because the folks at the CRTC, “have lots of things to do. We don’t need to start looking at user-generated content.” How is it reassuring that they do not need to start looking at people's social media? In other words, they will eventually start looking at people's social media, but they are just too busy at the moment.

The Liberal government is telling Canadians to just trust it, except Canadians do not trust this government. They do not trust it when it comes to mandates. They do not trust it when it comes to protecting Canadians online. They certainly do not trust it when it comes to ethics. I think of the SNC-Lavalin and the WE Charity scandals. They do not trust the government at all.

Rather than policing Canadian social media, why would the government not tackle online sexual exploitation? I believe there are some areas where the Internet should have oversight. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to our children online, but they do, and there are no requirements to make sure that accessibility to their sites is for those over the age of 18. I also believe porn companies should not be able to post their content without verifying the age and consent of each person depicted therein.

Too many women and kids have been horrifically exploited online, and porn companies, such as Montreal-based MindGeek, have made billions of dollars from exploiting these women and children, but the Liberals' Bill C-11 does not tackle any of these important issues. The Liberals are more interested in policing our political, social and religious views online. Despite multiple calls for action by survivors, NGOs and parliamentarians, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government have done nothing to address companies like MindGeek, which have been publishing and profiting from online sexual exploitation for many years with impunity.

It has been over two years since nine parliamentarians wrote the Prime Minister to alert him to the fact that companies like MindGeek were profiting from child sexual abuse material, sex trafficking and rape in his home province. It has been a year and a half since 20 parliamentarians from four parties wrote the justice minister inquiring why Canada's laws have failed to hold online exploiters accountable, and it has been 18 months since the world has asked why Canada allows this company, MindGeek, to profit off of videos of exploitation and assault.

It has been over 70 weeks since the Canadian heritage minister promised legislation to fight online exploitation within three weeks. It has been 498 days since the survivor, Serena Fleites, shared her horrific story and called on parliamentarians to do something. It has been one year since the ethics committee tabled a report with 14 unanimously supported recommendations. There has been nothing, no action, from the government. Within three days, Mastercard and Visa were able to make findings and judgments that ended their relationships with MindGeek and Pornhub, yet the government has been unable to come up with anything to end this online harm.

To be clear, there have been multiple lawsuits from survivors in Canada and the United States against MindGeek, but zero government legislation to prevent companies from exploiting or profiting from the victimization of children, sex-trafficked victims or rape victims. There have been zero known investigations in Canada, zero charges laid in Canada, and zero justice for survivors. This government's priority is to police law-abiding Canadian citizens online and turn a blind eye to exploitation.

The government could have even used Bill C-11 to tackle online exploitation to protect minors, which is why I have provided some amendments to Bill C-11 that would do this. Specifically, I am proposing that Bill C-11 amend section 3 of the Broadcasting Act to set out policy objectives that the CRTC is mandated to implement to protect children from sexually explicit content and to prevent broadcasting of sexual violence. Specifically, I am proposing these policy objectives to seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content and to safeguard the human rights of women and marginalized people by preventing the broadcasting of programs that include pornographic material that is violent, sexist, racist or degrading or that is produced through sexual exploitation or coercion.

I have put forward these amendments at the committee, and I hope that the government will support them. These amendments are supported by child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation.

In a brief submitted to the heritage committee, an organization called Defend Dignity highlights, “Children are spending more time online” than ever. It also notes, “Exposure to sexually explicit material is detrimental to children’s [health and] well-being” and “The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child...recently adopted General Comment 25”. It continues, “Sexually violent material perpetrates discrimination and abuse [with the] connection between sexually explicit material and sexual exploitation”.

Defending Dignity also wrote:

Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority. As an organization working to end sexual exploitation in Canada, we call on all members of the committee to support [the member's] proposed amendment to section 3 of the Broadcasting Act.

There was also a joint submission to the Heritage committee from Timea's Cause and OneChild, two organizations with a combined 30 years' experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children. They wrote:

Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....

This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values and ideologies. In the case of children who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them—this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of content online has frightening links to rape, 'sextortion', deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child sexual abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.

That is why Timea's Cause and OneChild are urging the committee and this government to adopt these amendments to Bill C-11.

Conservatives will continue to defend the interests of Canadians. We will stand up to the exploitation, and those at risk of exploitation. We will stand up for those who are artists and creators, speaking out against this bill because it will harm their livelihoods. We will stand up for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in regard to the Liberals' efforts to fast-track a bill through Parliament that would allow the government to censor what Canadians post. The Trudeau Liberal government and its NDP allies are pushing through a motion in the House to curtail Parliament's responsibility to examine Internet regulation, Bill C-11—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech.

From what I understood from it, she is saying that Bill C-11 protects those who have yet to adapt to new approaches, the new digital reality.

Is my colleague aware that Quebec francophone culture, with 8.6 million people, must still have some sort of protection in this ocean of 350 million anglophones that is the Americas?

I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Peace River—Westlock.

I am rising today to speak on behalf of my constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country to this motion to close debate on Bill C-11. It is a bill that the government continues to insist should not be of concern to Canadians, yet barely allows it to be debated. The previous iteration, Bill C-10, had massive backlash last year, and damning testimony and expert analysis of the Liberal bill, so we can see why the Liberals want to shut down scrutiny as quickly as possible this time around.

Bill C-11 is a piece of legislation that the government continues to insist is entirely different from last year's Bill C-10. After reviewing the legislation, I can confirm there is definitely an 11 and not a 10 in the title of the legislation. Unfortunately, the rest of the deeply flawed Bill C-10, which would limit what Canadians could see, share and view online, has been sadly left in place.

The government can say that it listened and that regulating user-generated content is off the table; however, legal experts and digital content producers can read, and what they are reading in this legislation is still deeply concerning.

The government is moving to shut down debate, shut down committee study and prevent dozens of witnesses from sharing their thoughts and concerns on this bill. Probably the most recent conflict comes between the heritage minister and comments from the current CRTC chair, Ian Scott. Mr. Scott confirmed that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, would be able to regulate user-generated content under the current iteration of Bill C-11.

The government has stated that this legislation intends to support Canadian artists, promote the spread of Canadian content over that of international competition and update the Broadcasting Act to cover the rise of digital streaming content. None of these goals is wrong. Our Canadian arts and culture sector is flourishing and deserves our support. More Canadians than ever are making films about Canada. More Canadians are making music than ever in Canada. More video games are being made here in Canada, not to mention e-books, podcasts and YouTube content.

Canadians are producing and watching great Canadian content. Sometimes they will see it through Disney+, and occasionally getting that content made will involve international investment. Under the current rules, this may make it un-Canadian. It is not what the government would prefer for Canadians to watch.

A constituent of mine recently wrote to me with his concerns on Bill C-11 and the threat of censorship that is always present when a government looks to prefer one source of information over another. He told me the story of tenants of his who had grown up in the Soviet Union. He wrote:

Some time ago, a couple from Russia rented our basement suite. We got to know them well and had many discussions over how Russia-controlled media impacted them.... We asked, in your opinion, what was the biggest lie ever told to the Russian citizens. Slava didn’t hesitate: “That Russia won the 72 Canada Russia hockey series!” We were astounded… how could they not know that Canada won? We had the videos. They said the government simply eliminated the last four minutes of the winning game and controlled the narrative.

They only saw what the government wanted them to see. Bill C-11 gives the Canadian government the powers to do this: it has broad powers that could be used to censor what Canadians can see and say online according to the government’s preferences.

If the government is genuinely interested in updating the Broadcasting Act, let us work together to do that. If the government wants to ensure that Netflix, Spotify and YouTube are not playing by different rules than Canadian producers are, Conservatives are happy to help them in that. Canadians want to see digital platforms pay their fair share, but do not trust Bill C-11 to do it with all the extra censorship power.

To quote very specifically from the bill itself, Bill C-11 seeks to bring platforms like YouTube under the following content regulations. It says the CRTC:

May, in furtherance of its objects, make regulations

(a) respecting the proportion of time that shall be devoted to the broadcasting of Canadian programs;

(b) prescribing what constitutes a Canadian program for the purposes of this Act...

The government says it is looking to bring the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century, but applying those regulations to user-driven content platforms is trying to bring digital content into the 20th century. As my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill put it, “It is like playing an MP4 on a VHS machine: It is just not going to work.”

Regulating digital platforms and social media is beyond the scope of the CRTC's mandate and abilities. Right now, Canadians are succeeding on digital platforms with the support of fellow Canadians. People of every background in this country are making their full-time living creating digital content while receiving billions of views. We know Canadians are succeeding in these spaces.

Social media platforms already have reach within Canada. Why would the Liberals fork over $600,000 in taxpayer dollars in 2021 to pay for social media Internet influencers to sing the Liberals' messages if online platforms were so ineffective? This does not include the money the Liberals spent on the various digital platforms themselves, only to pay influencers. This was only discovered through investigations by Conservatives.

Governments should not look to discourage Canadians from watching Canadian YouTubers just because they make content abroad. We should not look to saddle the success of homegrown content makers with checklists to prove the Canadianness of their videos. Over-regulation is the swiftest eliminator of innovation. It benefits the previously established who may be too out of touch to keep up with the pace of change. Canadian digital content creators are on the cutting edge of new media. They do not need Bill C-11 to succeed, and they have proven that. Canadians are already watching what they are making. They do not need the federal government to tell them to, or to have the CRTC analyzing every online post to see if it is something that meets whatever rules it comes up with and is worthy of its view.

This is truly unbelievable. The Liberals are also refusing to release the policy directive they are giving the CRTC. The only ones who are seeking the government's assistance really are the legacy media companies that once enjoyed monopolies on television and radio. They did not innovate to the new media landscape, and are now looking for backdoor bailouts in partnership with a government seeking greater control of the lives of everyday people.

Any government looking to impose new regulations on a service so vital to everyday life as our digital devices would need to first demonstrate that its actions are not self-interested and that it would not choose to discriminate based on the viewpoints of those it is seeking to regulate.

The current government has proven that it cannot be trusted to be fair and equitable. In the past two years, we have seen two public protest movements that blocked public infrastructure get two entirely different responses from the same Liberal government. Of course, I am talking about the 2020 rail-line blockades, which brought pretty much all passenger and commercial rail, including from ports, to a dead stop for almost three weeks across the entire country and laid off 1,000 people. That is compared to the 2022 trucker convoy border closures at a handful of border crossings for a few days of that critical infrastructure.

Even though there was damage to infrastructure during the rail blockades, the Liberals worked with law enforcement and met with protesters. When the Liberals disagreed with trucker protests over mandates, they turned to the Emergencies Act to give themselves new powers, which were proven not to be necessary as our border crossings had already been reopened under our existing laws. The Liberals froze Canadian bank accounts without verification, which is something just admitted by the Department of Finance. The Liberals were called out by the Privacy Commissioner for failing to notify or ensure the privacy of Canadians whose cell phones were tracked by the Public Health Agency of Canada.

Nothing can make the government's track record of secrecy, control and division clearer today than to repeat the same tactic of cutting short debate it used in the prior piece of legislation, Bill C-10, in the previous Parliament.

This motion to impose an arbitrary deadline to send the bill back to the House does not help the Liberals' case. The House is not a short-order kitchen. There is no need to push on law-making, especially on a piece of legislation such as Bill C-11, which has so many holes of uncertainty that its symbol should be a piece of Swiss cheese. However, as the Prime Minister has constantly proven, the work of Parliament is secondary if he can move up his vacation plans in Tofino. As currently written, and with the government having no interest in hearing from witnesses or entertaining amendments, I cannot support stopping debate on this poorly thought-out, full of holes, overreaching piece of legislation.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate her on becoming a grandmother. That is a joy and beautiful gift in life.

We can also collectively offer a beautiful gift by passing Bill C‑11. There is certainly room for improvement. That said, it makes changes to the Broadcasting Act, which does not happen every year. This bill needs vision.

We could have used more time. I can understand moving motions to have time for a report. I think that will be done tomorrow, according to this morning's motion. It is not a lot of time. That said, sometimes perfect is the enemy of the good. In this case, I think that perfect is what should govern us.

My colleague wants the majority of the House to pass Bill C‑11. If she had an argument to convince those who are hesitating, what would it be?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak tonight about Motion No. 16 in support of Bill C-11 and about the importance of getting this piece of legislation through the House as quickly as possible.

The online streaming act is a crucial step in fostering a more inclusive Canada. Online streaming is quickly becoming the most important way in which Canadians consume audio and audiovisual content. Media have a big impact on how we see the world and how we see each other.

Canadians, creators, producers and broadcasters have been waiting for this legislation for many years. The last major reform to this legislation was in 1991, the year I graduated from high school, and as members can see from the colour of my hair, this was quite a while ago.

We have to act now. I urge all members of this House to focus on the important nature of this bill, which is to provide greater support to Canadian artists and creators from all communities and backgrounds. It is therefore essential that we move forward quickly with Bill C-11 so that our Canadian broadcasting system can thrive in the digital age.

It is great that many of my colleagues in the opposition understand the urgency of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have taken every opportunity to delay and block us from moving forward on our study of the legislation, and I will speak more about that a little later in my speech.

Our objective is to have diverse and representative voices in the broadcasting sector, including in online streaming services. In this way, we create the space for Canadians from official language minority communities, racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages to tell those stories.

Over the years, the Broadcasting Act and the regulatory system it created have helped ensure that stories created by and for Canadians continue to be created and appreciated by Canadians. That will remain its main objective.

Bill C‑11 will put today's viewing and listening audiences, including the diverse and marginalized voices that have historically been under-represented in the broadcasting system, in the spotlight. Bill C‑11 recognizes that some communities have had very little choice in terms of content, be it created by them or for them or in a way that accurately reflects their reality.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to talk about how the online streaming act would help ensure that Canada's broadcasting system will appropriately reflect and support diverse audiences, creators and artists, and this is to the benefit of all of us. Our broadcasting system has aspired to embody the important Canadian values of fairness, respect and inclusion. Canadian audiences have always been diverse, and we have seen the broadcasting system evolve to better serve their needs and represent all Canadians.

It is because of these values that we have had broadcasting in French and English right from the start.

It is those same values that underpin the extension of television broadcasting services, first to underserved rural and remote communities, then to the north, and then through the introduction of closed-captioning in the 1980s.

The values of fairness, respect and inclusion are behind the move to offer broadcasting choices in languages other than French and English and to remove some barriers to broadcasting these services on radio and television.

These values have been the basis for creating a more representative and inclusive production sector through contributions from the Canada Media Fund. Public funds further support efforts to promote diverse Canadian creators, including spaces like the Vancouver Asian Film Festival and organizations like the Black Screen Office.

These values have made us leaders on the world stage with respect to children's programming focused on diversity and inclusion. Our children can watch the wonderful stories of Teepee Time on APTN or Chevalier héroïque on TFO.

However, as the world sees growing ignorance and racism, including the rise of xenophobia, we know that more needs to be done. There remains a gap. There is a gap between the reality of the Canada we live in and the diverse and inclusive Canada we strive for.

In 2020, approximately 63% of Canada's Black population reported experiencing discrimination five years prior to the beginning of the pandemic or during the pandemic, nearly double the proportion of the white population at 32%. Discrimination does harm. It is associated with adverse impacts on social and psychological outcomes, including less trust in public institutions such as Parliament, our justice system, police and schools.

I would like to share a quote from Joan Jenkinson, the executive director of the Black Screen Office, in her appearance at the heritage committee study of Bill C-11. It really captures exactly why this bill is so important.

She stated:

Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country.

Through broadcasting we can make space for different stories to be told, and those stories need to be told. Representation matters. Canadians should be able to see more of themselves reflected in the media they stream in a way that honours their identities. Canadians have the right to share these stories in a way that is culturally relevant and appropriate.

Our broadcasting system must continue to meet the needs of different groups and be inclusive for all Canadians. However, at a time when digital services have become more and more predominant, we must support the development of the work of these artists and creators. It is also extremely important that their projects receive fair contributions that take systemic barriers into account.

We want the future Atom Egoyans, Robert Lantoses, Sandra Ohs, Xavier Dolans, Ivan Reitmans and Nia Vardaloses of this world to find the support they need to tell their stories. To truly have the diversity and representation that we are proud of in Canada, it must be built into the broadcasting system.

What are we doing now? Broadcasting is about cultural policy. Canadian culture is not monotonous, static or monolithic; it is a living, breathing, dynamic element of who we are. We need an audiovisual sector that reflects that we are bold, dynamic and inclusive.

Our government's strong commitment to inclusivity is demonstrated through ongoing initiatives, including budget 2021, which provided $60 million in new funding over three years specifically for the Canada Media Fund to increase support for people from equity-deserving groups working in the Canadian audiovisual industry. These resources help the CMF to realize its equity inclusion strategy and deliver on its mandate to enable a diversity of voices.

On top of this, the COVID‑19 recovery fund extended the previous third-language COVID relief allocation through the CMF for another two years to provide further supports for independent television production in languages other than English and French.

Our budget commitments and mandate letters clearly show that our government continues to prioritize diversity and inclusion.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is currently working with the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion to provide racialized artists and journalists the support needed for their productions, adequate investment to support local journalism in underserved communities, and new funding to provide diverse communities with the tools needed to tell their own stories and to promote the diversity of voices in the arts, culture and media.

With the growth of streaming services that provide unlimited content, we must ensure that the values of equity, respect and inclusion are given even more space in the regulation of the Canadian broadcasting system.

That is why Bill C-11 underscores the need for diversity, inclusion and representation.

The online streaming act amends the Broadcasting Act to make the broadcasting sector more inclusive for all Canadians. It enhances the objective of the law whereby the broadcasting system should

serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages — and reflect their circumstances and aspirations, including equal rights, the linguistic duality and multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of Indigenous peoples within that society

This objective will broaden access to the system and provide programming for these communities that speaks to their needs and interests regardless of their preferred broadcasting medium. As before, the government intends to direct the CRTC to support and promote programming and creators from diverse communities and backgrounds. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over the airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped to ensure that Canada's broadcasting system provides programming for, about and by persons from diverse communities.

I want to reflect again on the importance of understanding this. Whether they stream programs over the Internet, over airwaves or through a cable system, the CRTC will be equipped. Essentially, we are making sure that the channel on which this content is sent to Canadians is equalized, because right now it is not.

I would like to speak a bit about Motion No. 16 and the procedures.

I get a lot of questions from citizens in my riding who say they do not understand, a vote came up, this happened or I heard this, and they ask why this is happening. I will be honest. I have been here almost seven years now and I am a bit of a procedural geek. I really like procedure, so I read the Standing Orders often. I have read Bosc and Gagnon and Beauchesne's. I like reading more and more about the procedures. When I explain to citizens who write to me how things work in the House procedurally, often at the end of the conversation people say they did not realize that. In a perfect world, these little procedural tactics, which I am assuming everyone uses when they are in opposition, would be known to people.

Let us think about procedure. This piece of legislation was introduced in early 2022. It was in a previous government and brought back. Members voted to send it to committee at second reading. The majority in the House agreed that it should go to committee. At committee, committee members agreed that they would allow 20 hours of witness testimony on this bill before reporting it back to the House. This was agreed upon by the members in the committee.

Seven hours of that time were then spent filibustering by the Conservatives. It is a procedural tactic that is used, I guess, by all opposition members at committee and so on. However, that prevented part of the CRTC from presenting. It also prevented the minister from testifying and answering questions. Right now, the committee cannot even get to clause-by-clause to bring forward amendments by the opposition.

I understand full well that the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP may want to propose amendments to the bill. However, we cannot even get to that stage because the Conservatives on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage are obstructing the process.

We cannot learn, talk or debate about these amendments or the concerns people say they have, because the reality is that they are being blocked by their own members. The Conservatives are actually blocking their own motions.

I have been listening to the debate in the House today and I have heard from my colleagues. I come from Quebec.

In Quebec, our artists are incredible. Artists want the bill to move forward. It is urgent.

What I heard today is people saying, “Look, we like it. We've heard. We know that this piece of legislation is important. We need it to move forward.” On the other side, I heard the Conservatives saying that we need more time to debate it, but they had seven additional hours at committee with which they filibustered, when they could have been hearing from additional witnesses who they thought were necessary. It is kind of chicken-and-egg. Did they want to debate and hear from more witnesses, or did they want to filibuster?

We have a thing called parliamentary privilege here in the House, which means that I can stand up in the House and I can say whatever I want, because I have parliamentary privilege. I can say that this bill is doing x, y and z when I know it is not.

This bill is not about the users and the creators. This is about the platform. This is making sure that whatever platforms someone is using, whether it be YouTube, Amazon Prime or Netflix, they are following the same rules as the airwaves or television and they are contributing to Canadian content. This is not someone uploading a cat video. Trust me, I love cat videos. I can watch them all day. After a day here in the chamber, I love a good cat video. We are not going after the cat video creators. That is not what we are doing. What we are saying is that the big broadcasting companies that are using the Internet and livestreaming need to pay their fair share and they also need to contribute to our culture.

I know I have a few minutes left, but I have to get this in there. I have a couple of colleagues who know that I am a new grandma. I am a first-time grandmother and I got to see my grandson on the weekend. He is seven weeks old. Of course, I am asking them how to calm a crying baby. It has been a while since I had a crying baby in the house. They said he likes to listen to this music that is on YouTube, called CoComelon. Anyway, it is singing and it is on YouTube. It is funny, but to get the baby to stop crying I am playing CoComelon so that he can hear the music that he really likes. We sing along with it.

However, YouTube is not contributing to our cultural content or to our industry, and it needs to. I want to make sure that my grandchild can hear music and watch television and shows, whatever way he streams it, because I am assuming things will change in another 15 years when he is older, and that he will also be able to see Canadian content that is reflective of our Canada, with indigenous voices and racialized voices, the real reflection of Canada.

For our two official languages, it is important to support our cultural industry in Quebec. For that reason, I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of Bill C‑11.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, a constituent of mine, Alexis Utatnaq, wrote to me supporting the passing of Bill C-11. She said that it was long overdue and that an update needed to be made. She also said to me, “I am proud of our cultural productions and want to make sure Parliamentarians pass C-11”.

Does the member intend to put an end to this injustice, or rather protect the profits of web giants, which would ultimately lead to less cultural indigenous content if the bill is not passed?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will read another quote from Professor Geist about exactly that point on proposed section 4.1. I recognize that Bill C-11 is improved, at least to an extent, with the inclusion of the wording in proposed section 4.1, but this is what the professor says: “While this is true in the sense that users are not regulated like platforms due to an exception in the bill, the truth is the bill regulates indirectly what it cannot do directly.”

It has not really solved the problem. There is still something that needs to be addressed. I would again reflect on what the professor had to say about going to the European Union and taking a look at what it did. It did things right, at least in his eyes. Our committee needs to look at this further to make sure that it reflects the modern usage of Internet autonomy.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it should not come as a total surprise that the Liberal government would make strategic moves to limit my freedom of speech as a member of Parliament who wishes to speak to the topic of freedom of speech. It seems very ironic.

Today, we are talking about a programming motion that would cut off debate on the substance of a very important piece of legislation: Bill C-11. I am hearing from so many constituents who are deeply concerned that their freedom of expression on the Internet would be impaired by this legislation. People want the Internet to remain free. It is the new marketplace for the exchange of ideas, and people are starting to wake up to the thought that their government wants to regulate this forum, this new public square.

What is the big holdup? What is the big rush? Why, in this last week of Parliament, does the government feel that it has to push this legislation through? The big open question hovering over this legislation is whether Bill C-11 would regulate online audiovisual material uploaded to sites such as YouTube and TikTok, which is user-generated content. That is the big question that needs to be answered.

An earlier draft of this legislation, because this is the second time it is before the House, was Bill C-10 from the last Parliament. It was clearly offside, flawed legislation, although the minister at that time said he wanted to make it crystal clear that the “content that people upload on social media won’t be considered as programming under the Act”. That is as clear as the minister had wanted it to be, or thought it was, and this legislation, I am sure, would have proceeded through the normal debate and legislative process, would have passed both Houses of Parliament and today would be law. However, it was flawed, it was poorly thought out and it got bogged down in the Senate. The backlash from social media users, amateur content producers and social media sites was swift and very harsh.

As an aside, I feel compelled to note, as we are thinking about why there is a big rush, that a year ago this could have been put through the House, but the Prime Minister saw that his popularity numbers were up a bit in the middle of a pandemic and decided to call an election. Then everything fell off the table. This very important piece of legislation fell off the order table and was basically put right back to square one. However, there was one positive outcome from the election that nobody wanted and was a waste of $610 million, and it is this: Bill C-10 fell off the order table.

We were optimistic that with a new minister, new Parliament and an opportunity to start afresh, we would see a substantially revised and improved piece of legislation, but bad ideas rarely die in the Liberal Party. The bill came back pretty much the way it was before, and things are getting bogged down again. Now the Liberals are saying that it is all the fault of the official opposition; we are obstructing the bill. Well, if they come here with good legislation, we will help them pass it through the House. Now, instead, they have to rush it through.

This is the biggest revision to the Broadcasting Act in 30 years. Many voices need to be heard. Many people have expressed themselves publicly. They need to come to committee and we need to listen to what they have to say, but sadly that is not going to happen because of this programming motion.

I do want to give credit where credit is due, and there are some good pieces in this bill. The government says that it wants to level the playing field and we the Conservatives support that. As the member of Parliament for Langley, where there is a big and burgeoning movie industry, I have heard from a lot of stakeholders, and they are telling me that there are good pieces to this legislation.

I have a quote from somebody who wrote to my office just the other day. He is a producer in the movie industry. He said:

Please pass on to Tako my sincerest thanks for making the time and listening to my feedback related to building a strong film industry in Langley and Canada. It was a great meeting. I appreciate Tako's thoughtful commitment to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act, and to the benefits such work will have for Canada's film workers and production companies.

That is positive. They are positive comments. He goes on to say, “I am concerned about unintended consequences and protecting the freedom of expression within user generated content.” Even from somebody who is generally supportive of Bill C-11, these concerns are being expressed, and they need to be listened to.

I will concede this: The government's intentions were good, namely to promote Canadian content on the Internet, as we have grown accustomed to on legacy media platforms. It was good for them, so why is it not good for the Internet? That is a very important question to ask. However, I am reminded of Napoleon's famous quote: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. I think that is what we have today. We have legislation that is written incompetently.

This is what Ms. Morghan Fortier, CEO of Skyship Entertainment, told the heritage committee on May 24: “Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate”. She is one of Canada's leading experts in the field.

Matt Hatfield, the campaign manager of OpenMedia, at the same meeting of the heritage committee, said this: “We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed at the front of our bookstores, but that's exactly what the discoverability provision...of Bill C-11 is currently doing.” He calls that unacceptable.

The minister says they are all wrong, they are misreading Bill C-11 and they are misunderstanding it. He says that is not what the intention is. Law professor Michael Geist, who has been quoted here a few times, is trying to reconcile the difference of opinion between what the minister thinks Bill C-11 means and what many other experts think it means or what the consequences of it are going to be. In response to the minister's comments, Professor Geist said this: “While this is true in the sense that users are not regulated like platforms due to an exception in the bill, the truth is the bill regulates indirectly what it cannot do directly.” Therein lies the problem.

The minister further tries to explain or attempts to clarify what this bill means. I was not at the meeting, but I did read about it. He said he is focusing now on commercial user content. That is what will be regulated. When he was pressed on what “commercial” means, as there is no definition, he said it is tied to whether the person uploading to social media is earning revenues.

When he was grilled on how much revenue that is, he was not answering. Either he does not know or he has not thought about it yet. Better yet, I think he is going to delegate that to the CRTC to decide, so he can let someone else decide and let someone else take the heat. That is unacceptable. The Liberals are in government. They need to write laws that are going to make sense, that are going to work and that are based on what experts are telling us.

Here is where we are. We have poorly thought-out legislation, objections from many stakeholders, a summer recess looming and the government wanting to rush things through so it can say it has accomplished something. We also have a programming motion that is going to cut off further debate. We have today for all amendments to be submitted by midnight and have one day for clause-by-clause scrutiny. Then June 14 is for voting on all amendments and we will have a final vote by the end of the week.

This is important legislation and there are voices that still need to be heard. We need to hear them. This needs to go back to committee for further study.

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

Madam Speaker, that is interesting because last week in committee, on Wednesday, the clerk gave me 20 printed submissions that we had to deal with. That tells me that as a committee we are not doing our job because these are submissions that have come through the clerk to the committee from people and organizations wanting to speak to this.

I want APTN there. I have been requesting that APTN come to committee. We need the indigenous voice on Bill C-11. We have not heard it. That is one of the flaws with this bill. We need APTN to see its future and how Bill C-11 would affect that network.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get under way here this afternoon, I just wish to tell everyone that I am going to split my time with the member for Langley—Aldergrove. We get the good 10 minutes at the later part of the speeches, so I will set him up for it.

I am very thankful to speak to the bill today, Bill C-11. It is the programming motion regarding the online streaming act: the successor to, or should I say the copy of, Bill C-10, which we debated here in the House of Commons. Let us step back. We really did not have any debates last June on Bill C-10. It was pushed through the House with no amendments to it.

I am really desperate on this one because I thought the government learned last June about Bill C-10 and the flaws that we moved forward now on Bill C-11. As most remember, the Liberals tried the same tactics here in the House with the deeply flawed Bill C-10. It was wrong and undemocratic then. Nothing has changed. It is still wrong and mostly undemocratic now. The Senate is not even going to deal with the bill. To say that we need to pass it in the House today is ridiculous because the Senate, at best, will not see the bill until October.

Bill C-10 drew much controversy in the previous Parliament, and I talked about that, due to the proposed infringements on free expression, and massive granting of powers to the CRTC. I have talked for over a year and a half on the CRTC, and I will have more to say on that body and the potential to open up the Internet to broader regulations in a moment, among other serious concerns that I have.

Bill C-11 is the same flawed Liberal bill that could have potentially disastrous consequences for Canadian content creators, and most importantly for consumers. Conservatives said then that Bill C-10 needed more study, and we continue to say that today with this bill, Bill C-11.

As a former broadcaster, members can believe that I completely understand how desperately the Broadcasting Act needs to be upgraded. It has been 31 years since we started. The act is indeed badly outdated. It does not address the realities of modern broadcasting and content creation, and Canadian broadcasters and creators today are struggling because of that.

We absolutely need to put foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters on a level playing field, whatever that looks like. However, the solution, I feel, is not simply to force new realities into this old and outdated structure, or to have the CRTC regulate to its heart's desire.

The CRTC is in charge of broadcasting. Seventeen months later, it still has not updated the licence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It has been 17 months, and we have heard nothing. That is the CRTC's responsibility today: local licensing. We have heard nothing from chairman Ian Scott on CBC, saying, “We are busy. We are going through it.”

Seventeen months later, the public broadcaster still does not have a licence, because the CRTC is looking at it. I do not have to tell everyone in the House, all 338 of us, that we desperately want a three-digit suicide line. As of the month of June the request is a year old. We still have not got it. Why? It is because of the CRTC.

Do we see where I am going on this? It is not capable today of doing anything. As for its chairman, Ian Scott, his five-year term is up and he is leaving in September. We are going to have a new chair. He or she will get a five-year term and they will have to be re-educated on what the CRTC actually delivers to the citizens of the country.

Regulating the Internet, the Pandora's box that is being opened up in this legislation, is also simply not in the best interests of Canadians. We need to make sure that we are protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians. Ensuring those protections cannot start by regulating the Internet and restricting the free speech that we have in the country today.

These are issues that need further study at committee. There are dozens of important witnesses that still wish to be heard. As for one of those witnesses, it is kind of interesting to listen to everyone talking about indigenous voices, because we have not heard from the indigenous peoples television network, APTN. We have not heard from it.

The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network has not come to committee to speak about what Bill C-11 would do for that network, which was started years ago because the public broadcaster did little with indigenous programming. That is why APTN started: it heard voices. In fact, I was at an event on Saturday in Saskatoon, and the Filipino community is asking about Bill C-11. The Filipino community does a half-hour televised tape show in Saskatoon on cable, and they have asked about whether they can continue if this bill passes. I had no answers for them.

This is the diversity we are hearing in our country that Bill C-11 has not answered in committee. We have not had a chance to even slice through the first level of onion to get to this bill, and now the Liberal government, as it did last year with Bill C-10, is pushing it through the House, but this time there is no excuse for it. The Senate will not even look at this bill until maybe late in September or early in October. We have all summer to deal with Bill C-11.

I remember when the government came into power, and we all remember when it came into power in 2015. It promised sunny ways and made a commitment not to use closure and time allocation as the Conservatives did in the previous government. They have forgotten that in six and a half short years. All I have heard is “Harper this,” and “Harper that”. Now, I am going to suggest that it is the member for Papineau who is shutting everything down in the House of Commons.

Now, whenever there is the slickest push-back against the Liberals' agenda, they go straight to time allocation and, today, the programming motion. I participated in the study on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, when the government passed a similar programming motion. Several legal and industry experts came before the committee and raised concerns about the legislation. They were the same concerns from 2021 that have come in 2022. As legislators, have we looked at this bill and said we have done the best we can with it? That is our job. We 338 are elected to get the best bills coming out of the House. Have we done that? We have not done that at all, and the Liberals agree with that, yet they are moving forward today.

Tomorrow we will have a full day, going through from noon to nine o'clock, with amendments, then we will push the amendments through from nine until midnight without a word we can say or object to. We proposed further witnesses and debate in the last Parliament, and Canadians deserve better on this bill. The government, however, is clearly sick of hearing about the problems with the legislation. We have gone through two heritage ministers already, and probably will a third when we come back in the fall, and shut down Bill C-11. Thankfully, Bill C-10 did not complete the legislative process because of a useless election. What is it going to be this summer?

Now, the chamber has a second chance to get this bill, Bill C-11, right. This time we have the opportunity, as members of Parliament, to give Canadians what they want out of this bill, Bill C-11.

First of all, despite claims to the contrary by the minister, Bill C-11 absolutely would leave the door open to the CRTC regulating user-generated content online. In other words, the CRTC could still, under Bill C-11, decide what Canadians can and cannot see. These powers pose a clear threat for free expression in this country, which is the most fundamental right in a democratic country. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC could regulate away free expression online.

Second is the fact that the powers the bill grants to the CRTC are so broad and wide-ranging that they empower the commission to essentially regulate any content in a manner it sees fit, and I have talked enough about the CRTC, but that second bullet should be a concern to everyone in the House of Commons.

What will happen to the foreign services that are small players in this Canadian market? Where did the Canadian market go? In a small part of the user base, we have new regulations and requirements that we can thrust upon them.

Third, the government is asking us to vote on legislation that we do not have all the pieces to. The government says it will address the problems through ministerial order, but it has not shown us what the orders will be. Bill C-11 is a flawed bill.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member's question touches on a very important point, which is the fact that small tight-knit towns and communities, and we all know communities like that, are going to be crushed by the weight of large corporations that continue to derive what is important to them from the economy. What is very different in small communities, whether in rural Quebec or rural Alberta, is that they value the members of their community. They value the things they do. They value what is happening around them.

It is so important that we make sure there are financial resources to support small communities. Bill C-11, by way of making sure that we force those large industries, those large multimedia Netflixes of the world, to pay their fair share would mean that small communities can continue to do that work, but we need to pass this bill first.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nunavut spoke so eloquently to the importance of making sure we address the long-standing issues that have been relevant to indigenous peoples' success in retaining their language, their stories and their culture. It is important that we understand the real impacts that have resulted in the dispossession of these things from indigenous people.

Oftentimes, what we have seen in the last many decades is a rejection of indigenous peoples' own solutions as to how we teach young people the language, demonstrate the modernity of our culture and continue to find ways to have our culture survive. One of the emerging, and I think strongest, ways of encouraging these solutions is by making sure that artists of all cultures have an opportunity not only to speak directly to those persons and communities, but to also represent those communities.

I am one of the younger members of this Parliament and growing up, in my short lifetime, there has been a huge gap in media, the arts and television shows. I have heard many members today speak about how important certain programs, such as Corner Gas, are in their homes and their living rooms, but this was not there for indigenous people when they turned on the TV. My parents would never watch TV because they felt as though it never represented them.

However, young people take in media, language, culture and items that make our country better. They take in items and information that formulates who they are, and that is a simple kind of justice that every indigenous person needs.

Here in the 21st century, as modernity has continued, we have seen these large Internet platforms often take up and suck up so much of the space that indigenous people require to make sure young people have access to these things. In the absence of legislation, such as what Bill C-11 would provide, indigenous content providers and existing indigenous producers are being forced to find other ways to finance their means. They are being forced to look at cutting wages for certain folks. They are also being forced to look at the arts as not a viable economy for indigenous people. This hurts indigenous people's culture and language, which is so valuable and important, particularly now in the age of truth and reconciliation.

What I would like to see for my niece and nephew, and for the next generation of those who are growing up indigenous across Alberta, is for them to not only have a chance to be able to tell the stories of our people, the stories of this land, or even the story of treaty, but also be able to have the support, space and financial resiliency to get that done.

We are remarkable in our country in highlighting so many of these artists, but what we are often not good at is supporting them. The bill before us would directly do that. Bill C-11 would ensure that Canadian content is visible and protected on online platforms, which is important. Another really important piece is that freedom of expression is explicitly protected within this process, which means that individuals who are participating in online streams would not be subject to the kinds of things that the platform itself would be, and some of that includes the platforms paying their fair share.

When it comes to supporting our arts industry in Canada, the existing laws look at radio and television. They require that those providers pay to ensure Canadian content is present and protected, and that Canadians have the opportunity to access it. This is vitally important when thinking about the 21st century and how our next generation will continue to absorb content and share that with the rest of Canadians.

When I look at, for example, some of the remarkable art happening in Edmonton and across Alberta, I see passionate, strong, well-deserving people who are doing their level best to make sure they have an opportunity to share what is so awesome about our province with the rest of the world. We see across the country, further east, indigenous nations taking a bold stance and furthering their productions by supporting them through great initiatives, including the current funds that are available through the National Film Board.

One of those films I had an opportunity to watch not long ago is a film called Wildhood. For those who do not know it, it is a Canadian-made film about two-spirit folks within indigenous communities, two-spirit youth. What a remarkable contribution it is for indigenous people, particularly for young people as they navigate so many questions about their identity and who they are. Oftentimes, they look to media. It may not be the best form of information, but it is a form of information people are absorbing. It is incumbent on all of us as members of Parliament to make sure we can guarantee to Canadians that what we produce here, what we learn here and what we show folks will be given to Canadians in a responsible way.

I think about the economy and what this means for artists. We looked at, for example, the pandemic. It was a devastating time for our arts producers. We saw a massive vacuum of finances that had been, at that time, supporting artists. This was prior to the pandemic. When the pandemic hit, we saw an evaporation of their revenues, which was $233 million. That was money that was supporting artists, storytellers and those who were working with communities to tell the story about who they are. Especially for a country as young as ours, we are trying to understand who was here, what we are here for and what we would like to be. Those are important questions that our country must be able to have the courage to lay a strong foundation for.

When it comes to levelling the playing field, it is really important that we understand that Canadians deserve a chance. I think every single member of Parliament today supports that. They support the fact that all Canadians deserve an opportunity to share their stories, share who they are and share that with the world.

However, it is troubling to me to know that members of the Conservative caucus want to withhold this bill and slow it down after so long. This bill was introduced in the last Parliament, albeit it has absorbed some good changes. There are still some changes, I think, that the committee responsible will definitely delve into, but it is important that we actually get to discuss this at committee.

I am really excited for the opportunity this will provide indigenous peoples, the francophone community, persons with disabilities and all marginalized groups in Canada. It is going to guarantee them access to something they have been rejected from for so long, whether it is because of finances or not having the ability to organize properly. What we have now is the chance to actually create that revenue and create that model so they would actually have an opportunity to share it and be a part of the mosaic that is Canada.

It is important that we look at some of the folks who are validating this. There are people in Canada who need this. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists said, “Other countries are taking measures to protect their economy and their cultural sovereignty. Canada must not fall behind. Sovereign countries must have the...tools to tell their own stories in the 21st century.” That is us. They are speaking directly to us.

The Canadian Independent Music Association said:

While most [companies] operating in Canada are subject to some form of regulation, U.S. and international online steaming services that distribute audio and audio-visual content are currently exempt from Canada’s regulatory system. This means, for example, that unlike commercial radio stations, these services are not required to [contribute financially] towards Canadian Content Development or to showcase Canadian content on their platforms.

This must change. I am so proud to represent the folks of Edmonton Griesbach, who are continuing to ensure that our city and our province can contribute across the country in ways and means that are going to protect their story, but alto make sure that they level the playing field and get financially supported for it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, it is a pleasure, as always, to stand to represent my riding of Nunavut. I always appreciate my constituents' ongoing support and the feedback that they provide to me.

I will share my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach. I always appreciate his great interventions in the House. He is such a great role model for young indigenous men and for all those who identify as two-spirit.

I am pleased to stand to debate Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I have debated this bill and I am pleased that the New Democrats support this important bill. Having heard the debates since the bill was first introduced in February, I have maintained that it is an important bill that supports the broadcasting of indigenous content.

In Canada, the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation has been a leader in broadcasting Inuit content on television. It has broadcasted a lot of Inuit cultural content, as well as content in Inuktitut; by Inuit, for Inuit.

I think that this bill has the potential to ensure great Inuit content by online streaming providers like Uvagut TV and Isuma TV. Both of these online providers have already made a huge dent in information that is already available online. I am sure that Inuit TV, which will be a new broadcasting streaming provider, will also be able to share some great Inuit content, hopefully with a huge audience as well, especially if this bill is allowed to pass.

There are specific sections in this bill that directly lead to the support of indigenous programming. Without this bill, these important broadcasting and programming providers will continue to struggle with competing against web giants like Netflix. I appreciate the space provided in this bill to improve and update the Canadian broadcasting policy by clarifying that the system needs to respond to the needs of Canadians, and specifically to the needs of racialized communities and those who represent the diversity that Canada enjoys, including indigenous peoples.

What I would like to see discussed by committee are assurances that require broadcasters to broadcast indigenous languages, as this bill has a gap that needs to be filled to ensure that indigenous languages are also included.

I had the pleasure of sitting at PROC when it was studying the Elections Act. It was talking about the study on indigenous languages in Canada. We learned some interesting statistics about indigenous languages.

For example, there are 175,825 people who speak Algonquian languages. Manitoba has 21.7%, Quebec has 21.2%, Ontario has 7.2%, Alberta has 16.7% and Saskatchewan has 16%. As for Inuit languages, there are 42,065 people who speak Inuktitut in Nunavut and Quebec. There are 23,455 people who speak Athabaskan languages, with Saskatchewan at 38%, the Northwest Territories at 22% and British Columbia at 18%.

I am not going to go through this whole list, but I do want to highlight that there are hundreds of thousands of indigenous languages, and we need to do our part to make sure that we can help promote, preserve and revitalize them as Canadians. If we are to remain true to reconciliation, we have to ensure that we practise that in any bill that has an impact on all indigenous peoples.

I appreciate in addition that this act does address the concerns related to freedom of expression by stating that this act would be directly guided by ensuring that freedom of expression is understood and used in this bill. I have been surprised in past debates by concerns that freedom of expression would be restricted through this bill. I have stated that I do not think the bill would do that, given that it would promote and ensure that content that is important to Canadians, especially indigenous content, is allowed to be supported. We all know that in online streaming there is huge competition in mainstream Canada that does not create enough space for indigenous content to be incorporated into any of the airwaves that we are talking about.

Finally, I have very much appreciated the priority in ensuring that we all work together to make sure that we are doing what we can for all indigenous peoples, including first nations, Métis and Inuit, and specifically in this bill's support it so that not only are we ensuring well-being for our current indigenous peoples but are also focusing on protecting our indigenous cultures, including first nations, Métis and Inuit cultures, for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I support so much of Bill C-11, but I am very troubled by the sections that I think need more work. I hate to see anything rushed through this place, and my friend from Lac-Saint-Louis will know that is my view.

In the past number of years, I have been so blissfully happy since I got married to John Kidder. I am suddenly related to Eric Peterson, who is my brother-in-law. My step-daughter, Janet Kidder is a serious actor who has been successful. There are parts of Bill C-11 that work for them.

The other day on a flight, just by coincidence, my colleague, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre ended up sitting next to the fantastic Stewart Reynolds, the comedian who goes by the name Brittlestar. He said to him, “I don't think the people who drafted Bill C-11 understand our industry of content created YouTubers. I don't think the bill has it right yet.”

I would do anything to see us get help to Canadian culture, to Canadian content and to our brilliant actors, directors and all the people who need to do the work for production without getting it wrong for the new and emerging sector that I have to admit I do not understand the way I understood Canadian content, as my friend talked about, when we started making sure radio had Canadian content.

The bill is not perfect. Why do we not work on it more?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get a better grasp of the question. It seems to relate to Bill C-18 on news content, the bill that will force web giants and traditional media to negotiate together and ensure that compensation is provided for the content used and paid for by traditional media.

I saw somewhere in Bill C‑11 that schools, for example, do not have to worry because they are exempt. I believe, although I am not certain, that this does not really have to do with community media.

Another clause in the bill states that it will not apply to a service that is too small. The CRTC will not have time to regulate the thousands of websites belonging to creators. Let us face it, the CRTC does not have the capacity to regulate all of that.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time I am rising in the House to speak to this bill. I also spoke when Bill C-10 was introduced and first debated. I have been very interested in this subject for many years.

I would like to share an experience I had before I was elected. I was a legislative assistant to my predecessor, the well-known Quebec and Canadian politician Clifford Lincoln, who, at the time I worked for him, was the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the 1990s. Mr. Lincoln is a visionary. He wanted the committee to undertake a fairly thorough, wide-ranging study of the Canadian broadcasting system. The study was spread over several meetings, over several weeks and months. In the end, the committee produced a huge document, an extraordinary tome, on Canada's broadcasting system. I think it was even used in some post-secondary courses, because it essentially became the bible on our broadcasting system.

We realized, even then, that the system was changing very quickly with the new technologies. The committee hired two researchers on contract for the adviser: an academic from the Université de Montréal and an academic from the University of Calgary. I remember that one of the academics, who was an expert, said that in a few years, everyone would be their own documentary filmmaker. He said we would have a device that we could use to film all sorts of things and create our own videos and our own high-quality films, real documentaries of everyday life. In fact, that is where we are now. The broadcasting system has changed extremely quickly.

This bill is essential if we want to adapt to new realities, and we need to adapt urgently. Franco-Canadian and Quebec culture are under constant pressure—obviously we all know that, it has been said in the House—by the cultural machine that exists for the most part in the United States. It is well funded, very powerful and it attracts a wide audience on a regular basis. That means there is enormous pressure on Canadian culture, including Quebec culture.

When the Conservatives constantly challenge this bill and, before that, Bill C‑10, they are not doing any favours to those who want to protect and promote Canadian and Quebec culture. By dragging their feet, the Conservatives, in my opinion, are harming our Canadian creators, including our Quebec creators.

We keep hearing from the Conservative opposition that Bill C-11 is a form of censorship and citizen control by the government, and that Canadians will somehow have their freedom of thought limited by seeing a streaming service menu with a smattering of Canadian works visible on it. I ask members to think back to the 1970s, when the federal government created the MAPL system for radio. Suddenly, we had to listen to a minimum percentage of Canadian music on the radio. Imagine: a kind of music dictatorship.

The boost to Canadian musical performances was significant after the MAPL system was instituted. By the 1990s, Canadian music artists dominated the charts around the world in multiple categories. Actually, by the 1990s, Canadian women music artists dominated the global market. Alanis Morissette, Shania Twain and Diana Krall come to mind.

We do not hear the Conservatives referring to the introduction of the MAPL system as the dark age of radio censorship by the Liberal Pierre Trudeau government. After all, unlike today, there was a limited of number of musical outlets available to access music then. There were no Internet-based music platforms, only a finite number of radio stations owned by corporations, not listeners.

Why did the Conservatives at the time not cry “censorship” or “lack of free choice”? Why did they not say, “We cannot choose what we want to listen to”, “There are no alternative sources”, “There is a limited number of radio stations”, or “If we want to listen to something else, we have to pay at the music store, which is a form of taxation”?

Why did the Conservatives not say, “Stop telling us what to listen to on the radio”? They never asked, “Why will these Liberals in Ottawa not let us listen to what we want?”, or “Why do we have to listen to The Band, The Guess Who, Susan Jacks, Robert Charlebois, Ian and Sylvia, and Michel Pagliaro, alongside the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan and so on?”

Do members know why? It is because the Conservatives had moderate and reasonable leaders in those days, such as Robert Stanfield, Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. Do members know why the Conservatives do not object to CanCon in radio today? It is because they know Canadians love their Canadian music and Canadian music artists, and to attack Canadian music would be unpopular, even among the members of their base.

To say the government would be censoring the Internet through Bill C-11 is laughable. No, it is actually preposterous. Such talk creates unfounded fears, and it alarms Canadians for no reason. To say one can censor the Internet today is akin to standing next to Niagara Falls and saying that one can stop the massive and endless flow of cascading water. There is as much chance of the government being able to censor the Internet as there is of me capturing air with my hand, so let us stop the hyperbole and let us stop the antics. They are not worthy of this place.

I received an email from a constituent the other day who strongly opposes Bill C-11. They were obviously on the Conservative Party blast email list. I could tell by some of the themes that kept coming up. I wrote back to explain the facts about the bill, including the reference to charter guarantees in the body of the bill, so I think I will take a moment to read some of these charter guarantees.

It says this quite clearly in the bill:

10.‍1 For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.‍1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings.

It is here in black and white. It is in the law.

We can tell the opposition not to worry about it, that it is in the law and that all these guarantees are laid down in the law, but they will not believe it. They still send those emails to their supporters saying the Liberal government is trying to censor their thoughts and trying to influence the way they think for political purposes. It is in the law.

It says this as well, in proposed subsection 2(3), under “Interpretation”:

(3) This Act shall be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with

(a) the freedom of expression and journalistic, creative and programming independence enjoyed by broadcasting undertakings

It is not even legalese. It is extremely clear, and even a non-lawyer like me can understand it.

When I wrote back to this individual, I also referenced the mandatory charter statement that accompanies all bills tabled by the government, a requirement, as members know, that was instituted by our Liberal government. This was not a requirement before 2015. At that time, when the government introduced a bill, there was no independent charter statement by Department of Justice lawyers, who have the professional responsibilities of integrity and calling it like it is. There was no independent charter statement on a bill, so we saw a lot of bills being introduced by the Harper government that really pushed the limits of charter rights.

I told the individual who wrote to me that the bill is an extension of the decades-old policy of taking measures to ensure Canadian culture is supported in a cultural marketplace dominated by a powerful cultural industry centred outside of Canada and whose priority is not, understandably, Canadian cultural content, to be honest. The person wrote back and said that if Canadian cultural products cannot stand on their own and if they cannot compete in the Canadian cultural marketplace, those products should be left to wither. I thought deep down that this is exactly the Conservative mindset when it comes to culture.

The problem with this view is that it is based on a naive conception of the marketplace and on how the marketplace works in today's reality. It is the ideological belief that today's marketplace is Adam Smith's marketplace: a small town square market where there are no power imbalances between buyers and sellers, and no one buyer, seller or small group of these distorts transactions and bends them to their financial interests. However, that is not an accurate description of the modern marketplace, and I think members will agree.

The fact is that whoever controls distribution controls the market. They control what the market has the opportunity to choose from and consume. This is true in the market for goods and services, which is why, as we know, the banks want to get their hands on insurance. They want to monopolize that market and make sure we buy insurance from them in addition to everything else. This is a normal impulse on the part of market actors, but it is the job of the government to make sure that there are measures in place to prevent this natural tendency toward market dominance from taking place.

In the cultural marketplace, the distributor decides what the audience will see. That is why we have worked so hard to maintain a Canadian-owned broadcasting system in Canada. It is about maintaining an independent distribution system for programming, domestic homegrown programming. If we did not have CTV, Global, CBC/Radio Canada and Télé-Québec, and only had ABC, CBS and NBC in the Canadian broadcasting space, none of the popular Canadian programs we have come to know and love over the years would ever have seen the day. It is that simple.

It is important to mention that streaming services are both distributors and producers. They therefore have an interest in showcasing their own content. The Internet and streaming services are, by definition, not traditional broadcasters, but they are distributors of cultural products nonetheless, and powerful and ubiquitous ones. There is no reason they should not contribute financially to the creation of Canadian cultural products. There is no reason they should not pay their fair share like everybody else.

It is time for the Conservatives to get on board, stand up for Canadian culture and creators and stop telling Canadians that there is a conspiracy to control what they see, think and feel. Such persistent efforts, in my opinion, are a nefarious form of disinformation, and that is why we are at this point here today where we have to get on with the bill. It is a bill that has covered two legislatures and time is pressing. The cultural sphere is galloping ahead with new technologies and new streaming services surrounding us and, of course, providing cultural content that we like to consume. It is not all going to be Canadian, but we should be able to see what the Canadian offerings are.

Somebody asked me the other day if I guessed this means that the CRTC, that great force of evil in the Conservative mind, is going to be writing algorithms for Netflix and Crave TV and whatever other streaming services that we have. The bill says, in black and white, on page 14 of the bill, “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)‍(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.”

Why does the opposition not come clean and mention this in its speeches? It is here in black and white in the bill. The opposition does not care. Even if it is in the legislation, somehow it does not exist. Let us keep going with the talking points that we probably see, I do not know as I do not subscribe, in those blast emails that are moving around the cybersphere as part of the Conservative leadership campaign.

It is here in black and white in the bill. It is also in black and white that the bill does not apply to users of social media. I think it is time to move on. Canadian culture needs the support. It needed the support yesterday. It certainly needs it now. It is time.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. We worked on Bill C‑10. We consulted the entire creative industry, all the groups, all the associations. In the end, we failed because the Senate blocked it. We started over with Bill C‑11, which is more fleshed out. We tweaked a few details to keep everyone happy. We have been working on this for two years. An extra month will not change anything. Everyone has been consulted, everyone agrees and everyone is eagerly awaiting this. Everyone in the creative industry is waiting.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague that this is an urgent matter for actors, creators, producers, and film and theatre directors, but I have a problem with one section of Bill C‑11 that I would like to change at committee. I think it would be better to have more days in July so we have enough time to do a proper study and give the creative sector what it needs as soon as possible.

What does my colleague think about putting in some more time here so we can do a good job on Bill C‑11?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that it is mid‑June and we are still debating the long-awaited bill to reform the Broadcasting Act. We have been waiting for 30 years.

My colleague, the member for Drummond, and his colleagues at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage almost managed to pass Bill C‑10, the first version of the current Bill C‑11, in the last Parliament. Our democracy and our work are dependent on royal assent, which was refused. We had to start over.

I applaud the very useful work done during the 43th Parliament on the former Bill C‑10, which resulted in the current bill, Bill C-11, being more substantive. It has already been well-received by the creative industry. We therefore saved time.

However, today, I am getting the unpleasant impression that this is the same movie over again. All that does is fuel cynicism among Canadians. I wonder if those who are dragging this out by filibustering really care at all about culture itself, its creators, its broadcasters and its audience. The audience is worried there will be no new content. They are worried about losing their content creators, who are stretched thin. That would mean losing the thing that has been giving life to modern societies, all the way back into antiquity: culture.

For those watching our debates, I want to talk about the crucial steps involved in creating a finished work, or rather one that has been allowed to leave the nest. Indeed, a work is never really finished. It is a bit like raising children: We pour our love, values, time, energy and emotions into them, but there comes a time when we simply have to let them fly on their own, taking the best we have given them. A work of art is the same thing.

I could talk about creating a painting, a dance, a circus show or a sculpture, or writing a novel or a play, but my world is music. Music is what I know.

I know that all artistic endeavours go through essentially the same stages: research, development and creation of the idea through to final composition, preproduction, production, deciding where to release the work and how to promote it, marketing, and public performance. No matter the art or expression, there are many stages, all of them demanding.

It is important to remember that, for many singers and musicians, the creative process does not end with recording their music and songs.

Artists have to work on their instrument. Singers have to develop and refine their vocal technique. They have to pay a voice coach to help them manage their energy and polish their raw talent, just like professional athletes train to master their technique. It is hard work, and the best trainers are expensive.

Singers also have to develop their musical ability. Many accompany themselves on an instrument or two. Those musical instruments are pretty much essential tools for setting lyrics to music. The next step is a comprehensive creative process that unites words and music.

Some participate in workshops. Others are more self-taught. Still others call on the musical talents of veteran musicians. Eventually inspiration strikes. As if by magic, lyrics find their musical match, words weave their way in and out of chord progressions. That is the joy of creation.

Once the song is written, or rather, the songs are written, because it takes more than one to market an artist, some fine-tuning is needed. Artists have to surround themselves with good musicians and find a producer to finance the recording of the songs, since the basic vehicle for the art of songwriting is people hearing the songs. Some will invest the money and produce it themselves. Others, a very small percentage, might be able to access a few government incentives. Most—and I emphasize that word—are their own producers and will invest their own money, or worse, go into debt to try to break into a market that has become increasingly opaque.

Let us talk about the production stage. I will talk about my own experience, because it is mine, and it is the one I know best. I recorded one of my albums at my family's home in Isle-aux-Coudres. I wanted my collaborators and the musicians to be captivated by that majestic river, which I wanted to celebrate in song. I was hoping the setting would enrich their musical performance and therefore further enhance my songs.

My father, who had always been a bit skeptical about this whole singing business, and who thought, like many people, that it was easy, fun and simple to make music if you had a bit of talent, was genuinely amazed at the science behind the recording process and the amount of time it requires. When he saw that it took half a day just to balance the drum and bass levels, he could hardly believe it.

For a good week we worked on guitar, violin, the accordion, keyboards and vocals. We started the preproduction; we played all the songs to become familiar with them, to find the sounds and harmonies, to find the right instruments for each song. Then we were finally ready to record.

Each song has its own universe. We start by recording a guiding vocal track. It is not the final vocal track, it is just the one that will guide the musicians. Then we record one by one and we record the final vocals and the vocal harmonies that support and enhance the whole work. We do all that for the 10 or 12 songs that will be part of the album that we hope will be the best one of our lives.

Is that it? No, far from it. Then each song needs to be mixed, because all these sounds need to have a pleasant balance and appropriate audio to make it pleasing to the ear, which will drive the rest.

After the mixing, is it done? No, not at all; then comes the mastering, what we call matriçage in French. We need a master in the art to ensure that every volume is appropriate for the different broadcasting forms, either the radio, headphones or outdoor broadcasts, at low decibel levels or high decibel levels. It is an art and it is expensive.

Is it done? No, not yet. The next step is to find a graphic artist who will be able to showcase the entire work and create an attractive presentation for a CD booklet, the cover for a vinyl record, which is my favourite medium, or the visual accompaniment for the music on streaming platforms.

Now is it done? No, not yet. The artist still has to get their music out there by hiring a manager or an agent, as the case may be, to promote the album to various broadcasters and promoters. It is of course imperative to create a show in order to bring the work to life. Then the process starts all over again: looking for a venue, a sound technician, a lighting technician and a stage manager, finding some available musicians and putting on a show. If, and only if, the work is a success with the public will the artist earn a little income from the process.

I have to emphasize that, regardless of the artist's popularity, it is only if streaming platforms have copyright and reproduction rights obligations that all these efforts and the financial risk taking will be compensated with a small amount of royalties.

That is what creating involves. Creators are resilient, patient and firmly convinced that their works play an important, not to say fundamental, role in the social universe of the community.

The last time that I rose in the House to speak to Bill C‑11 was 34 days ago.

According to the former minister of Canadian heritage and current Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, for every month that goes by without passing this bill, creators lose roughly $70 million. Using cross-multiplication, we can calculate that the creative industry has lost a little over $78 million since my last speech. Since the beginning of this Parliament, our culture and its content creators have been deprived of $1.33 billion.

We cannot wait any longer to pass Bill C‑11. The survival of our artists, the very essence of our cultural past and future, has been hijacked by these political squabbles. We need to stop treating creators like drones that create art to entertain us. Yes, they do entertain us, but that is their job. It is a demanding job that requires a lot of discipline and courage. It is also, above all, how they earn their living.

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

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am going to share my time with one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues.

It is a pleasure to speak to Government Business No. 16, which is for Bill C‑11. Unfortunately, it is not exactly a great pleasure because it feels like Groundhog Day. We went through essentially the same thing with Bill C‑10, which was introduced in the previous Parliament and was kind of hit or miss as far as the wording went. A lot of work was done. A year on, I feel like we are still bogged down for various reasons that are not necessarily the fault of a single person. All parties contributed to the delays in modernizing the Broadcasting Act. The problem is that, in the meantime, artists and small radio stations and media outlets are suffering and struggling to survive in this high-tech world.

I would like to begin my speech with a look at the current situation. A year has passed and, not surprisingly, the situation is no less urgent. In an article in La Presse just this morning, Alexandre Sirois wrote about the “digital barbarians” that have to be reined in. Here is what he said:

A bill like this to rein in the “digital barbarians” is long overdue. Alain Saulnier uses that colourful expression as the title of a very relevant essay in which he explains the massive devastation caused by companies like Netflix, Amazon, Apple and Google.

The journalist explains that the fate of local culture on the web giants' platforms is quite similar to that of the soft drinks that are relegated to the bottom shelves in grocery stores because the big brands monopolize the best spots.

“That is why access to our content, its discoverability, is the most important issue for the future of all non-U.S. cultures.”

Discoverability is at the heart of this matter. It reminds me of a little anecdote. I was fortunate enough to be part of a delegation abroad recently, along with some of my colleagues from English Canada. Something really struck me. When we were talking about culture and what we watch on TV and listen to on the radio, I noticed that there were almost no common references between Quebec culture and English Canadian culture. Our common references are to American culture. This illustrates how global U.S. culture has become and what a strong impact it has on other cultures, to the detriment of our local culture.

We need to urgently legislate the broadcasting situation because of the repercussions it is having on small players in a context of globalization and the Internet, which is an ever-growing presence in our lives.

Some reports published in 2020, including one by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, projected losses for radio and television broadcasters to the tune of $1.6 billion between 2020 and 2022. That is major. CAB also mentioned that, in the six months following the 2020 report, there could potentially be 50 radio stations at risk of closing and no fewer than 150 more in the next 18 months. That represents a potential loss of 2,000 jobs, or the equivalent of roughly 24% of the jobs that existed in 2019.

Revenues are down across the board. Roughly 40% of private stations have posted a negative net income over the past few years. It is a disaster. This is a huge loss of $336 million between 2010 and 2020 for general television networks. Things are not going very well at all. We also know that this erosion is having an impact on local content in traditional media to the benefit of everything that is on the Internet. Roughly 52% of audiovisual content produced in Canada is not Canadian content. We import a tremendous amount of products because our products are less discoverable.

In this context, production by francophone minority communities is only 4%. Meanwhile, the digital platforms are thriving, but our local content is not on those platforms because of the discoverability issue. Only 2.7% of the 10,000 most popular songs on digital platforms are French songs, so there is also a linguistic aspect that is worrisome here.

I am not saying that Bill C-11 is perfect. Some parts could be improved, or have been improved compared to Bill C-10. One of the issues that the Conservatives were particularly concerned about was algorithms, and that has been addressed. With the first version of Bill C‑10, the CRTC would have been able to intervene and require businesses to change their algorithms to improve discoverability. That was taken out of Bill C‑11. I would say that may be a good thing because, at this time, we may have a tendency of being more preoccupied with the letter of the bill than the spirit. The bill now better reflects the spirit. We want local content to be more discoverable, but we will let the companies determine how to achieve that through advertising, suggestions or other means.

People have mentioned and are still mentioning that there are concerns about the platforms that could be included. The bill does not set out which platforms are included and which are not. Things are being left open so that more platforms could be added in the future. I tend to think that might be a good thing because the bill needs to be adaptable, given how quickly things change in the online realm.

Finally, some definitions may not be clear. The bill is perhaps not perfect, which is why it would be a good idea to give members more time to work on amendments in committee. However, I understand that the Conservatives have been filibustering and putting up roadblocks. I would have liked to talk more about this, but I do not have much time left.

I do want to say, however, that what the Conservatives are unfortunately doing to interfere in this file is a tremendous act of bad faith. The Bloc Québécois recently moved a motion on what happened at Hockey Canada, and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage must be the one to look into these allegations of assault. The committee members proposed adding hours so that we could deal with both issues at the same time, but the Conservatives refused. This shows that they are more interested in wasting time than anything else.

There was also a motion to allow the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to travel. At the same time, the Conservatives denied approval for the foreign affairs committee to travel, showing once again that this is a tactic to waste the House's time. Conservative members claim that there is not enough time to hear from witnesses, but when asked how many witnesses would be enough, they are unable to provide a number. This, even after the committee already heard from a number of witnesses, including some YouTubers who came to testify in committee not once, but twice.

That said, the Liberals are not beyond reproach either. The time that was allocated to debating Bill C‑11 in committee could have taken place between June 2021 and February 2022. Last June, we knew that we were on the verge of an election, which is why the Bloc Québécois supported a closure motion that was much more restrictive than this one. The super-closure motion we are debating today makes the seven other motions recently voted on in this place look like mere technicalities.

If the House had not shut down for an election, we probably would have been able to get Bill C‑11 through third reading, get it through the Senate and get it passed. All of the time we lost from June to February is much longer than the time that the Conservatives have wasted here in the House.

No one is without blame here. One side is unfortunately systematically obstructing our work. I can understand, to a certain extent, the use of some form of closure on this matter. This is why the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of closure on Bill C‑10 the last time, in a completely different context, because we knew that we were headed into an election.

That does not justify this closure motion, which is much broader and less appropriate given the urgency. In fact, we know that even if we vote in favour of closure now, the bill will not make it through the Senate in time, since there will only be a few days left for the Senate to sit after the motion has been passed in the House, most likely around June 20, 21 or 22, depending on how things are going, and if there is another filibuster.

Unfortunately, no one is without blame here. As I said at the outset, the two main parties in the House keep this going like Groundhog Day. Sadly, the ones who are paying the price are our small traditional media.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so tired of hearing the Conservatives spout lies about Canada's arts industry. I cannot take it any more. I have spent so many nights here working on Bill C-11 until midnight and listening to the same speeches about censorship and freedom of expression, speeches about things that have never been proven, that do not exist. The only place those things exist is in the Conservatives' parallel universe.

This nonsense needs to stop. We need to help Canada's arts community. Everyone agrees.

If we accept the Conservatives' premise and do not pass Bill C‑11, what is the Conservatives' solution? What will they do?

We are not saying that it is perfect. However, if we do not go ahead with Bill C‑11, what will the Conservatives do to help our artists in Quebec and Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, that is the question: why? Why would the government not just be open and transparent and release the policy directive?

Bill C-11 would provide the CRTC with a significant of regulatory authority, but without the direction from the government, we do not know how the CRTC will interpret that regulatory authority, and we will not know until after we have already been forced to vote on this bill. That is the issue.

If the government wanted to be open and transparent, it would table that document today, as it did with Bill C-10. The question is, what is the government trying to hide?

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

Madam Speaker, there is a dull rumble in the room because everyone is so outraged about this motion that they cannot constrain themselves, given the concern they have.

Folks at home might have read the newspaper over the weekend and wondered why there is a rush with this programming motion. The Minister of Canadian Heritage himself said that he was not going to force it through the Senate and that it is not going to become law before the summer, so why the rush to force it through the House? In fact, in The Globe and Mail this week, an article by Bill Curry and Michelle Carbert said this:

The Liberal government says it will not press the Senate to rush the Online Streaming Act into law before the summer recess, even though it moved Friday to shut down debate on the bill in the House of Commons.

In a statement to The Globe and Mail, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez said the government does not expect the Senate to rubber stamp the bill after it receives final approval in the Commons.

He does not expect a rubber stamp in the Senate, but here in the elected House of Commons, where each of the 338 of us was elected by 100,000-plus constituents to represent 100,000-plus constituents, we are expected to rubber-stamp this piece of legislation. We are expected to rubber-stamp the largest change to the Broadcasting Act in over three decades.

The government wants to say that the bill has had plenty of debate, that it has had tons of time for debate. Do members know when the bill first came before the heritage committee? The first day of meetings on Bill C-11 at the heritage committee was May 24, less than three weeks ago. We have had less than three weeks to hear from parliamentarians and hear from witnesses across the country.

After that, we were still receiving requests to appear before committee, requests from concerned stakeholders across the country who were not able to testify before the committee. These are Canadians and owners of small businesses who will be personally and directly affected by this piece of legislation, but Parliament and its committee could not hear from them. That is what has brought us to this programming motion to force the bill through the House without meaningful debate.

We as parliamentarians have a duty. We as opposition parliamentarians have an exceptional duty and a role to play. I would like to draw the House's attention to one of the great former leaders of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the right hon. Bob Stanfield. In a memo to his caucus, he said this: “Not only is it unnecessary for political parties to disagree about everything, but some acceptance of common ground among the major parties is essential to an effective and stable democracy. For example, it is important to stability that all major parties agree on such matters as parliamentary responsible government and major aspects of our Constitution.”

Like the great Bob Stanfield before us, we agree on the importance of parliamentary responsible government, whereby Her Majesty's loyal opposition holds the government to account. When certain parties decide that this is no longer necessary and we are derelict in our duties as opposition parliamentarians, we get a motion like this.

I always like to use a thought exercise. What would members of the House, members of the Liberal government and members of the New Democrats say if Stephen Harper had brought forward a motion as draconian as this one? They would be up in arms. They would be up in question period. They would be up in the House complaining about the draconian measures. However, members of the Liberal government, who for years ridiculed and raised the alarm on closure and time allocation, are the worst perpetrators.

As I mentioned, the bill did not come before the heritage committee until May 24, yet here we are. This is not the first time, either. We will recall that this is the same playbook the Liberals used for Bill C-10, the predecessor to this piece of legislation. They used Motion No. 10 to force Bill C-10 out of committee and into the House.

The government wants to say that we need to get this bill through immediately, but what happened with Bill C-10? The government called a summer election and killed its own legislation. It is awfully rich today to hear the Liberals say that we need to act with great haste to pass this piece of legislation when it is just going to sit in the Senate all summer long.

Many of my colleagues have not yet had a chance to speak to this bill, and will not have a chance to speak to it because of the government using time allocation. This is a piece of legislation that will not only impact the entire broadcasting industry, but also every Canadian who listens to music or watches videos online. This motion is being rushed through to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Last week, on Tuesday, the clerk of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage sent to members 20 different submissions. Among them were submissions from the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund, the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, the Canadian Ethnocultural Media Coalition, Blue Ant Media and Spotify, all of which have been denied a chance to appear before the committee by the government. Now, the government House leader has decided they do not deserve an opportunity to speak before the committee.

There are, in fact, many witnesses who have yet to be heard despite the fact that Bill C-11 would have detrimental impacts on their businesses. These include Anthem Sports and Entertainment, the Consumer Technology Association, the Ontario Association of Broadcasters, which represents radio stations, Blue Ant Media, which I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and Ethnic Channels Group.

The government could have taken a different approach to how to modernize the Broadcasting Act that meets both the needs and technological realities of today, but does so without impacting digital-first creators and new technologies moving forward. Unfortunately, instead of modernization, it is forcing a 30-year-old regulatory system onto Canadians using new technology that old rules are not compatible with. Perhaps most disappointingly, the government ignored those in the digital media sector and went so far as to accuse them of spreading misinformation.

The tactics the Liberal government has used have been an attempt to discredit anyone who has raised legitimate concerns about the implications of this bill. It has been shameful, and it is not up to the standards of decency Canadians expect from their government.

There are obviously several crucial flaws with this bill that need to be fixed. First and foremost is section 4.2. It is a legislative pretzel: an exception to an exception, and a clause in the bill that leaves open to regulation content that indirectly or directly generates revenue. It seems the government does not even understand how the Internet works or how indirectly gaining revenue works.

I draw the House's attention to an expert, Morghan Fortier, who runs the largest YouTube channel in our country and has found great success globally by using new technology. She says the following when referring to the bill:

It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad. It mistakes platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Facebook for broadcasters like the CBC, Netflix and Amazon Prime. It doesn't understand how those platforms operate, and it ignores the fundamental importance of global discoverability. Worst of all, proposed section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate...small businesses like mine that are not even associated with broadcasters.

This is from the person who has Canada's most successful YouTube channel. She has found success globally, yet this piece of legislation would constrain and restrain that success globally.

They have said time and again that the CRTC will not regulate user-generated content, but the bill, in black and white, gives it the power. Worse yet, despite repeated requests, the government has refused to release its policy directive to the CRTC that would provide the interpretation of how this bill would be implemented. This “just trust us” approach that the Liberals are following does not inspire confidence.

In fact, just last week, the Minister of Canadian Heritage appeared before committee and told us outright that he would not provide the policy directive until after the bill had received royal assent. After the legislation has been passed, after parliamentarians have passed the legislation, only then will the government tell us how it will be interpreted and how the CRTC will do so.

What is more is that during the minister's appearance at committee, he refused to offer a definition of discoverability. In fact, discoverability is mentioned in the piece of legislation. It is mentioned in Bill C-11, but it is never defined. Until we see the policy directive, we do not know how the CRTC will be directed to implement discoverability.

It comes back to what the Liberals said they would never do. In their 2015 election platform, the Liberals said, “We will also change the rules so that Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries no longer have a vote on committees.” That did not last very long, because now parliamentary secretaries not only sit on committees, but they also have votes and are directing the work of committees.

In fact, last week in the House of Commons, the government House leader said, “let us talk about some of the things we do not do. What we do not do is use parliamentary secretaries in committee to control committees and not allow members to ask questions.”

A little more than one hour after the government House leader said this, it was none other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, at the beginning of questioning witnesses, filibustered witness testimony to try to move a motion without debate and to move to clause-by-clause. This not only prevented members from questioning witnesses, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage himself, but it also would have had the effect of preventing dozens of other witnesses who wished to testify from testifying.

On Monday and Wednesday of last week, it was again the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage who introduced motions to end study and proceed to clause-by-clause, while dozens of witnesses who wished to appear had been prevented from appearing.

Perhaps what is most concerning is that last week, the Liberal chair of a committee accidentally let it slip that the Liberals had been instructed by their party leadership to have the bill sent back to the House quickly. The member for Vancouver Centre said, “we do not have a lot of time to stretch anything out, because this bill is supposed to be reported back to the House before June 23”. It is supposed to be by who? It is by the Liberals.

The Liberals are directing the chair of a committee to report a bill back. It is shameful. In fact, this closure motion, Motion No. 16, I would dare say is a vote of non-confidence in the Liberal chair of the committee: the member for Vancouver Centre.

I also want to share the words of a digital-first creator, Oorbee Roy, one of the very few digital-first creators who had the opportunity to appear before our committee. She said, “I literally have never gotten a seat at the table—except now, as a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters.... Please don't suppress my voice.” Again, that is from Oorbee Roy who found success online as a digital-first creator. As a skateboarding mother, she found success in that market globally. Under this bill, the Liberals are trying to prevent that success.

We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition want to see Canadian creators succeed here in Canada and around the world. We want to see them be able to access and use the tools available to them through the Internet to find that success globally so that Canadian stories, Canadian voices, Canadian music, Canadian television and Canadian film can be enjoyed around the world. Is that not what it is about? It is about sharing the talents of Canadians globally.

I have been very clear that we support making sure that the major streamers, the international foreign streamers, contribute to Canadian productions. We want to see that happen more, and we applaud those companies that are already doing it. We applaud the billions of dollars that Netflix and Disney are investing in Canada and in Canadian-made productions. We want to see more of that. We want to encourage more of that. What we do not want to see happen is Canadian creators being hampered by their ability to export.

We have made some clear commitments about what we want to see changed with Bill C-11. We want to see the removal of section 4.2 to ensure that user-generated content is not subject to CRTC regulation. We want to see a clear definition of discoverability, so we can ensure that one Canadian performer is not lower down to another. We want to see an equality on the Internet to ensure that Canadian arts and Canadian programming are able to excel. We want to see a threshold so that small, independent creators are not captured in a large, cumbersome bureaucratic process.

We want to see updates to the Canadian content definition so that Canadian stories are being told by Canadians. The current definition often sees Canadian stories not being considered Canadian. A perfect example is The Handmaid's Tale. It was written by the great Margaret Atwood and filmed in Ontario, but is not Canadian.

Before we move forward with Bill C-11, we have to get the definition of Canadian content right. Finally, we need to see the policy directive. We need to see the government's instructions to the CRTC of how it will interpret Bill C-11. In the former Bill C-10, the government did that. It released its draft directive before debate in the House of Commons. This time, it refuses to do that.

Bearing in mind these important things and the lack of witnesses we have yet to hear from, I move, second by the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington:

That the motion be amended:

(a) in paragraph (a),

(i) by substituting subparagraph (i) with the following:

“(i) the committee be instructed to continue hearing from witnesses, including especially Canadian content creators, this month and through the summer adjournment,”,

(ii) by substituting, subparagraph (ii), all the words after the words “11:59 p.m.” with the following: “on Monday, September 19, 2022”,

(iii) by substituting, in subparagraph (iii), all the words after the words “no later than” with the following: “Tuesday, September 27, 2022, provided that the committee has reported back to the House in relation to its order of reference of Thursday, June 2, 2022, in relation to Hockey Canada”,

(iv) by deleting subparagraph (iv) and (v); and

(b) by deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think we have to go back to the numbers. There have been 15 hours of debate at second reading, 21 hours of debate at committee, with seven hours of filibustering, including the Conservatives filibustering their own motion.

To the hon. member's question, what is at stake here and what is important is that the whole thrust of Bill C-11 is to showcase Canadian creators and to make sure that Canadians can discover more of the great stories that Canada has to offer. We will always, as Canadians, have the choice to watch and listen to whatever we want. Bill C-11 just asks platforms to showcase more Canadian stories. What could be nefarious about that? Absolutely nothing about that is nefarious.

This will make it easier for Canadians to discover up-and-coming homegrown talent. Quite frankly, I grew up and discovered The Tragically Hip . I fell in love with Corner Gas, Kim's Convenience and Schitt's Creek. I can go through the list.

I also discovered Mensonges and Tout le monde en parle. Everything we have in Canada is worth broadcasting around the world.

That is what this is about.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to hear from the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance and to see how passionate he is about Bill C‑11. I completely agree. Canadian content has not been promoted like this in years, and our neighbour to the south is a threat.

I would like to ask the minister if Bill C‑11 will help creators, especially francophones in Quebec. We know there is a lot of talent there and that they need to be encouraged. Will the bill help our creative industry in Quebec?

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

Madam Speaker, this afternoon the minister is trying to defend the indefensible from coast to coast. Bill C-11 is a disaster, as was Bill C-10, and it is being shut down once again. We had 20 written submissions handed to us last Wednesday at committee from people who wanted to come to committee. The member talks about LGBTQ and indigenous issues. We have not heard from APTN, which was one of the guests the NDP wanted to bring to the committee. It has yet to come to talk to us.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Why do the Liberals want to shut the bill down in the House of Commons, do nothing over the summer and hand it over to the Senate? We have time to bring other issues forward. Proposed subsection 4.1(2) has always been an issue. It was an issue a year ago when we debated Bill C-10 in the House, which they rammed through and then called the unnecessary election. This is the same situation we are seeing today with Bill C-11.

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

Madam Speaker, fact: We have had Conservatives in this House who obviously have not even read the bill, as they are comparing it to things like the government following people on cellphones. The disinformation has been unbelievable.

Fact: We had witnesses before the committee, including the chair of the CRTC, who were filibustered by Conservatives so they could not come to testify.

Fact: The majority of witnesses overwhelmingly want to see Bill C-11 pass, but want to see improvements. They want the committee to do its work.

Fact: As we found out last Friday, even the Conservatives have submitted amendments, and the NDP, Liberals and Bloc Québécois submitted their amendments a week and a half ago. The committee should be getting to work.

What I do not understand is that we have two block parties in this House: the Bloc Québécois and the block-everything party. The Conservatives are blocking everything that comes forward.

Why are they doing that when the vast majority of witnesses want to see this bill improved?

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

Madam Speaker, I must have been naive and idealistic, to be honest, when I was first elected to Parliament. I thought we were here to make laws. I thought we were here to move Quebec and Canadian society forward. In the nine months since this new Parliament began, progress on legislation has been minimal. Between the Liberal government's closure motions and the Conservative government's filibusters, no progress has been made.

I heard a journalist on CBC radio this morning who was talking about how poor the Liberals' legislative record is. Even with an alliance with the NDP, they are not making any progress. They cannot move these bills forward.

The Bloc Québécois worked very hard on Bill C-11. The hon. member for Drummond and our party have been working on it for the past year. We were prepared to vote in favour of the bill to modernize the Broadcasting Act last year, before the election. We even tried to speed up the process, but the government called an election. Now it has cooked up a motion that is meant to get Bill C‑11 passed. The motion before us today is really embarrassing.

Is my hon. colleague not a little embarrassed by his government's limited legislative results since the election?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Charlottetown for his intervention and for sticking up for the creators in his constituency and his province, who have been unduly hit by the pandemic.

As we are coming out of the pandemic and as we are trying to modernize the act and as we are making sure that creators can be part of the 21st century, we are going to make sure that islanders have access to these platforms. We are going to make sure that LGBT, indigenous, people of colour and disabled creators on P.E.I. are going to be able to get paid what they are worth and make sure that the broadcasters making money off of these great creators in P.E.I. and across Canada are paying into the system so that we can experience more Canadian content.

We have shifted away from cable. We are now onto streaming. This bill, Bill C-11, helps us to make sure that the CRTC has the tools to make sure that Canadian content continues to thrive. It is a good thing for islanders. It is a good thing for Canadians. That is why we are here today.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that there has been hours and hours of debate at committee. He also knows that their side continues to filibuster. The conspiracy theories and nonsensical ideas of censorship are just beyond the pale.

Quite frankly, this is one in a list of examples of the Conservatives going past opposition to obstruction, whether it is Bill C-8, the budget implementation bill or Bill C-11, the Conservatives do not want to debate; they want to obstruct the work of this Parliament.

Canadians elected us to do good work, and they know that the CRTC is independent. They know there is nothing here that is going to affect Canadians' uploading material to the Internet. This is about making sure that the platforms contribute into the Canada Media Fund, that they develop more content here in Canada, and that we open up the platforms to racialized people, LGBTQ people, indigenous people and disabled people who are creating content for Canadians. This is about moving into the Internet age, not the past, where the Conservatives are stuck.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, none of what the minister just said is accurate.

The Senate is not going to pass this bill before the end of June. We just heard that the committee has been considering this bill since the middle of May. I have been to that committee. What the cabinet is calling filibustering is what I call debate and raising the issues our constituents are raising.

Thousands of Canadians emailed us and said they did not want to see what was called Bill C-10. The government brought it back as Bill C-11. The bill has not been fixed. They have not fixed section 4.2, which does generate the ability of the government, through the CRTC, to moderate and censor the content uploaded by users.

This motion is truly a lack of confidence in the chair of the Canadian heritage committee. This is entirely of the government's making and entirely the government's fault. This legislation has not been reviewed or debated in 31 years. There is no reason to rush it through in the next few weeks. The government is being completely inaccurate in the way it is presenting it. It is a darn shame that we will not be able to review this bill as it deserves to be reviewed, because Canadians are interested to know if they will still be able to use the Internet, their YouTube channels, their Facebook and their TikTok in the ways that they have always been able to without the censorship of government and the CRTC.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask the minister why his government is blocking the release of the policy directive that they will issue to the CRTC.

We are waiting to hearing how the Liberal government will force the CRTC to implement the measures contained in Bill C-11. I note that on Friday the minister said he would not rush this through the Senate in order to allow the Senate lots of time to debate it. The bill only came to the heritage committee on May 17. Now the government is rushing it through both the committee and the House.

Now that the government is not going to rush it through the Senate, would the minister at least commit to tabling, for all Canadians to see, the policy directive that it would issue to the CRTC?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have had dozens of hours to debate this bill, and so have other members. Conservatives have been filibustering and have been blocking, and they do not want to see this bill move forward.

Just one of the benefits of Bill C-11 is that we would be updating the mandate of the CRTC to include specific focus on supporting francophone, racialized, indigenous, LGBTQ+ and disabled creators in Canada, and this means a portion of the contributions from broadcasting and streaming platforms would be directly supporting the development of these creative platforms and of people in the ecosystem who have been shut out.

As such, it is up to the Conservatives to tell Canadians why they are blocking legislation that would help creators who have been disadvantaged since the Broadcasting Act was first in place in 1991. Why are they not doing their job and making the bill better, instead of blocking it at committee?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to be speaking directly to the camera and to Canadians at home so they can hear the question I am about to ask the government.

The motion that was just moved is a motion called “closure”. It is that the debate on Government Business No. 16 not be further adjourned, which means it is closure. What the government is doing through this motion and through Government Business No. 16, which we are debating today, is having a closure motion on a time allocation process, which means we will time-allocate time for Bill C-11 in committee to come to this House, time-allocate report stage in this House and then time-allocate third reading of that bill in this House. Anybody who is following Bill C-11 knows of and has great concerns about the censorship of the Internet in that bill, so what the government is doing today on a censorship bill is moving closure on a time allocation motion. They are censoring the censorship of their own censorship bill.

That is what is happening today. Why?

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct the record and confirm that the Conservative Party, as of last Friday, has submitted a number of amendments to the committee clerk for the purposes of this legislation, but we are not done. We have not finalized all of our amendments because we have not finalized the review of this piece of legislation.

We have made very clear publicly, and did so in a release, the challenges and concerns we have with this piece of legislation, including section 4.2, the definition of discoverability, the redefinition of Canadian content and the thresholds that these institutions ought to meet.

The question I want to ask to the NDP House leader is very simple. Much of this interpretation will be left to the CRTC, based on the policy directive of the minister. The minister has said that he will not release it until after this piece of legislation receives royal assent. Would the member not agree that it would be better for transparency and for the benefit of all of us in the House who are debating and voting on this legislation if the minister would simply, as the government did with Bill C-10, release the draft policy directive to the CRTC so that we can see it, review it and make a judgment on it before we vote on Bill C-11?

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

Mr. Speaker, with Trumpism in the United States we have seen the idea that one can just invent whatever truth one wants and throw it out there and that somehow it is acceptable. I would agree with the member that it is not acceptable.

For the member for Provencher to compare Bill C-11 to governments following people on cellphones is simply unbelievable, yet not a single Conservative MP said that it was wrong and that he should not be saying that.

In the same way that the Conservatives throw out this idea of censorship without any due regard for the bill itself, which they have not read or do not care to read, this does a disservice to democracy. The behaviour of the Conservatives over the last few weeks at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in a similar way has done a disservice. Our job is to take legislation and ultimately vote yes or no. That is true, but it is also our job to work to improve it. That has not been an objective of the Conservative Party in the last few months.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have a lot to say, so I appreciate that additional time.

There are areas within the bill that can definitely be improved. There is no doubt about that. We have the ability to ensure that we are actually improving that bill.

We have had the debate today, and there have been a number of comments. I referenced earlier the issue around Bill C-11 and Conservative MPs who obviously have not read the bill, who have not opened it or even turned to page one, saying that it had something to do with the government following people on cellphones or the government censoring people's opinions. Obviously, that is not accurate and not true.

At the same time, at the committee level, we have had a number of inaccuracies, and I call it disinformation, that have come up through the course of the day. First is the issue of amendments. As I mentioned earlier, all of the other parties submitted amendments last week. We had been calling for amendments for a couple of weeks before then.

We flag that for a number of reasons. First, there is the time that is required for translation and the time that is required to prepare the amendments. We have to work with legislative staff. All of us around the table, with the singular exception of the Conservatives, did that work to make sure that those amendments are put in place, that they are in order, and that they are conceived in an effective way to make sure they do what they purport to do. As we know, that often involves a back-and-forth. It often involves working with the legislative clerks, and then submitting it for official translation.

That way we have a translation that is accurate, but sometimes corrections are needed. Last week I corrected some amendments that had been submitted in English. I felt that the translation was inaccurate, so we tweaked the translations to ensure that the two versions matched. We had been talking about it for weeks, saying that the amendments really needed to be submitted. The Conservatives refused all attempts to give the clerks and translators enough time to do their work.

The member for Perth—Wellington said a few minutes ago that we have to think about the translators and the clerks. Fortunately, their task will be much less onerous, because the committee members, with the exception of the Conservatives, have already submitted their amendments. Three-quarters of the amendments have already been translated, fortunately. This means that the work is already done. In a way, we have made the Conservatives' work easier.

Second, the member for Perth—Wellington just said that members should be able to vote on the proposed elements. Once again, the Conservatives filibustered the motion moved today. It amounts to the same thing. Each amendment will be voted on by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This means that members will be called upon to decide the fate of each amendment.

Third, although we are going to have a nine-hour day of debate on these amendments, we also need to vote at some point. The vote is important. We might be working until one or two in the morning, but that is not a problem for me. We are supposed to be here to work. That is why we decided to condense five weeks of hearings into a shorter period. We held the equivalent of five weeks of hearings in a shorter period, but we had time—

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

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am contrasting Conservative behaviour at the heritage committee with what the NDP has sought and obtained: dental care, affordable housing, all of those things that make a difference in people's lives.

The Conservatives at the heritage committee heard the vast majority of witnesses say that Bill C-11 is good but could be better, suggesting specific amendments that could improve the legislation. Why are Conservatives simply refusing to even submit amendments? Every other party, every other member of Parliament around that table has tried to submit amendments. We tried to set deadlines weeks ago, but ultimately we just sent them in. We did our work. We did our homework. We worked late. We made sure we had amendments that could be put forward to the heritage committee for consideration to achieve those improvements.

I think I have maybe a minute left.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no relevance. He is talking about dental care, not the issue of Bill C-11.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for pointing out, yet again, that this is not a point of order. I can understand Conservatives' sensitivity about their deplorable actions, both in the House of Commons and in committee. I can imagine Conservatives being defensive about the incredible hypocrisy of trying to say that they are for something and then doing the exact opposite.

What Conservatives owe Canadians is to stand up and say they have not been doing what they were elected to do. We are supposed to be working to improve legislation, to bring amendments and to listen to witnesses. When the vast majority of witnesses before the committee say they are in favour of Bill C-11, and when the vast majority of witnesses also say that there are some improvements that could be made, then we have a responsibility as legislators both to hear that testimony and to put it into action and actually get to the point where we are improving the legislation.

That is the unbelievable contradiction of what we have seen transpire in the House of Commons over the last few months. There are members of the Conservative caucus whom I deeply respect, and the member for Perth—Wellington is one of them. However, the actions of the Conservative caucus as a whole have been profoundly detrimental to the work we have to do to make sure that legislation is ultimately passed, but also to improve that legislation.

What has the NDP done over that same period? We have pushed the government, and it is a minority situation, so every party has that ability, to put in place, for the first time, national dental care. That would be starting soon for children 12 and under, for the many families—

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that these are radical actions certainly. I do not impugn any member, and I certainly think there were disruptive actions over the last few weeks. They have definitely been disruptive actions. Most witnesses come forward to say that improvements need to be brought to the bill, but Conservatives systematically refused to have any consideration for the bill itself. They refused even to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he was outside the room, and they refused to hear from the chair of the CRTC when he and his staff were outside the room. This kind of conduct is simply not acceptable.

We are engaged by Canadians to examine legislation and to improve legislation. That is part and parcel of our job in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have lamentably failed that over the last few weeks. We were able to get an agreement, which was tragically the last agreement other parties around the table at the heritage committee were able to obtain. The idea of the equivalent of five weeks of hearings is something that made sense. We heard from the major witnesses that we had all submitted. It made sense then to take what they had addressed, the kinds of suggestions that they put forward and from there, get to work on improving that legislation.

As I mentioned, the NDP filed their amendments more than a week ago, yet the Conservatives are a little like someone with a dog that ate their homework. They are refusing those amendments for a bill we believe can be improved. Where does that leave us?

I do need to put in this context the very clear disinformation that we are hearing from some Conservative members. The member for Provencher asked me in one of the evening debates on Bill C-11 about his concern that the government would be following us on cellphones and the connection to Bill C-11.

Mr. Speaker, I know you read the bill assiduously, but there is no reference at all to this. It is a wacko comment to say that somehow Bill C-11 is connected to governments following people on cellphones. It is just an unbelievable piece of disinformation.

We heard repeatedly today from Conservatives talking about censorship. Again, this has absolutely no relevance at all to the bill. As legislators, we are responsible for reading through the legislation. We are responsible for comments that have something to do with the actual legislation that is before us.

It is disappointing to me to see the Conservatives' attempts to block every piece of legislation we have seen over the last few months, even important pieces of legislation that would make a difference in people's lives, and I will reference a couple of them in a moment. This is now being replicated at the committee level where we have Conservatives simply refusing to allow the due diligence that is our responsibility for each piece of legislation.

That is the fundamental issue here. Conservatives basically tried to break the committee. We have three other parties in the democratic system, and the issue of representation is very important. Three of the four parties let us move forward and actually tabled their amendments and did the work. I have a great staff team. We put together those amendments and submitted them. It would then make sense for us to get to consideration of these amendments, but the Conservatives clearly indicated that they have no interest at all.

This happens even when they purport to support something. We can take the issue of Hockey Canada and the horrific allegations of sexual assault around Hockey Canada. The Conservatives said they wanted to study this, so I put forward an amendment for meeting next Monday and next Wednesday at our regularly scheduled times, and Conservatives refused to allow a vote on that. That is serious. They cannot say one thing, do completely the opposite, and expect to have credibility.

The Conservatives said they were concerned about Hockey Canada. The NDP shares those concerns. Members from all parties share those concerns. Why would the Conservatives be the party that blocks the vote that would allow us to actually have those hearings next Monday and Wednesday? There is nothing on the committee business yet for next Monday, when we could be hearing from Hockey Canada or from the Minister of Sport. However, because of the irresponsible Conservative actions, we will be listening to another Conservative filibuster—

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, all of this is relevant to the behaviour of the Conservatives in the heritage committee, but I will continue because it is important to have these timelines to explain why we have come to the debate today.

Subsequent to that, we saw the Conservatives become the second block party in the House of Commons. We have the Bloc Québécois, and now we have the block-everything party. Subsequent to the “freedom convoy”, every single piece of legislation has been blocked in the House of Commons. No matter what good it would do for people and no matter what things it would change, the Conservatives have blocked everything.

This, of course, brings us to the heritage committee. I will pay tribute to the member for Perth—Wellington, who is the moderate within the Conservative caucus. Despite the fact that he had the more extremist members represented in the committee not allowing him to do this good work, we did, in the end, agree to the equivalent of five weeks of hearings at the heritage committee around Bill C-11. It made sense. The Conservatives raised at the end of it that perhaps we could hear from further witnesses. There were a couple of witnesses I thought it would be wise to hear from, yet the Conservatives blocked, through filibuster, hearing from the witnesses whom they said they wanted to hear from.

They also blocked at the heritage committee, unbelievably, the ability of the CRTC chair to come and answer questions from members of Parliament. We all had questions, and we had this surreal committee hearing where Conservatives were filibustering as the chair of the CRTC and members of the CRTC were outside the room. While we were all wishing to ask questions of the CRTC, the Conservatives were trying to block that. Eventually, we were able to break that filibuster.

There was another filibuster that stopped the Minister of Canadian Heritage from coming to answer questions on Bill C-11. We had to break that filibuster as well. It has just been an exercise in chaos at the heritage committee, provoked by the Conservatives and their block-everything philosophy.

It is fair to say that, when five weeks of hearings is not sufficient and when there is no attempt by the Conservatives to actually work out a schedule, because it is important in this place that we work out a schedule, the dysfunction that the Conservatives were bringing to the heritage committee then extended to the issue of amendments. The vast majority of witnesses whom we heard from over that five-week equivalent time period were witnesses who were endorsing Bill C-11, but many of the witnesses had clear improvements that they wanted to see to the legislation. Members of all of the other parties understood that.

We tried for two weeks to have an amendment deadline, which makes sense. We want to make sure that, in the administration of the House, timelines are respected. Conservatives categorically refused to set a deadline. Last Friday, all the other members of Parliament from the other parties on the Canadian heritage committee submitted their amendments. We had received texts. We had received a series of interventions and memoirs. We had also heard from witnesses for the equivalent of five weeks, so we knew. The three other parties, the parties that are taking a more adult—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am almost without words to see what the Conservatives have done concerning Bill C-11. I am saddened by what we have seen. The deterioration and the disintegration of the Conservative Party over the last few months is something that I think has saddened all of us.

I would remind members that, back in the month of December, and I will pay tribute to the former leader, the member for Durham, the Conservative caucus, led by moderates, was able to actually work with all parties. We had the—

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question posed by the member opposite. Unfortunately, I do not think I am in a position best suited to answer it, as it is perplexing to me as well. It is perplexing because foreign affairs has to do with international relations with other countries. All members who are working in the House are vaccinated, and members would be willing to participate in this type of travel.

It is beyond me why the Conservatives would oppose travel for one committee and then force a vote in the House on that very issue in another committee. It seems to me that this is just another tactic from their tool box, which they are trying to use to delay Bill C-11.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about some of the great benefits that the bill brings. As the debate continues today, I want to hear from the members opposite as to what the issues are that they have with the bill exactly, because I believe there has been confusion around this issue. We have tried to make it clear. I do not know how much clearer we need to make it that this applies to commercial content and does not apply to user content.

In determining whether content is commercial, it has been set out in this piece of legislation that the regulator needs to evaluate it based on three elements: First, if the content is monetized. I know this would be of some concern because there is user content that can be monetized, but there are other elements and factors that they also have to weigh in connection with that. Second, they need to weigh whether the content exists on another non-social media platform. A non-social media platform would be something such as Netflix that we basically do not interact with. We are just consuming the content that is on there. If there is a show that YouTube is streaming as either paid content or unpaid content, and at the same time Netflix is also streaming it, that is a distinction to be made because that will get us closer to the definition of commercial content.

The third thing the regulator would be looking at is whether the content has a unique international standard code. The example would be a song that is uploaded to YouTube with an international standard music number. We know that many people are now consuming their music not from the radio or CDs, or from downloaded music or records for that matter. They are consuming it from these streaming platforms, but this is commercially produced music and content.

It is only fair that if the radio stations that are playing this content today, and have been all along, are playing by a certain set of rules, then those streaming platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube Music also have the same rules applied to them. That is fair, and I think all members in the House should agree that one set of laws in Canada should not be different for one group of people and different for another. We should make sure that the laws are the same.

When I was first elected to the House, my father was a taxi driver. I remember many people from the taxi community. Many live in my riding. For some reason, I have a large number of constituents who are taxi drivers. They came to me and said that Uber did not have to pay HST, yet taxi drivers that provide the same service had to pay HST on their fares. I thought this was not fair. Why was one service provider, which provides exactly the same service, operating under one set of rules? Another service provider was promoting itself as being a digital company and providing the service slightly differently. However, it was not teletransporting people. Quite frankly, it was doing the exact same thing. It was picking up riders in cars and dropping them off at another location.

I brought this point up, and our Minister of Finance took that very seriously and said our laws and regulations should apply equally. I would say that Bill C-11 is a very similar situation. He quickly resolved that issue, and now Uber drivers also have to pay HST on their fares. That was justice served to the ride-share and taxi community. That is what we are trying to do in this bill by making sure that our regulations are applied across the board, equally and fairly.

Once again, I am not saying that any piece of legislation is completely perfect. There could be some gaps or some holes. We want to make sure we get the support of the Conservative Party, the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party to make sure we fill those gaps and those holes. We want to see the amazing amendments they will hopefully bring forward if we ever get to that point.

However, what we are so tired of is the constant delay. It is not democracy. The members are saying that this is democracy, but delay and cutting off the ability to discuss in a way that is productive and constructive is different from saying, “We are not going to let this legislation see the light of day.” That is what I would argue the opposition has been trying to do.

There are many stakeholders who are eager to see this legislation pass. They feel their content has not been given the prominence it deserves. They have not been able to get the support they once did when their content was regularly watched on television. Now all these new content creators, and even the old, are not getting the financial support they used to get. We want to be able to continue telling those amazing stories that we were once able to on these new streaming platforms, because that is where people are consuming.

I want to further contrast the spreading of misinformation that has been going on on social media and Twitter. Members need to be responsible. They need to properly read and understand this piece of legislation before guiding their constituents, before responding to correspondence from their offices, and before putting stuff up on their social media. They should be giving Canadians the proper information.

This bill has nothing to do with what Canadians say on social media. Obviously, the members opposite are free to say whatever they like on their social media platforms, but I would just request that they be responsible members and make sure that the information they give Canadians about what is in this piece of legislation is accurate.

If the Conservatives really want to go and record themselves saying whatever they would like about this piece of legislation or on my speech in the House today, they are free to go and do so, and even once this piece of legislation is passed, they would still be free to do so. That is the clarity that Canadians really need to understand.

I do not want to see a repeat of what happened the last time around, when Conservatives sided with web giants instead of with Canadian artists and creators. I constantly hear from the opposition benches that they are here to be the voices of the people of Canada and the voices of their constituents. Unfortunately, I am afraid that what is happening is they are benefiting these huge, multi-billion dollar corporations, these huge web giants that do not have the same challenges that our local cable stations do. We want to bring fairness to the system.

Furthermore, I would also like to say that clause 12 of the online streaming legislation explicitly states that any regulation the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. Clause 12 should cause Canadians to give a sigh of relief, because I know a lot of the confusing messaging they have been receiving has led them to believe that this could somehow infringe on their freedom of speech.

I can assure Canadians that this piece of legislation is not made to do that. It is made to make sure that our artists in Canada and our content creators have the ability to express the stories that they would like to share with Canadians and the world about our wonderful country and about the experiences our people have in Canada.

I know that many members in the House support this piece of legislation, so I think it is quite unfair to hold it up any longer. We have seen it in the previous Parliament. We want to make sure that all members have the right to amend this piece of legislation, not just in this place but also in the other place as well.

Let us vote and get this show on the road. Let us make sure that the senators in the other place also have equal opportunity to put input into this piece of legislation. Let us get this work done for Canadians, for our artists and for our creators.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by addressing the opposition member's concern about wanting to spend time on amendments to Bill C-11. I think that is a valid concern, and I believe that the committee has had ample time. What we in the government benches, and what I as a member, would like to see is that we get to the amendment stage, that we get to clause-by-clause and that amendments are put forward, and that we are able to discuss those amendments and then vote on them. That is the crux of the issue that we are looking at right now.

As has been mentioned here before as well, the committee and the members at the committee had agreed to 20 hours of witnesses. The members of the committee agreed to this: It was not the House or the government. It was the members of the committee. They have, since then, seen over 20 hours of witnesses.

I believe, from the debate that we hear from the Conservatives, that they have ample reasons to bring amendments forward. That is their right. We would like to see those amendments. We would like to discuss them and vote on those amendments. The previous motion, and now the opposition's motion, just do not seem to make sense. It seems like these are more delay tactics, rather than getting to the amendment stage, which we would desperately like to see.

There was also the issue of Hockey Canada brought up, and that the Conservative members on the committee would like to get to that issue, as well.

I would like to clarify that the members on the committee I have spoken to have said that there was an offer made to study that in parallel, and an offer to even sit on non-sitting days and get that important work done, but there was a filibuster by the Conservative members on the committee and nothing got done. The issue of Hockey Canada was not dealt with, nor was the issue of Bill C-11 thoroughly dealt with, so I really would request that the members reconsider this motion and really get to the stage that is important for all Canadians and especially our artists and content creators.

Another thing I would like to touch upon is the constant referral to the bill limiting freedom of expression or freedom of speech, or somehow being anti-democratic. It is absolutely not that. For decades, our system here has guaranteed creation for Canadian content creators when it comes to TV and radio: all of those platforms that we grew up with.

This is nothing new. We have always had legislation in place that made sure the CRTC was there to oversee our content, our networks and our cable providers. This is now just an extension of that.

There has not been an update to this legislation for a long time, and we know that today not many of our constituents, and probably not many of us in the House, are watching content in the traditional way we grew up watching it. We are watching it on streaming devices; therefore, it is crucial that we make sure that our laws are applied equally to radio and television, as they should be, and to streaming networks such as YouTube, Crave, Netflix and so many different networks that are out there that we are consuming content from.

I think it is really important that we make sure that these networks contribute to Canadian content, and make sure that bilingualism is respected in the country, as well as our indigenous communities and heritage. Without having these types of regulations to begin with, we would have missed out on incredible content that we have grown up watching.

Kim's Convenience is a more recent show that I know many of my friends appreciate very much. It has allowed Canadians to experience the diversity that we have here in Canada, and to share true Canadian stories that we can relate to.

That is a story, in particular, that I can relate to because of the immigrant struggle that my parents faced: having a small business while keeping their culture, staying connected to their roots and raising a young child within the Canadian context. It is a brilliant show, as is Schitt's Creek. Many members have probably appreciated the story that it has brought of inclusion and acceptance. Those stories are really important. They are the stories we want to be able to share with Canadians and make sure these platforms do their part in sharing those stories.

That is the crux of what this legislation is about. It is not about muzzling people or making sure their content does not get out. It is about commercial content. I want to be very clear that commercial content is different from user content. For instance, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, just the other day, put a video on Twitter talking about how Bill C-11 is a scary piece of legislation that is somehow going to remove the very video that he put on Twitter to talk about this legislation. Of course, that video is still there and even after this legislation is passed, it will still be there because this legislation has made an exception and carved out freedoms for those who are creating user content. On any social media platforms such as YouTube or Facebook, which many members of Parliament use, those types of posts and content will not be affected.

This bill would make sure that the CRTC and any of its advice does not muzzle freedom of speech or impose any restrictions on the people who—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for my hon. colleague because he said he has been following the deliberations of the heritage committee. He knows that the committee had the equivalent of over five weeks's worth of witnesses, that the committee was going to call additional witnesses but the Conservatives blocked that with a filibuster and that all other parties and all other members of the committee have filed their amendments. For a couple of weeks we tried to move forward, but the Conservatives refused, and the amendments were all filed last week.

The Conservatives also blocked having hearings for the very serious allegations that have come up regarding Hockey Canada. These are very serious allegations of sexual assault, and the Conservatives blocked those hearings, which would have been held next Monday and Wednesday, from being voted on. It is a very curious and very destructive strategy the Conservatives have adopted at committee in refusing to do their work and put in amendments, and in refusing and blocking witnesses.

With all of that as a background, my question to my colleague is this. We have heard Conservative MPs say that somehow Bill C-11 is linked to the government following people on cellphones and to censorship, none of which is in the bill at all. Why did Conservative MPs not read the bill before we had the consideration we have had over the course of the last few weeks?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little perplexed about the motion that has just been moved and need a bit of clarification. The member acknowledged himself that the Conservatives have been opposing committee travel. Now, all of a sudden, for a study on Bill C-11 that they have spent an extended amount of time on, with over 20 hours' worth of witnesses, they would like to see travel.

Can the member please explain this 180° turn?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that, during its consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee, provided that the travel does not exceed 10 sitting days.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for seconding what I believe to be a very important motion.

As members are aware, Motion No. 16 was presented today. It is basically a draconian way of dealing with issues and matters of the House by the government. It is a way of stifling debate. It is a way of silencing the voices of millions of Canadians who sent their elected representatives here to Ottawa.

Bill C-11 has been universally panned, for lack of a better word, by content creators and others who are concerned about censorship on the Internet and concerned about content creation. We heard this morning the member for Perth—Wellington give a very good description of some of the concerns with this bill.

Effectively, what Motion No. 16 has done is basically taken the work out of the hands of the committee on this extremely important bill. The government is ramming it through, with the help of its NDP partners, in order to get it passed through Parliament without addressing many of the concerns that are being brought up by those who, as I said earlier, are expressing significant concerns about issues related to censorship.

I have been hearing from my constituents on this. Over the last two or three days, Canadians have become increasingly engaged on this issue. They are finding out what is going on.

Similar to a previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-10, Canadians are concerned. In fact, I would suggest they are more concerned about what is going with Bill C-11 and the impact it is going to have on their ability to see what is on the Internet and produce what is on the Internet. There are concerns, as we heard, as to the power the bill gives the government and the censorship role it gives to the government. It contributes, in my opinion, even more to what we see as a decline in democracy here in Canada, whereby millions of voices, including the Speaker's voice, is silenced as a result of draconian measures.

What this motion would do is allow the committee to travel across the country to hear from those who it has not heard from before. This motion is important because the Conservative opposition has said we are not going to agree to committee travel. The motion highlights the importance of hearing from those in Canada who are extremely concerned about this bill and the censorship it can create. It would allow the committee to do its work, function properly and hear the voices that are being silenced in this place. “Parliament” comes from parler, or “to speak”, yet we are being silenced on this bill.

There is another interesting part to this. I have been watching closely the deliberations at the heritage committee and have been speaking to our shadow minister of heritage about the level of dysfunction that has been created as a result of the chair of the committee not coming to Ottawa and being on Zoom. It speaks to the overall dysfunction of this place. Hybrid Parliament is having such a tremendous impact on the ability of the committees to do their work, and there are health implications for the people who work here, namely the interpreters.

In my opinion, it is time for hybrid Parliament to end. We need to get back to normal. That forms the basis of every argument we have been making in this place.

I am moving this motion in the hopes that we can allow the committee to have its deliberations and speak to Canadians who are concerned about government censorship and the impact this bill will have. We need the support of Parliament to allow the committee to do its job.

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.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his always constructive work at committee. It is always a pleasure to work with him.

Second, I want to say that I carefully avoided in my speech even referring to what political party or what people were not allowing us to move forward. I never mentioned a word about the Conservatives once in my speech.

The end result here is that the member for New Westminster—Burnaby has, on multiple occasions, proposed motions, amendments and subamendments to have us move to the Hockey Canada study at next Monday's meeting and next Wednesday's meeting. The reason we never were able to actually get there was because Conservative members filibustered those discussions. I am sure they want to hear from Hockey Canada. I am sure that all of us want to hear from Hockey Canada. We all agree what an important study that is, but the Conservative members on the committee do not want to get to the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-11. Because we had said that we would hear them in parallel, the Conservative members did not want to get to a vote on that.

It is frustrating, because I know that we all want to get to the Hockey Canada study as well.

[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, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me correct the hon. member: This bill has nothing to do with censorship. Freedom of speech is protected in this country under section 2, and it is very clear that freedom of speech is protected under this bill.

Second, this bill would not be necessary except for the fact that members of the hon. member's party have continued to filibuster the committee, preventing us from ever getting to a vote on any of the many motions, amendments and subamendments the Conservatives are making. In meeting after meeting, and now I have seen it on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11, their end goal is for the committee not to be able to get to clause-by-clause. I think this frustration is shared not only by the Liberal members of the committee, but also by the NDP and Bloc members of the committee.

In the end, we are doing something that is asking the House to instruct the committee to do its job and get to clause-by-clause, so it is actually very democratic and parliamentary.

[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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of democracy is voting and showing up to this place and participating, and that is of course what we do. Whether it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-21, there will be an opportunity, obviously, to continue debating legislation.

On Bill C-11 specifically, there were nine days at committee and many days at second reading. We have opportunities at third reading, and it will be going to the Senate. It is taking essential action to protect Canadian creators and Canadian heritage. We are proud to support this bill, and part of the thrust and parry of this place is that sometimes we disagree. That is not a representation of a decline in democracy; it is proof of it working.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-5 in respect of mandatory minimums. We will then call second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate government Motion No. 16 regarding proceedings for Bill C-11, as I was mentioning, on the Broadcasting Act.

When we return next week, we will focus on this government motion debate and continue our work on Bill C-5 and Bill C-11, as well as on Bill C-14 concerning electoral representation.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see you in the chair. I hope you are getting your strength back. You sound like it. You are doing a good job of keeping everybody in good spirits.

Before my question, there are a couple of issues that I want to bring to the attention of the government House leader.

Number one is that we are requesting a take-note debate on the issue of food security, which is having a significant effect around the world, as members know, as a result of many geopolitical issues.

The second thing is a request to split Bill C-21 so that we can work on victims and the protection of victims in domestic violence.

The third thing is that there have been significant concerns among stakeholders and advocates right across the country regarding Bill C-11. We are seeing some draconian measures being proposed by the government to deal with this piece of legislation. I am concerned about that.

Before I ask for the schedule, I am wondering what the government House leader's plan is to effectively silence the voices of millions of people who voted for opposition MPs in this place and, furthermore, what his plans are to contribute to a further decline in democracy in this place over the course of the next week.

Sport

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Sport and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians, I am disgusted by this situation, and I want to make sure that no public funds were spent to cover up such actions.

That is why I have ordered a financial audit to get to the bottom of this. Hockey Canada must explain why, despite the allegations of such egregious actions, these players faced no consequences and were allowed to continue on to a professional career.

The culture of silence must stop, and it will stop, but using this situation as an excuse to block Bill C-11 at committee is unacceptable.

[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—

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

Oh, it's Monday and Wednesday.

Madam Chair, if I moved a subamendment on Mr. Julian's motion stating that all meetings be designated for Hockey Canada's study until the study is complete, and only then, when the clerk cannot fill a meeting witness, do we start with Bill C-11....

Part of this is that as I was talking about, Madam Chair, I got 20 submissions yesterday alone. We had the minister here on Monday, who made some comments on the $1 billion, all of a sudden, that he thinks Bill C-11 is going to produce, and he made some other statements that I think we're going to get some more submissions on in the next couple of days. I know we are.

My question for Mr. Julian is this. Can we first just set aside and do Hockey Canada on Monday and Wednesday? Then, and after that see what has come in, since we did have the minister here and he made some comments that I think some organizations.... For example, he made a comment on commercial content here on Monday. I am getting a ton of emails on commercial content. It's not in the bill. They're wondering where he's coming from on commercial content. He never explained it.

I never got an explanation, Madam Chair, on the $1 billion. He actually turned to Owen Ripley, the associate minister. We went from $830 million to $1 billion. There are a couple of things the Minister of Heritage said on Monday that I think we're going to see in our submissions this week. They want some clarification. We've had 20 in the last two days. I'm scared to know how many more we're going to get.

Here's what I would like to see. Let's do Hockey Canada solely on Monday and Wednesday, if you wish. Bring in the Minister of Sport, who is, like all of us, very concerned with this. She's been quoted in many articles, and not only about using Canadian funds. What about Hockey Canada? Have they learned anything from the past? Where are they going? As I just mentioned, many have left that organization since this story broke.

Let's deal with that on Monday. Let's deal with Hockey Canada again on Wednesday. For everybody, we can have our witness lists in before Friday on Hockey Canada. We don't need to identify anyone. I think the reporters in this country have identified John Does 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. They haven't identified the person. We don't need to, but we do need to hear from officials from Hockey Canada gala, where the event was held, the foundation, and we need to hear from Hockey Canada itself.

Of course, we also need to hear from the Minister of Sport, because she's concerned that maybe Hockey Canada, who receives 6% funding from the Government of Canada.... That's 6% each year. Did they use a portion of that 6% to pay the $3.55 million that has been alleged in some of the reports?

I would like—

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

If you don't mind, Madam Chair, my concern is this. With Bill C-11 and Hockey Canada, if we continue with Bill C-11, I am fearful that we will not have time to hear from Hockey Canada properly before we rise on, say, June 23, but—

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

That was an Internet issue.

Anyway, just to wrap up on Bill C-11 here, we did get a huge amount from the clerk. We got 20 submissions yesterday alone. That seems to me....

I mean, we have ACTRA. We have APFC—you name it. As I said, Blue Ant Media and many of these organizations were on our list. They were on the list of not only the Conservatives but also the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP.

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

I'd like to thank the Bloc member for bringing the unanimous motion forward to the House on June 2. Since then, Madam Chair, those around this table have probably seen comments by thesports minister, me and others in the country who are really horrified with the situation with Hockey Canada. It's not only the alleged rape, but I think Canadians also want to know if any taxpayer money was involved in the paying-off situation that happened in 2018.

Here's the other thing, Madam Chair. When we do bring Hockey Canada officials in, hopefully they do come. We've already lost a number from Hockey Canada over this. It was interesting because, when this was filed on April 20, one senior member of Hockey Canada stepped down. Since then, another has stepped down. When we get around to witnesses, hopefully these two people will come.

I am a little concerned about how we get them here if they don't want to come. Is there any way around this? Procedurally, two senior people obviously knew a lot. I have a list, Madam Chair, that I have given to our team that I can lay down at any time, with permission, when we need to bring these officials here. However, both are no longer with Hockey Canada and that concerns me a little bit. They don't want to be tarnished, I would imagine, yet both were long-term members of Hockey Canada and both had, obviously, considerable knowledge of what happened in 2018.

If you don't mind, I'm going to move on a little bit, Madam Chair. I just want everyone to know that this incident happened at the Hockey Canada gala in June of 2018. This had nothing to do with the World Junior Championship that was played in January. This actually deals a little bit with the Hockey Canada Foundation, unfortunately, which is a fundraising organization of Hockey Canada.

When we do submit a list of guests that we would like Hockey Canada and others to bring, just remember that this incident took place at the gala portion of it.

Now, let me continue with Bill C-11. It's interesting, Madam Chair, because yesterday I received 20 submissions on Bill C-11. That's a lot of submissions. That tells me that on Bill C-11 we haven't done our due diligence. That we all got emailed about these organization yesterday—thank you, Clerk, for doing that—tells me that, as an organization around this table, we haven't done our due diligence.

I have Friends here, who used to be “Friends of Media”. They sent in a submission.

Music Canada has been very critical of Bill C-11 and we haven't heard from them.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I think we are outside the scope of the discussion. The interventions should be about having a side meeting, outside of the normal hours of the committee, where Hockey Canada representatives could be called in. The committee would continue its work on Bill C‑11 at the same time next week. It is possible to do both. Right now, however, there is a lot of nonsense going on, which may well prevent things from happening. Yet Canadians are watching and waiting for us to act.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Lots has been said here today dealing with Bill C-11 and with Hockey Canada. I spoke quite a bit on Monday on Hockey Canada and have received a lot of feedback since the Monday motion that was put forward.

I've looked into the organization and who is still there and who has left.

What's up for Hockey Canada? We have the Memorial Cup coming around the corner. For those watching, the Memorial Cup pits the best hockey teams in Canada. You would have the Quebec junior hockey league champions and the Ontario Hockey League champions. You would have the host team, and you would have the Western Hockey League champions. The four best teams in the country meet, and it's interesting, because the Memorial Cup is emblematic of the best hockey players meeting for the tier one hockey championship, if you wish, in the country.

That's how Team Canada usually gets formed. In the case of the Edmonton Oil Kings, a number of their players were, in fact, selected for the Canadian junior hockey championship. That was to be held in Red Deer and Edmonton, but because of COVID and the financial restraints of the organization, they lost a lot of money in the year before when they started the tournament. Then COVID came. The Russian hockey club and other European hockey clubs in Red Deer contracted COVID through a wedding, and the tournament had to be cancelled.

It wasn't an ideal situation in Edmonton and Red Deer, because they limited the number of seats that could be sold, and they lost a lot of money. This year, if you recall, in Edmonton and Red Deer they just at the last moment decided to cancel it and reschedule it, I might add, for August, which is not ideal because the property—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I have to agree that there isn't a lot of good faith at the table. We heard a filibuster through the CRTC. We heard a filibuster through the minister. This is, I believe, our seventh or eighth filibuster. We could have been through clause-by-clause at this point.

Mr. Julian proposes a reasonable motion to bring in Hockey Canada, and we just hear more of the same, more filibuster. We agree with Mr. Julian in terms of moving this forward, but we can do it at the same time. This committee has done it before, going between studies, hearing different witnesses, pausing one study and picking up another. It's something that we can do. It's something that we've done. Let's get going on this. There is a unanimous consent motion, but there is also a motion from the House that we continue and proceed with Bill C-11.

I don't need to remind the members that legislation typically takes priority in parliamentary committees. The opposition is right that this is an important issue. Let's do this simultaneously. The Liberals are ready to get to work. The Liberals are ready to do this. I know the NDP are, and the Bloc are ready to get to work. It's just the Conservatives who want to filibuster, and that's really disappointing. It really just shows that sexual assault is just being used as a filibuster tactic, which is truly shocking.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

On the subamendment that was brought forward by Mr. Julian, what I am stating is that there is not a lot of good faith left around this table because, as you noted, in the original motion with regard to Bill C-11 and hearing from witnesses, there was no maximum and no minimum discussed, which then leaves an opportunity for us as members around this table to bring forward another motion or amendment to a motion that would call for more witnesses.

Madam Chair, there have been several attempts to do that. Unfortunately, those have been turned down, or there's no willingness to even consider them. What I'm saying is that this starts to chip away, then, at any sort of good faith that might exist here, when we're not able to have those conversations or pursue things that may be beneficial to the process in front of us.

When the motion is moved to ask for a study of Bill C-11 at the same time as the study concerning Hockey Canada, it doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth or give me any confidence that we are in fact going to do those two studies simultaneously and give the Hockey Canada study the attention that it requires in order to do it justice.

All that is to say that I raise that as a red flag and wish to communicate my concerns and my dissent.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

For previous motions moved at this committee, I've seen that, even when dates, hours or allotted time are listed, they somehow seem to be optional. For example, the last motion moved at this committee stated that we would hear from witnesses with regard to Bill C-11 and that we would hear from them for four meetings of five hours each. That's not what happened. We were told there would be a minimum of 20 hours of committee testimony. When there was a proposal put on the table about hearing from more witnesses, it was given no attention.

I don't have any good faith remaining with regard to Mr. Julian and his motion, or to the members around this table. I don't trust that Bill C-11 and the Hockey Canada study would simultaneously—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. I appreciate that.

I have some concerns about this subamendment because, in the last meeting, we discussed the importance of the motion with regard to Hockey Canada and having them come forward, along with other witnesses. Ultimately, at the end of the day, our objective within this committee is to stay true to the unanimous consent motion passed in the House of Commons, which called for a study on the sexual assault allegations put forward by an unnamed woman. Then, of course, the Minister of Sport responded by saying that a financial audit was needed of any federal funding that may or may not have been used to cover up the story of gang rape.

It was determined, by unanimous consent in the House, that this study is very important to get to the bottom of. All MPs have agreed with this, and the sport minister has agreed on the importance behind it, so it is incumbent upon this committee to give it its full attention.

My concern is that, if we try to simultaneously carry out responsibility on clause-by-clause for Bill C-11, the governing party would ensure that limited or finite resources, which already exist within the House of Commons, be put toward Bill C-11, because that is a government piece of legislation. Meanwhile, attention on the Hockey Canada study would only be granted if resources happen to be available. It would not be given the priority it deserves. That is—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe I was able to capture most of the subamendment. However, I may have missed a few points.

I believe the bottom line is that Mr. Julian is proposing that we simultaneously study Bill C-11 in clause-by-clause, while also taking on the study with regard to Hockey Canada. Is that correct?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think the allegations surrounding Hockey Canada are serious. I think we all share that view, and it is something that we need to respond to and can do as early as next week. I think we all agree that has to be a priority. I think we all agree as well, or most of us agree, that Bill C-11 has to be a priority also.

For the last couple of weeks, we've had some legitimate filibusters around important issues and some that I do not feel have been useful expenditures of the committee's time. Most parties have already filed their amendments with the clerk and are waiting for the improvements that we want to bring to Bill C-11.

We've held far more than the 20 hours of the original hearings, although some of those were disrupted by the filibusters, I would admit. Now is the time for us to actually look at the bill and improve it, and we can do that at the same time as we look into Hockey Canada.

What I'm endeavouring to do is to have Hockey Canada hearings and have the deadline for amendments. As I say, three of the four parties have already submitted, so there's only one party that would need to submit its amendments. Even then, Madam Chair, as we know from the legislative clerk, amendments can be submitted up until the time we actually have consideration of clause-by-clause, and even then it's not a hard stop. However, I think the principle of having all parties submit their amendments so that they can be produced and translated and circulated is important for preparation.

This would allow us to do both important things at the same time, to move them forward at the same time, and I hope that my Conservative colleagues will agree that, given that we're responding as well to an important issue they've raised, we can do both and we should proceed that way.

We've had a couple of weeks in which I don't think our time has served as well as it could have, so now next week let's get to work and fully use the time we have available to us to look into Bill C-11 in terms of clause-by-clause and improvements to the bill and to look at these allegations that surround Hockey Canada, which are disturbing and which I think we would all agree need to be investigated as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Furthermore, it continues, “that the committee hold hearings into the allegations around Hockey Canada on Monday, June 13, and Wednesday, June 15; and that remaining amendments to Bill C-11 be tabled by 12 noon, Friday, June 10.”

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

I believe the amendment would read as follows: “That the committee commence its clause-by-clause study of the Online Streaming Act at the same time as it undertakes the committee's study”. Mr. Nater has the rest of the wording on the study that was mandated by the House on June 2. I would then add “that the committee hold hearings into the allegations around Hockey Canada on Monday, June 13, and Wednesday, June 15; and that remaining amendments for Bill C-11 be tabled by 12 noon, Friday, June 10.”

I'm very flexible in terms of wording and friendly amendments.

[Liane Roy]

Yes, they should be clarified. Our proposal on that is that the wording of Bill C‑11 should be added to Bill C‑13, as I said in my opening remarks about the Broadcasting Act. We did that because all the political parties had already approved it.

As you know, we want to move forward on this quickly, and it had already been agreed to by all the parties. That's why we are proposing that what Bill C‑11 says about everything pertaining to consultations should be reproduced in Bill C‑13.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the committee for having me.

I thank all the parliamentarians here who supported the motion I tabled in the House last week.

Like you, I was shocked by this news. We have a duty to shed light on the actions of Hockey Canada following the victim's revelations. Hockey Canada's involvement in this matter is unjustifiable and we must ensure that not one penny of taxpayers' money was used to cover up this story. I also include in that the salaries of the executives who may have committed acts to cover up the allegations.

We need to know what actions Hockey Canada took as a result of these allegations, which occurred four years ago, I remind you. This is 2022, and Hockey Canada needs to answer our questions.

The amendment that Mr. Nater sent to us earlier is an interesting one, in my view. What he suggests could be added to the motion proposed by Mr. Bittle.

For my part, I propose to add this, in relation to the study to be undertaken by the committee:

[...] that, to do so, the committee meet outside its usual time slots to begin this study [...]

I also add the following idea, which I like:

[...] that the committee invite the Minister of Sport to appear for at least one hour; and that the committee invite representatives from Hockey Canada to appear for at least two hours.

Committees determine their priorities. I, for one, am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and I can tell you that every week for the past two weeks, one of our meetings has been cancelled.

I think we are able to chew gum and walk at the same time. If we could arrange another meeting, for three hours, to have the Minister of Sport as well as representatives from Hockey Canada, I think that would address one of the concerns we have. It would respond to the will of Canadians who are outraged by what happened at Hockey Canada, who are listening to us and who want answers as quickly as possible. There is a way to do this without interfering with the work to pass Bill C‑11, which is also an emergency.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the heritage committee for having me sit in here today. It's nice to see everyone.

Definitely two topics that connect for me personally are Bill C-11—very important, as a former journalist and online content creator—and obviously the investigation into Hockey Canada. I was able to take part last week. My colleague Kevin Waugh made some very impactful statements. I want to touch on that, as I also sit on another committee, FEWO, which is status of women. Right now we're tabling a study on intimate partner violence.

As I lean into this role as a member of Parliament, what we do here first, or what our priorities are, speaks to Canadians deeply. Absolutely, I think every member at this committee and also in the House, quite frankly, knows that Bill C-11 is important, but I also think we all know how important it is to change the toxic culture of all institutions, whether it's the Canadian Forces, sports, politics or whatever it may be.

I want to give a bit of a trigger warning. I was thinking about this when I was here on Wednesday, about some of the content that is coming out. I am very aware of how delicate this conversation is for people who may be watching.

Support is available for anyone who has been sexually assaulted. You can access crisis lines and local support services through the Government of Canada website or the Ending Violence Association of Canada's database. If you're in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911.

I actually pulled that trigger warning from an article that was released by CBC on June 5, 2022, where the headline reads, “Former Hedley frontman Jacob Hoggard found guilty of sexually assaulting Ottawa woman”. In a time where we have headline after headline that are really revictimizing victims, I can't stress enough how important it is to prioritize this study into Hockey Canada. I think it really sets a precedent of what we're doing and where we're sitting.

The Supreme Court ruling of extreme intoxication as an excuse for sexual assault crimes is.... I've had countless messages, and people personally in my life who have been revictimized by this. I think there's an opportunity for us here to set the tone of what the priorities are, and because this is imminent, I think it's really important. On what you guys are going to do, I think there is a consensus of what needs to be done here.

I want to talk a little bit about what the Minister of Sport, Madam St-Onge, said in a scrum with reporters before Thursday's question period in Ottawa. She said she wants a forensic audit of the settlement to ensure that Hockey Canada didn't use taxpayer dollars to settle the case. She said, “What I want to know and what I think all Canadians want to know is, was there any public funds used to cover up that horrible story of collective rape?”

This is just so much bigger than this Hockey Canada.... If we're the leaders of this country, what are we saying to victims if we're not prioritizing this? I think there's an opportunity for all parties to work together, because I think everybody wants to solve this. I think every member wants this to end.

I look at things like Indian Horse. I don't know if anyone's familiar with that movie. It was shot in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. It's a book that many kids have to read. It's a terrible story of sexual assault and abuse of power.

When you talk to people who work in shelters or who work with victims, they really go in thinking they're going to solve and fix it because they think, “Why is this even still happening? How does this even happen?”

As a parent, you think of this when you're raising your children. You think about what you are teaching your daughters and sons about consent. How do we even get to a point where we're still having this conversation?

As somebody who was raised as a Catholic, the whole Catholic church and Indian Horse coincides with reconciliation and abuse of power. To have this Hockey Canada scandal exposed.... We're not done. We're not done with setting a tone of what we accept. We're not done holding people to account. When you have the #MeToo movement.... What is still happening here that we're still having this conversation? I think it is critical that we have an opportunity and that this is the number one priority that needs to be served and paid attention to imminently.

I also want to talk a little bit about C-11 and the importance of it as well because I have had literally thousands of messages on this bill, both from my social media and the parliamentary email. Here's one email of thousands:

“Dear MP Ferreri, I'm writing to you to express my concerns about Bill C-11, the online streaming act that is currently under review in Canadian Parliament. As it's currently written, Bill C-11 gives the CRTC the authority to regulate user-generated content on open platforms, as it does for television and radio. In its current form, Bill C-11 means Canadians will no longer be in control of their viewing experience and puts creators' livelihoods at risk. The government has repeatedly said it doesn't intend to target user-generated content. If that's the case, why won't they fix Bill C-11 with specific language that excludes user-generated content from CRTC regulation?

“Open platforms remove traditional media gatekeepers, which allows for the democratization of content and provides an opportunity for creators and users from diverse communities, walks of life and passions to express themselves, share their talent and build a business. As one of your constituents, I am counting on you to make my voice heard. Please help protect the digital creators and viewers in your community and tell Minister Rodriguez to remove section 4.2 from C-11 to ensure that the bill does not apply to online content that is uploaded by any individual user.”

I won't share the name because I don't have the permission to do that.

It is absolutely imperative that this committee continue its work on C-11. It is a huge issue across the board, as somebody who worked in traditional media, went on to work in private media and who built a business off of social media as an online creator.

To circle back, when we look at what online content creation is, it is also fascinating when we look at abuse or sexual assault culture. For anybody who's a parent or caregiver, you know that what your kids are consuming has changed the culture of who we were. I was born in 1979 and I'm just so glad I wasn't born in the time of social media. I wouldn't want half of that out in the public; that's for sure.

It's also changed how boys see themselves, how girls see themselves and how people identify in their gender. It does come back to what my colleague Kevin Waugh said. It was extremely powerful and emotional to hear it. When you know something is wrong and you don't do anything.... If not you, then who?

If we are the leaders of the country, if we are the federal body that governs what is accepted, we should be prioritizing this and making a statement that says, “Hey, we've got you. We are studying this. We want to change culture. We want to investigate this.”

What are we saying to every victim out there? Bringing these conversations up over and over again is so revictimizing for so many people, and it is such a challenge.

One of my favourite sayings is from Mr. Rogers, actually, who said that anything mentionable is manageable. If we don't address this, if we are not mentioning it, if we are not addressing that this is still happening, that there is still rape culture in sports and in this institution, that is saying, “Go ahead.”

I would urge this committee, which has a lot of power and a lot of influence, to say to victims watching everywhere that that we do care, we do want to change the narrative, we do want to stand with you, we will do something about it, and we will get to the bottom of this, because without accountability, there is no change. If we just allow people to abuse power because we're afraid, the cycle will continue. The systemic trauma that is in place as a result of these stories is decades and decades long. It is so impossible.... You will be talking about a mental health crisis and a health care crisis and money spent on trauma counselling since this is so systemic. If you don't deal with it, then the victims go on and have their children and they carry their trauma with them and the only way to break the cycle is to address it. Anything mentionable is manageable.

What I would leave this committee with and urge this committee is that your actions speak louder than your words. What you prioritize tells the world what matters to this federal body of people who are here. I think right now between the Supreme Court ruling and the hurt that so many victims are feeling, we have an opportunity to study this now and to show victims that we have their backs, we're going to investigate this and we're going to make sure that we do everything we can to make sure that this never happens again.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to take the floor and say a few words about the motion before us. I'll offer a few observations off the bat.

First of all, obviously we've been looking at Bill C-11 for a period of time. We've heard from some witnesses. I know that our witness list isn't exhausted yet. We have at least 20 people on our list who haven't had the chance to come here yet. We'll put that aside for a second.

I want to talk about the gravity of the situation that is potentially before us, and I do accept Mr. Bittle's comments about certain issues involving the victims. We did have a motion that was passed by this committee earlier this year to look at online harm caused by access, and there was the opportunity there—and that meeting never happened—to hear from organizations that deal with trauma-informed testimony. I think if we go ahead with a study on the events regarding Hockey Canada, it would be important that we have that conversation before we hear from any witnesses.

Obviously, as a committee, we have the opportunity to go in camera for certain testimony, for certain issues, whether it's about identifiable people, whether it's with victims or whether there are issues from a legal perspective. There are always those opportunities.

When it comes to this particular motion at hand, we're talking about a Monday deadline to do this. This is a complex bill, and it will take a significant amount of time to go through clause-by-clause. I'm very concerned that, if we begin clause-by-clause on Monday, June 13 at 3:30, we will not have a chance to take up the House order that was made on June 2 regarding the troubling allegations.

I'd remind the committee that it wasn't a partisan motion to the House. It was a unanimous motion endorsed by all parties and frankly endorsed by the Minister of Sport herself, who made comments about the troubling possibility that public funds may have been used in this case, and I think that should be troubling for anyone and everyone here in Canada.

At the end of the day, we need to be sure that we, as a country, stand up for victims and victims' rights, and I think this is one situation where we need more information. Whether that's done through a committee process.... A forensic audit has been suggested within the organization itself, but there are people who must account for what has happened. There are organizations that must account for the situation that unfolded, so I think that should be the priority of this committee going forward.

That's not to say that Bill C-11 will never pass. I think that Bill C-11 will obviously pass through this committee when the time comes. It will go through clause-by-clause, but I think for now the priority of this committee should be the House order of June 2, 2022.

I would amend the motion by deleting all the words after “act” and inserting, “following the completion of the committee’s study pursuant to House Order made June 2, 2022.”

Just for clarity, the House order of June 2, 2022 is the motion regarding Hockey Canada.

That's the amendment, Madam Chair. I'm happy to reread it if it's needed, but that's my amendment.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

As I was discussing before we were rudely interrupted by Kevin Lamoureux, unintentionally.... We were discussing how we are well into a filibuster. It's clear we really should move forward on this bill. There's another study. We can quickly deal with Bill C-11, have a proper debate on C-11, and then get to Hockey Canada before the House rises.

It worried me a bit last night that members of this committee were using this case to filibuster. I know—there's intent from all sides—that we want to hear from Hockey Canada, but I think people have gone a bit too far in the filibuster. We should use this time, while we study Bill C-11, to think about the legal aspects of the case, because a lot of things were said that were a little troubling to me. They may lead to the disclosure of names—which I don't think anyone wants—or negative statements about the non-disclosure agreement, which may be protecting the plaintiff in the case. As a civil litigator myself, I think the opposition needs to take some time to look at things like solicitor-client privileges and NDAs, so we can get to this as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, I know everyone likes to say that the House gave us the Hockey Canada study, but it also gave us Bill C-11. I think this is fundamental and important, and it's something we need to see through. The Liberals are ready to work. I've spoken to our Bloc colleagues, and I'm sure Mr. Julian is always ready to work, and perhaps we can find.... We're ready to work extra hours to see Bill C-11 through to the end, but we're also ready to hear from Hockey Canada, as well, and get to the bottom of that.

I think, perhaps, the opposition needs to take some time to speak with the lawyers in the caucus or with counsel at the House of Commons, in order to understand where we're going, because some dangerous things may happen, even though they're well intentioned. I don't think any of us want that.

That's all to preface my motion, which has been handed out in both official languages. I move:

That the committee commence its clause-by-clause study of the Online Streaming Act no later than Monday, June 13 at 3:30 p.m. EDT.

It's quite basic. This gives us lots of time to start next week. In speaking with the Bloc...we should have a discussion about setting a deadline for amendments, perhaps this Friday, so that we can really get things moving. I think that's fair and reasonable, but I wanted to put this on the table. We can vote on this quickly and then talk about the study right away, because this will take a minute or two. There are a couple of people on the list. We can get to talking about Hockey Canada right away. I think that's important.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good morning, everyone.

This is a business meeting, as we well know, but I suppose the same things apply. Remember that, pursuant to the House order of November 25, we are in a hybrid meeting. There are some people remote and some people on the floor. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during the proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments. We adjourned the last meeting, so this is a business meeting, and, as you can see, the order of notice on the business meeting is to continue on Bill C-11 and to go to clause-by-clause.

The first thing we do is—

I think Mr. Bittle's hand is up.

[Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

We are very pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill C‑13. We have also come here with a sense of accomplishment. For five years, we have committed ourselves to this grand effort to provide Canada with a strong, modern and respected Official Languages Act.

We are now on the threshold of a historic change for Canada's linguistic duality. I can't help but think of all the people, here in Parliament and in our communities, who have helped to advance this major project.

You have received FCFA's brief outlining the final amendments that we consider important to ensure that the modernized act actually changes the situation in the way we all hope. In the few minutes allotted me, I would like to focus mainly on the underlying reasons for those amendments.

The purpose of the first amendment is to clarify the role of the Treasury Board as the central agency charged with coordinating implementation of the Official Languages Act as a whole. Under our proposed amendment, Canadian Heritage would be stripped of its coordinating role, which clashes with that of the Treasury Board, while retaining its policy role and authority to design and administer programs. We would also eliminate the provision enabling the Treasury Board to delegate its coordination responsibilities to other federal institutions. This would preclude future governments from deciding that every institution is individually in a better position to manage the application of the act internally, a situation that would result in the lack of consistency and central coordination that we currently condemn.

The second amendment would provide for strong language clauses to be included in the agreements under which funding is transferred to the provinces and territories. As you are aware, failure to include such clauses has frequently deprived francophones of services in their language. It is the reason why British Columbia francophones have been fighting their employment assistance services case in the courts for more than a decade. The purpose of our amendment is to put an end to this problem, specifically by authorizing the federal government to deal directly with our communities if a province or territory resists the idea of language clauses.

The third amendment would clarify the objective of the francophone immigration policy the federal government will have to adopt. That objective must be to restore the demographic weight of our communities clearly and unambiguously. This is important because immigration is already by far the main, if not the only, source of demographic growth in our communities.

Fourth, since the concept of "positive measures" included in part VII of the act has been challenged in the courts, it should be clarified once and for all so that federal institutions are more aware of what they are required to do. The wording of the bill should refer to "necessary measures" instead of measures that federal institutions consider appropriate.

In addition, since Bill C‑11, the purpose of which is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, includes highly detailed provisions on consultations, the FCFA requests that those provisions also be included in Bill C‑13.

The fifth amendment concerns the scope of the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We applaud the fact that Bill C‑13 grants the Commissioner, for the first time, the power to make orders and impose penalties. However, one wonders why that power is limited to certain parts of the act. The Commissioner should at least be able to make orders respecting federal institutions' obligations under part VII.

Lastly, the FCFA is very pleased that Bill C‑13 acknowledges that French is not on an equal footing with English and that it must be protected and promoted across the country, including in Quebec. However, the FCFA recommends that the definition of the term "francophone minorities" be revised to ensure it is clearly interpreted when applied to francophone communities outside Quebec.

Members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, this may be the last time the FCFA appears before you to discuss the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Whatever else may happen, let us hope this process can be completed in the next few weeks. If we are successful, let it go down in history that we dreamed big dreams for the French language, for linguistic duality and for Canada. Our children and grandchildren will thank us for it.

Thank you for your attention.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can appreciate Mr. Julian's suggestion that this committee address Bill C-11 first and then move on to this issue with Hockey Canada. I can maybe appreciate it in the sense of its just trying to get one thing done and then going on to the next, but I do believe that in this case there is definitely a responsibility that we have as members of Parliament to first address these very serious allegations with Hockey Canada.

It is not only because it's possibly Government of Canada funding that may have been used as part of what looks like a cover-up of sexual assault on an individual by hockey players, but also because I would never want Canadians to think that somehow we put off possibly looking into a situation where maybe professional athletes are given the benefit of the doubt or being passed by for scrutiny because we figured we had more important things to do. This is of utmost importance.

I know that Mrs. Thomas went through some of the details, and after hearing those details, I would suggest that in no way would I feel comfortable in saying that we do not look into this immediately. I think that would be most important.

I do believe that there was no timeline set for Bill C-11 to go back to the House. We do have time, so I believe that as a matter of urgency for our committee, and also just respecting the will of the House of Commons, which unanimously.... This is something that does not happen often, where we have a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to address a situation. I believe that our colleagues, members of Parliament from all sides of the House, are looking to us to address this. I don't think it would be responsible for us to go back to them and say, “Yes, but we had other things we were planning on doing.” This is something that has been handed to us as a committee, and we definitely do have a responsibility to address it, I would say, immediately.

I know there is going to be a little bit of time that will be needed to decide which witnesses we want to bring forward, and there are going to be legal issues here. There are sensitivities in a number of different ways that we would have to address, with some things possibly being in camera, so there are a number of things we have to consider.

I think it would be absolutely important that we move on to this new study, study the issue, do it properly and do what I would say is our job, to address these types of issues and to give Canadians confidence that we have taken this very seriously.

Once that is completed, we'll get back to Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is not going anywhere. This is something that...are changes to the Internet. There are different views on it, and we would continue to study that and continue to hear from witnesses, which is also, of course, part of our job.

I think it is of utmost importance that we do address this, especially considering that we don't have an actual timeline for either. I will say that even the House of Commons' unanimous motion that was provided to this committee did not have a timeline, but, considering the nature of those issues, I think it would be most important.

Even if you asked the Minister of Sport, I believe she also would agree that it is absolutely important that we look into the situation. It is very serious, and I would not want to face my constituents, letting them know that we put it off to address something else, and then all of a sudden the House adjourns or something for the summer, and we end up not looking into it. I think it is very important that we do look into this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the sense or the desire of the subamendment to try to balance the need to achieve both focuses, but I believe the committee mandates, or the references from the minister of both the legislation and of this particular sorry and sad situation, don't have a date for reporting back. Unless I'm mistaken, it is the choice of the committee as to which is a priority and what the intent back was. I understand that, even in the original motion on the number of witnesses, there was no reporting back date, although the chair in the last meeting hinted at some sort of desire to do that.

This is a serious issue that is urgent, because we're seeing and have seen cover-ups in junior hockey and sexual abuse. We all know about the Sheldon Kennedy case and those issues that we thought had led to change, but have apparently not changed the attitude of a lot of—or some elements or number of—junior players.

I played hockey at competitive levels all my life and understand the locker room sort of mentality that seems to develop, but it doesn't excuse anything that has gone on. Eight players, shockingly some of whom are in the NHL now, were involved in this alleged incident. There must obviously be a little more to it, or $3.55 million of Hockey Canada dollars wouldn't have been used to try to keep this from going public, I assume, especially when NDAs are signed. The primary purpose we see of NDAs is apparently to keep these types of things from going public.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done that the minister has asked for on this important issue. I don't think the committee should be restricting its time frame, or the likelihood is.... Maybe it's not the parliamentary secretary's power to adjourn this committee early, but it certainly is when the House adjourns, and there's a lot of time that will be required, obviously, for clause-by-clause of C-11, which I don't believe really has a time limit on when it has to be done. It is not a time-sensitive bill. The committee can take as much time as it needs to continue the committee's study and the amendments, while this issue obviously is one that is very current and should be considered sensitively and with some transparency.

When these kinds of things happen, we've seen NDAs used in some very famous cases in the United States to try to keep criminal behaviour quiet, whether it was Bill Cosby or perhaps even some of the NDAs that former president Trump has used to keep his antics quiet.

While we don't know whether the audit has started, there is accountability for a governance organization that oversees all of our peak levels of amateur hockey to come before Parliament.... After all, it does receive public funds in some way and thus should be held accountable as to why, when we thought that some of these issues had been dealt with from a governance and an overall education and management perspective as a result of the Sheldon Kennedy case, this kind of incident apparently still happens.

I would ask the committee to consider that there is some urgency to this. Reject the subamendment to the motion so that we can consider this fairly urgent request and unanimous consent motion from the House to look into this quickly. We can't let the exposure or the chance that this will happen again.... It shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Certainly, there's some urgency to this. If the committee were not able to complete this study or to even look at this issue before the summer because the House chooses to rise, or to rise early, I think that would leave a lot of young Canadians very exposed to future situations that may or may not occur. It's too far to go—till perhaps next October—if the House were to rise before the minister's request on this gets dealt with.

It's a challenging situation, and I would urge the committee to reject this amendment and to get back to Ms. Thomas's amendment so that the minister's request to study this difficult situation gets treated with some urgency and sensitivity.

Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

For context, I want us to understand what we're talking about here, because I believe there may be members here at the committee, and certainly those who are observing, who may not be familiar with what I am talking about. It actually might be worth taking a step back, and providing a bit of context for the unanimous consent motion that was passed in the House of Commons, and why I believe it is so important to make sure we get to that sooner rather than later.

In other words, push the pause button on Bill C-11, take care of this, and then we can resume clause-by-clause, rather than Mr. Julian's motion, which is to say that we'll eventually get to this unanimous consent motion.

For the sake of context, there is an article that was written on June 3, 2022 for Complex Canada. It says:

A 24-year-old woman who says she was sexually assaulted by eight Canadian Hockey League players, including some who played on the championship 2017-18 World Junior team and who went on to secure NHL contracts, has dropped a lawsuit against the individuals, Hockey Canada, and the CHL after reaching a settlement.

The incident has only recently come to light after TSN reported on documents filed in Ontario Superior Court in London, Ontario this spring that detail accusations laid by a female plaintiff referred to only as 'E.M.' who alleges she was repeatedly sexually assaulted in a hotel room while intoxicated after a Hockey Canada Foundation gala and golf event that took place in the Ontario city in June 2018.

It goes on to explain:

The woman’s London-based lawyer told TSN that a settlement was reached and that none of the eight accused individuals—who are not named in the filings and referred to as John Doe 1-8—were ultimately charged. Allegations were also leveled against Hockey Canada for apparently being aware of the alleged incident and choosing not to investigate or punish players.

It is unclear if a non-disclosure agreement was part of the deal, but a statement from Hockey Canada spokeswoman Esther Madziya to TSN states that the faction contacted police immediately upon learning about the alleged incident in 2018.

Details of the night in question are disturbing and difficult to read, outlining how the plaintiff was allegedly given drinks by the accused and separated from her friends at a London bar and restaurant before returning to a hotel room...

The article goes on to explain what happened in that hotel room, and states:

'At times the plaintiff was crying and attempted to leave the room but was directed, manipulated and intimidated into remaining, after which she was subjected to further sexual assaults,' the lawsuit reads. 'Hockey Canada is deeply troubled by the very serious allegations of sexual assault regarding members of the 2017-18 National Junior Hockey Team,' the statement reads. 'As soon as Hockey Canada became aware of this matter in 2018, we contacted local police authorities to inform them. The same day, we also retained Henein Hutchison LLP, a firm with extensive experience in this area, to undertake a thorough independent internal investigation and make recommendations on areas for improvement which we have been implementing and will continue to pursue.'

'The person bringing the allegations forward chose not to speak with either police or with Hockey Canada’s independent investigator and also chose not to identify the players involved. This was her right, and we fully respect her wishes. We have settled this matter and as part of that settlement, we will not be commenting further.'

The article goes on to say:

But questions remain regarding how the alleged gang rape was dealt with by the national governing body Hockey Canada, both from a public funding perspective and as multiple of the alleged assailants have gone on to play for NHL teams. “I am shocked and angry to read about the allegations made against the players of the Canadian Junior Hockey Team,” Canada's Minister of Sport Pascale St-Onge told the press in Ottawa. “All Canadians want to know and me too, is whether any public funds were used to cover up this story of gang rape,” she said, adding that an audit of federal funding is on the way. The NHL responded by promising an investigation of its own: “We will endeavour to determine the underlying facts and, to the extent this may involve players who are now in the NHL, we will determine what action, if any, would be appropriate.

Mr. Chair, although I left out some of the details because I didn't feel that they would be necessarily appropriate to read into the mike today, I do believe that this article outlines the important nature of the study that I am requesting to move forward with. As stated previously, I do believe that time is of the essence. I believe it would be inappropriate for this subamendment to be passed because it would be to take this victim lightly. It would be saying that this can be pushed into the future to some unknown date and instead we would rush through clause-by-clause on C-11.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm a little bit surprised that this subamendment has been brought forward, because essentially it says that we're going to move forward with Bill C-11 first, and then, eventually, we will get to this motion that was unanimously passed in the House of Commons to look at Hockey Canada; but there is no time frame. If this committee spends the next few weeks looking at C-11, and then the parliamentary secretary makes the decision that actually we're not going to move...we're not going to have this committee anymore, and it just breaks for the summer, and then—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I was in the middle of explaining why the amendment to the motion is important. It does ask us to push the pause button on Bill C-11 and complete a study with regards to Hockey Canada and the alleged involvement in sexual assaults that were committed in 2018. The reason that is important is that it is in accordance with a motion that was passed in the House of Commons with unanimous consent on Thursday, June 2, 2022. That motion reads as follows, and, by unanimous consent, it was resolved:

That the House call Hockey Canada before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to shed light on its involvement in a case of alleged sexual assaults committed in 2018.

Given that motion was passed then and that we are the committee responsible for acting on that motion, it seems incumbent upon us to do so. Again, I would highlight that it was passed unanimously, which means that all parties voted yes to it—not just all parties, but all members voted yes to it. It is a very important matter. It is a very time-sensitive matter.

In addition to that, I guess I would draw attention to the Minister of Sport and the words that she spoke in a media interview that was released on June 3. In the direct quote here in the article she said, “I am shocked and angry to read about the allegations made against the players of the Canadian junior hockey team.... All Canadians want to know and me too, is whether any public funds were used to cover up this story of gang rape”, and she added that an audit of federal funding was on the way.

Obviously the Minister of Sport has recognized that it's important to know whether or not public funds were, in fact, used to help cover up this occurrence. Then she went on to commit that there would be an audit of federal funding.

This committee has the responsibility of figuring out whether or not those public funds were used, and also to see whether or not that audit has started. If not, why not? If so, are there any findings from it?

We certainly have some good questions on that. Like I said, it is this committee's responsibility to take on this study. I would propose that we do that before continuing to proceed to clause-by-clause with Bill C-11.

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

Yes, I am aware of that, Mr. Champoux. You are right to raise it, because it is very important.

You are right that several of these channels play a very important role, including APTN, which gives a strong voice to indigenous people. I'm also thinking of CPAC and others. There are some very serious challenges. At the moment, this exists for Canadian companies. What you are proposing is to impose obligations on foreign online broadcasting companies. Now our American colleagues have made it very clear that this could be a big problem.

So, we are considering different possibilities, including using the money that will be generated by Bill C‑11 to help these companies. Indeed, we estimate that this legislation will generate close to $1 billion a year. I think we need to be creative and find solutions outside of the bill to give them a hand.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Perfect.

For my second question, I want to deal with a topic you have touched on as well today—social media. We know it's an incredible tool. It has changed our society over the past couple of decades. We've heard witnesses talk about how they are using social media to connect with international audiences. They're not just staying in Canada anymore. This is really important as well. They are sharing Canadian stories with the rest of the world.

We've also heard over and over again that these creators will not face any obligations as a result of Bill C-11. The opposition chooses to focus on Bill C-11 and the potential impact on social media, continuing to speculate wildly about what this bill will mean for Canadians' experience on these platforms.

Minister, you and your officials have repeated that social media is not the focus; that it's not what you're here to do. Bill C-11 will not have any impact on what Canadians say or do on social media. You said it here today again. There are a number of clauses in the bill that clearly state that fact. That being said, some social media platforms may be subject to obligations under Bill C-11, so I'm hoping that you can clarify this for the benefit of my colleagues. Why include social media at all?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and Mr. Ripley, for being with us today with your testimony. We really appreciate your time in answering these questions.

You touched on this point a little bit already through your testimony, but I think it bears elaboration. I'd like to talk about what happens after the passage of Bill C-11. Throughout this study, we've heard lots of speculation about what regulation might look like, including members of this committee telling digital first creators that they will be taxed. We know that's not true.

We had a few witnesses mention that a public open process will be conducted. I think that all the members of this committee would benefit from a thorough explanation of this process. There still seems to be confusion.

I'm wondering, Minister, if you could tell us what exactly will happen after royal assent of Bill C-11.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

—because it's not in Bill C-11. There's no revenue threshold given. What's the monetary amount?

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

How much time do I have?

What I am a little concerned about, Mr. Julian, is the level of misinformation that there has been from members of the Conservative Party around the bill. I wouldn't say it was all Conservative members, but certainly some. They are making things up and creating a parallel debate on elements that do not exist in the bill. That is what is worrying.

For example, at a committee meeting I was appearing at, Ms. Thomas sent this tweet on Twitter:

“#killbillc11.... The bill needs to die a thousand deaths.”

How can we have a constructive debate to improve the bill when all along she has been saying that we should torpedo the bill?

Bill C‑11 , like any bill, deserves an informed and responsible debate, and we need to have it.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, welcome to our committee.

You have probably been listening to the speeches in the House on Bill C‑11. I was surprised to hear a member of the Conservative Party say that this bill would allow the government to track people on their mobile phones.

What are the most outlandish things you've heard about Bill C‑11? There have been speeches that were really far from the substance of this bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On May 24, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion that reinforced Quebec's position and support for Bill C‑11. The members of the assembly went quite far in saying that social media should also be regulated and that contact and formal consultation with the Quebec government should be maintained before making decisions that would have an impact on Quebec culture.

Do you have a good relationship with the Quebec government? Do you have discussions to look at ways to link your policies?

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

That's exactly right.

Neither we, through the law, nor the CRTC directly will ever interfere with how things are done. The CRTC will not have the right to dictate the types of algorithms. In any case, this is prohibited by law. There are also several sections of the law that talk about respecting freedom of expression, among other things. So I think the necessary elements are included in Bill C‑11.

The only reason the CRTC may be interested in content is to know what portion of it is commercial and must be treated as if it were on another platform.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

I think we all agree that a copy and paste solution won't work. I would like to hear from you directly about how Bill C-11 excludes individuals from these requirements. We've heard you use just today the term “platforms in, users out”. You've used that many times. Can you expand on what you mean when you say that?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here. I appreciate your time and that you're listening to the arts sector.

Over the course of the study, we've heard witness after witness tell just how vital this bill is for our cultural sector and how urgent it is to get it through.

I have a few quotes here from what we've heard. We heard from the CEO of Music Publishers Canada, Margaret McGuffin earlier this week, who said that Bill C‑11 provides “an important balance by giving the commission the tools it needs to regulate when market forces fail. Modernizing the Broadcasting Act will ensure that, as technology evolves and online platforms continue to grow, [the music industry will] continue to thrive.”

Randy Kitt from Unifor told us:

Bill C-11 is just a much-needed update to the Broadcasting Act to ensure that Canadians have access to Canadian local programming, which couldn't happen if we let these Internet giants control our media.... Let's not get sidetracked by noise.

Bill Skolnik from the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions told us:

We can only hope that this attempt to revise our legislation will conclude shortly so the benefits can reach Canadian creators, artists, producers and organizations as soon as possible. They have been waiting for a very long time.

I have one more quote, from Marla Boltman from the organization Friends, who told us:

Requiring contributions from foreign tech giants that extract billions of dollars from our country will help sustain our industry while driving investment and innovation in the creation of Canadian content that continues to reflect our diversity of voices and who we are as Canadians. Foreign contributions will level the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and foreign platforms. Frankly, it sends a message to the world that Canada is open for business, but there are no more free rides. If you benefit from the system, you must contribute to it.

I couldn't agree any more with those quotes. This is a badly needed update to our broadcasting system, which will support Canadian culture for years to come.

We've spent a lot of time talking about this. I'd like to ask you this directly, Minister: What will this bill do for our Canadian culture and our artists?

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

I agree. However, as you said, Canadian content does not qualify as official CanCon under the current rules, so this poses a big problem for the platforms.

Are they required to carry Canadian content, but the Canadian content they have does not count because it's outdated rules that will apply? Will you commit to ensuring that our Canadian content rules are updated at least one year in advance of implementing Bill C-11?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Colleagues and friends, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I want to begin by thanking you for your work. I know that you have spent more than 20 hours on this study. I'd also like to thank the witnesses.

This is an extremely important bill. It has led to many, often heated debates at the committee, and that makes perfect sense.

It's a debate about the fact that we now live in a digital world and, therefore, that we need policies and legislation that are built for that digital world. Honestly, I think Bill C-11 is the way to do it.

What will Bill C‑11 change, specifically?

First, Bill C‑11 will support our artists and creators. It will foster the creation of good jobs in the cultural sector, make Canadian content more accessible and make it easier for people to find homegrown Canadian music and stories.

Second, online streaming platforms will need to contribute to Canadian culture. I think this is self-evident and extremely important.

It's long past time that the streaming platforms contribute their fair share to our culture, just as traditional broadcasters have done up to now. We have a cultural policy system that has served Canadians for decades here and around the world, but Canada and the world have changed.

The reality right now is that platforms are taking up more and more room in our lives and that an increasing number of Canadians are cancelling their cable subscriptions. In fact, over 70% of Canadians now subscribe to platforms. The industry is here to stay and is likely going to experience further growth.

Bill C‑11 is designed to ensure that our next generation of artists and creators can succeed in the digital age.

While following the debates, I heard a number of interesting ideas, such as redefining Canadian content; adding provisions to support indigenous peoples and racialized Canadians; providing more support to our cultural sector workers; and much more.

We also heard last week from a founding member of The Tragically Hip, one of Canada's most beloved bands, on why we need to do this, and why we need to do this now.

I have also heard concerns and criticism. That's normal. You know what? We need that. It's a normal discussion around a bill.

The government has been extremely clear that we have no intention of regulating what people post online, as some have claimed. While I think we have made this clear in Bill C-11, I have always said that I'm open to improving it.

As a former House leader—and Mr. Julian would know this—I know that we need to work together, particularly in a minority Parliament. I'm committed to doing that. Actually, I would say that I've been doing that since day one. But I'm also committed to passing this bill, because it's what Canada needs. It's what Canadians voted for. To be honest, all of the parties here in this room had something like this in their platform.

As we have said since the beginning, Bill C-11 is about the obligations of platforms, not users. I always say it: platforms in, users out. That's the key point. It's about bringing online broadcasters into our system. It's about creating more space for diverse voices and stories.

Decades ago, we made the choice to defend our culture. We made that choice because our stories matter a great deal to us. These stories bind us, unite us and set us apart from others.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you benefit from the system, you need to contribute to it. It's as simple as that.

This is a debate about fairness and, of course, the debate won't end here. The bill will be further debated in the House and by the Senate.

After royal assent of the bill, I will provide a policy direction to the CRTC. Once the CRTC receives the policy direction, they're going to hold public hearings and develop the regulations, as they've always done as a public interest regulator.

I'm ready to take your questions.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, John Nater]

Order. Good afternoon, everyone. You're stuck with me today. Madam Fry asked if I would chair today's committee, so here we are.

Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, the committee is meeting in consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, November 25, 2021.

Obviously, we have been doing this long enough. I don't think I need to go over the rules for the hybrid format.

In recognition of the minister's time—we do have a 4:30 p.m. hard stop with the minister today—I will go straight to welcoming the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Minister, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now we're back on the amendment as I understand it, which is the amendment to have the time for amendments to Bill C-11 extended to three days before clause-by-clause.

As I was saying, the reason we should be doing this is to allow for the time. I appreciate that other parties are willing to look at submitting their amendments before the list of witnesses were expired. We believe there is an opportunity and we need time as a party to prepare the appropriate amendments to a very complex bill on an important piece of legislation—the Broadcasting Act—which is not being reviewed by Parliament nor had a major amendment in 31 years, as I understand it.

The ability by the government and its dance partner, the NDP, to rush this through is a difficult situation that doesn't allow the opposition to do its due diligence, which needs to be done on behalf of Canadians to consider the appropriate amendments to the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

—for informing me of what I can and cannot do.

I would like to suggest that we have a member of this committee challenge that I should not have ruled it in order for a very specific reason of clarification of which minister it is. I am entertaining that.

We have had people raising points of clarification during the course of hearings on Bill C-11. People have wanted things in writing, wanted them in both official languages, because they did not understand what these meant.

A member is now suggesting that he does not understand what the subamendment means. The subamendment is not necessarily out of order, but there is a point of clarification being raised by one of our colleagues, and I am listening to it. Mr. Perkins also heard it.

While in theory this subamendment is in order, I think that the degree of uncertainty about the minister is a very important point.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

For our part, we like to hear you, Madam Chair.

That said, I don't know if the point raised by Mr. Julian was really a point of order, so I don't know if I should raise a point of order or simply ask for clarification. In any event, I want to say that the Bloc Québécois has also been working for several days to prepare amendments to Bill C-11, and we will be tabling them by tomorrow, Friday, at 4 p.m., in accordance with what we have been trying to get passed since the beginning of the week.

I wanted to say that we, too, think it's very important that the bill be allowed to go forward. So we are going to be ready and our amendments will be sent to the legislative clerk tomorrow, before 4 p.m., as the committee generally wishes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, again, the motion that was moved at this committee says:

That the committee hear witnesses on the topic of Bill C-11, an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts for one meeting lasting five hours during the week of May 23, 2022; that the committee continue to hear witnesses for an additional three meetings lasting five hours each during the week of May 30, 2022; and that during the meeting of Tuesday, May 24, 2022, no motion shall be moved.

That is—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I'll also seek clarity on one other thing.

You seemed quite firm about there being a certain date by which we need to report this bill back to the House. That was never put forward to this committee. In fact, the extract from the Journals of the House of Commons, as of Thursday, May 12, reads:

That Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Within that, there is no deadline by which this committee has to report this bill back to the House. Madam Chair, I'm wondering if you have secret information the rest of us are not privy to, and, if so, why that hasn't been tabled for the committee to see.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you for that clarification, Madam Chair.

Well, the amendment in front of us is that we would expand the time frame granted to be able to put forward amendments to Bill C-11. The reason I'm asking for that extra time is that I would like to propose that we hear from more witnesses. Now, I realize that right now we can't have that conversation in good faith. I'd love to have that conversation following a vote on this amendment and the substance of the motion itself.

The reason for that, of course, is that I believe that we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to hear from a diverse set of voices before moving forward and making decisions with regard to this bill. The point of bringing a bill to committee is so that it can be spoken to by witnesses from various backgrounds so they can add their voice, which may be in support of various aspects of the bill or perhaps the bill in whole, or it could—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, those of us on this side of the table had every intent of hearing from the minister today, and we do have every intent on being reasonable about when amendments are due. That has been our position throughout this week as this topic of conversation has come forward. However, there seems to be a desire at this table to prolong, to keep delaying an opportunity to hear from witnesses, in particular today to hear from the minister who has graciously given us his time to speak to Bill C-11. Now it looks like we will not have that opportunity, because a motion has been brought forward to the floor. Even though I moved that we suspend or adjourn debate, that motion was voted down by the members opposite. So, instead, they're insisting that we continue to have this debate on the motion that was brought forward earlier concerning amendments—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes, there is a motion on the floor that I am amending. I am asking for additional time before amendments to Bill C-11 are due at the committee.

It's hard to know when the start of clause-by-clause is going to begin. That would have to be a further conversation by this committee, which again would take place at another time, because part of of the decision about when clause-by-clause would begin would be for us to determine if we have heard from enough witnesses, or would desire to hear from a few more.

Again, there would be appetite on this side of the table at least to give time to a few more, to be able to hear from other Canadians who are going to be impacted by Bill C‑11 and have not yet had an opportunity to add their voice.

In front of me, I have a list of a total of 119 witnesses who were put forward to be considered by the committee. Of those, there are actually more than 50 who have not yet had an opportunity to come to speak. If we were to decide to move clause-by-clause back a bit and to hear from those witnesses, then whenever we decide to set that date for clause-by-clause consideration to commence, we would have to have our amendments in three days prior to that.

That's my proposal. That's what's on the table right now for this committee to consider. I'd love to have a conversation on that. I guess whether or not there would be appetite at this table for giving a little more time for those amendments to be drafted so that we can thoroughly review the testimony that has been submitted in writing as well as the testimony that has been granted here in person from those who have—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, I am not changing my amendment. It stands as is, which is that the deadline for the amendments to Bill C-11 be moved to three days before the start of clause-by-clause.

I believe you gave me the mike so I could speak to my motivation. My motivation for moving this amendment is that we might be able to hear from more witnesses.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, there is still an opportunity here for this committee, because, as you've stated, the committee is the commander of its own destiny. If the committee does decide that it wishes to hear from more witnesses, there is no reason why it can't do that, which is the conversation I would love to have.

Again, we cannot have that conversation directly; however, it does relate to the amendment I have moved to the motion on the floor, because I am making that amendment in order to allow for more time so that we could possibly hear from more witnesses.

The reason I believe that it is important to hear from more witnesses is that we have many voices that have not yet been represented. For example, one of the things that Bill C-11 is intended to do, or so claims the minister, is to protect or contend for diversity. Now—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Well, I would like to say to you that as a chair I take my orders from the committee, and a unanimous motion was passed, which is setting the tone for how we deal with this particular issue on Bill C-11.

As far as I'm concerned, that unanimous motion has now achieved what it asked for, so we are now ready to move into amendments and into clause-by-clause. I think that is what we should be talking about, and not going back on a motion that had already been unanimously approved.

I would also like to point out to the committee that there's a hard stop for the minister at 5:45.

Thank you very much.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

And then, yes, of course, that brings us to this place in time, where I have put forward an amendment. Of course, that amendment asks for a more reasonable allotment of time for the deadline for amendments to Bill C-11 to be due at committee. We've asked that they be due three days before the start of clause-by-clause—which seems fairly reasonable—because, of course, we want to make sure that we've heard from all of the witnesses before we are expected to hand in amendments. We want the right allotment of time to be able to go through the testimony we've received at this committee. There have been many important voices that have been heard here. But then in addition to that, there are also voices that have not been heard at this committee, voices that have not been given an opportunity to come and to testify.

Madam Chair, do you wish to speak?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, thank you.

I believe, then, with the committee's having agreed to 20 hours of testimony, it's not a maximum of 20 hours. It's not a hard stop at 20 hours. It's just simply that 20 hours is the starting point.

In fact, I can recall that there was discussion around this motion that we could take a closer look at it after we had heard from witnesses for that duration of time. If we deemed it necessary, perhaps we could expand it then. That was part of the conversation that ensued around this table. Of course, it was done in good faith.

It would appear that the good faith is no longer good, because there is no longer a willingness from my counterparts at this table to have the discussion around hearing from more witnesses. I believe that is very sad. We still have 33 witnesses who have not been heard just from the Conservative's list. Then we have more witnesses who were submitted by other colleagues at this table who have not been heard.

I believe it is incumbent upon us to be as thorough as we can possibly be. It would be very nice to hear from more witnesses. I don't believe that this request is unreasonable. Again, there are many times when a committee sets out with an intention and with an understanding, again taken in good faith, that the work of the committee can be reassessed or re-evaluated, and tweaks can be made along the way as more information is granted.

In this case, I think, sure, we're coming to the end of our time. Unfortunately, my colleagues at the table have decided to move this motion in the middle of hearing witness testimony. It was first moved when we had stakeholders at the table. Now it continues to be discussed while we have the Minister of Heritage at the table. Again, no doubt, that's a bit of a quarterbacking effort by the Liberal MPs at this committee.

Also, it's interesting to me that my NDP colleague Mr. Julian.... I moved a motion that pertained to Bill C-11 at another committee, and witnesses were present, and he was quite cruel in many of the words he spoke at that time. I won't repeat all of them, because certainly many of them would be unparliamentary—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sure, Madam Chair. I'd love to. Thank you.

The amendment I have moved is that the deadline for the amendments be three days before the start of clause-by-clause. Of course, we're talking about the time frame that is being granted in order to bring forward those amendments that we might have for Bill C-11.

Madam Chair, you'll recall that this committee agreed to hearing from witnesses for a minimum of some 20 hours. Actually, further to that, the motion, in its original form, said four meetings for five hours each. Obviously, that form has not been followed. We did not do four meetings at five hours each. The meetings have been more sporadic and for a lesser amount of time. Nevertheless, we're in good faith honouring that, but the original motion was for a minimum of 20 hours of witness testimony—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have the minister here and we shall begin.

Welcome, Minister, to the heritage committee. We're discussing, as you well know, Bill C-11. You have five minutes to present, please, Minister.

[Alexie Labelle]

It reads that “That the deadline for amendments on Bill C-11 be at 4 p.m. on Friday, June 3, Eastern Time.”

In French, the motion reads: « Que la date limite pour les amendements de C-11, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et apportant des modifications connexes et corrélatives à d'autres lois, soit le vendredi 3 juin 2022, à 16 heures (HE) ».

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

I hear my colleague Ms. Thomas, and even though we differ on a lot of things, I can't imagine for a second that this little sentence is not clear in her mind and that it needs so much clarification.

Her colleague Mr. Patzer himself said earlier that the minister had arrived and that we wanted to ask him questions. We have witnesses here to whom we also want to ask questions. We have a very simple motion before us, which simply states that the deadline for tabling amendments is Friday at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. My goodness, my colleague is not doing herself any favours by asking for clarification on this.

I am appealing to the common sense of my conservative colleagues, out of respect for the witnesses who are here today to answer important questions on Bill C-11, so that we can put to a vote the motion that has been tabled and finally move on.

[Daniel Therrien]

It is urgent, to say the least, and should have been done some time ago. I think the government knows there is a problem with trust in the digital economy. That is why Bill C‑11 was introduced at the time. We had certain concerns about the content of the bill.

As to the private sector, the act is 40 years old, and 20 years old for the private sector, preceding the creation of Facebook by five years. The world has completely changed since these laws were passed and there is obviously an urgent need to update them.

[Daniel Therrien]

If we're talking about the private sector, I would refer you again to the two-page key recommendations, including primarily reintroducing in the law the requirement that consent requires the consumer to have knowledge and understanding of the purposes for which the information is about to be used. That requirement was omitted from Bill C-11, and I think that's an important problem. It would not lead to meaningful consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I will respond.

There is no need, because the issue that we are discussing in the order of business is Bill C-11. The motion pertains to Bill C-11. There is no need to give 48 hours' notice in both languages for this. When a motion is simple—and it is my understanding that this is a very simple, a one-sentence motion.... Most people will understand what it is by now, because this is going to be the third time we're hearing this motion.

When a motion is very long and complicated, it is necessary for people to read it, because they may not understand everything that has been said. As a chair, I make that decision based on the complexity and length of the motion, as opposed to a very short and simple motion that we are now hearing for the fourth time.

Thank you.

Please continue, Mrs. Thomas.

[Daniel Therrien]

We're at the analysis and conceptual stage, obviously, and we're not hiring anyone because there's no legislation that has been adopted, but again, I thought it would be important not to be caught off guard and to think internally how we would we organize and what kinds of professionals we would we need to exercise this or that new responsibility, including adjudication, so that if a new legislation contains similar provisions as Bill C-11, we would have a head start and might be able to hire people, develop procedures and develop policies.

One area where we intend to do some work is again on this question of order-making and adjudication. That activity will most likely require rules of practice, which will have an impact on the regulated entities, who obviously will want us to act fairly in adjudicating complaints. We have started to give some thought to what would be the adjudication process so that we can consult stakeholders as to whether we have it remotely right, and that would accelerate the adoption of these rules.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Actually, Madam Chair, I'd just like to get a clarification from Mr. Bittle, because he proposed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11. When does he intend that the committee begin clause-by-clause? Is he proposing that it start on Monday? Is that the date he has in mind?

I will resume after his answer, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

With regard to the bill, presently there is no policy directive that has been given to the CRTC. In other words, Bill C-11 is vague in some areas, and it will be left up to the CRTC to determine how they are going to apply the bill at large.

Without a policy directive, it is impossible for the CRTC to understand what the minister's intent is. Now, the minister is saying that will come later, and he's asking Parliament to trust him as he requests that this legislation be moved forward. However, that seems out of step. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Goldberg.

Mr. Goldberg, I'm wondering if you can just talk to me a little bit about the work you do on behalf of Canadian consumers and how Bill C-11 might impact them and what your concerns are around that.

[Andrea Kokonis, Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada]

Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Andrea Kokonis. I am general counsel at SOCAN. I am pleased to appear before this committee in support of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

SOCAN congratulates the government on the tabling of Bill C-11. The bill delivers on the minister's promise to regulate online streaming services while excluding its application to individual content creators. This represents a big step in the right direction for Canadian creative sector and for Canadian audiences.

Modernizing Canada's broadcasting legislation today is necessary. The Broadcasting Act was enacted long before the Internet became a dominant platform for the delivery of music. Online streaming has experienced explosive growth in recent years, but Canadian songwriters and composers are not benefiting from that growth. This inequity is due in part to the fact that the streaming services that have benefited greatly from operating in Canada are not required to contribute to Canadian culture.

SOCAN itself has experienced considerable growth in revenues from online streaming. In 2021, SOCAN collected $416 million on behalf of Canadian and foreign rights holders, of which $100 million was from digital sources. SOCAN's collections from digital platforms will soon overtake collections from more traditional sources, such as radio and television. Unfortunately, only a fraction of this digital licensing revenue stays in Canada. For every dollar generated from Canadian TV and radio broadcasters, approximately 34 cents is distributed to Canadian songwriters and composers. But of the revenues generated from online streaming services, only 10 cents is distributed to Canadians.

The situation is even more dire for francophone songwriters and composers who receive only 1.8 cents per dollar generated from online streaming services as compared to 7.4 cents from Canadian broadcasters.

The difference between broadcasting and online revenues that flow to Canadian songwriters and composers is due at least in part to the fact that streaming services are not required to support or promote Canadian creators to Canadian audiences. The market alone has not and will not solve this problem. Only legislative reform can do that, and the online streaming act sets the stage.

Online streaming services like traditional broadcasters must contribute to Canadian culture by participating in financial support programs that help foster the creation of Canadian music. Online streaming services like traditional broadcasters must also participate in the promotion of Canadian music. Canadian content must continue to hold a prominent place for Canadian audiences whether broadcast on television, radio or streaming platforms.

Foreign streaming giants that benefit from unfettered access to Canadian audiences should be supporting our cultural community and the next generation of Canadian songwriters and composers. As online streaming becomes the dominant medium for music distribution, that support becomes even more important. It is vital to the survival of our culture and our cultural sovereignty.

Canadian music creators need to be actively promoted by the streaming services that provide content to Canadian audiences. Promotion helps Canadian songwriters, composers and music publishers find an audience and generate revenue for themselves so they can reinvest in others.

Viewer choice is not enough and frankly misconstrues the role that online streamers play. Online platforms already decide who to promote and who to demote on their services. They already play those curatorial and editorial roles and should fulfill those roles by showcasing Canadians to Canadians. Online platforms must help emerging Canadian talent get discovered and reach Canadian audiences. It is not just Canadian songwriters and composers who will benefit; listeners will too. We all benefit when our cultural policies reflect and encourage the Canadian experience and the creation and dissemination of Canadian stories and songs.

We implore the government to require streaming services to play their part in making it easier to find Canadian music and stories on online platforms in Canada.

SOCAN does not propose any amendments to Bill C-11. The bill must remain broad so that it can adapt to future online services, the models of content delivery from which are not yet known. A bill that is tailored only to services in operation today or that carves out specific services as they exist today will not be flexible enough or have staying power for the future of broadcasting online.

For all of these reasons, we urge the government to pass Bill C-11 as soon as possible. The creative industry is an important economic sector in our country. The best way to support it is through legislative reform and the online streaming act.

Thank you for your consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Sam Norouzi]

I'm here today because of the critical gap in Bill C-11 that could see millions of Canadians lose access to their beloved public interest TV channels over the next few years. We are one of those channels.

For many ethnocultural communities in Quebec, ICI Television is the only source of locally created television programming in their language available at little or no cost.

Our programming is developed by a network of local independent producers who have deep ties to their communities and decades of experience in producing quality television programs.

We cover current events from a local perspective, and connect people in Montreal and throughout Quebec to what is happening around them. We make a difference. However, telling local stories requires resources.

To help keep the lights on, we rely on an order by the CRTC that requires all cable and satellite services to carry our programming as part of their basic TV package and to pay a fixed rate tied to their number of subscribers. ICI is one of a small number of specialty channels that relies on the CRTC in this way.

These channels are known as 9(1)(h) services, a name which comes from the section of the Broadcasting Act allowing the CRTC to issue these orders in support of public interest programming.

You know many of these channels. Let me share a few examples. There's CPAC, which provides Canadians with unfiltered access to Parliament, and committee meetings just like this one. APTN tells the stories of indigenous peoples in Canada in their own voice. AMI-tv and AMI-télé help Canadians living with disabilities access TV programming.

In addition, there is TVA, which has a mandatory distribution order outside Quebec, which supports official language minority communities.

Together with our partner, OMNI Regional, ICI provides Canadians with information and entertainment in their own language, including six daily newscasts in six languages, from a Canadian perspective.

Canada's public interest TV plays a critical role in serving racialized and marginalized communities. We promote tolerance, diversity and inclusion. We help protect our democracy from disinformation.

With more Canadians shifting to online streaming, we need our broadcasting rules to keep up. As Ian Scott told you earlier this week, Bill C-11 doesn't extend the rules for 9(1)(h) services to online streaming. Instead, it leaves our future to good-faith negotiations. However, global web giants like Amazon, Google and Apple know they won't make money off of our content. They have no real incentive to negotiate, and we can't compete with their legal departments.

That is why we are asking you to amend Bill C-11 to help level the playing field and allow the CRTC to set terms and conditions for programming in their online distribution.

Giving the CRTC the power to set the terms of carriage for online public interest programming services would support us and level the playing field for conventional broadcasters competing with online distributors.

We need this change so that we can keep our lights on and serve Canadians in a way that meets their needs—

[Jay Goldberg, Director, Ontario, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you very much.

I'm very grateful to be here today to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of supporters, including tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed our petition calling on the government not to move forward with Bill C-11.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is concerned by this bill for three key reasons.

First, the government's “empower the CRTC now, give guidance later” approach raises major concerns about accountability. There are many Canadians who are asking why the government is trying to give such unprecedented power to an entity like the CRTC without first sharing with Canadians exactly how much power and on exactly what basis it plans to do so. The government has said that instructions and guidance will come later, but that's a backward approach when it comes to accountability.

Second, contrary to the government assertions, the CRTC has determined that user-generated content will be regulated by the CRTC under Bill C-11 through broadcast regulation. As Professor Michael Geist has said, “no other country in the world regulates content in this way”, and to do so is a major threat to individual freedom. Again, many are asking why the government wants to give the CRTC the power to regulate user-generated content while at the same time saying that it's not.

Before I move to my third point, let me note that although the government has insisted that user-generated content won't be regulated, CRTC chair Ian Scott told this committee that “section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria”. In addition, the very fact that user-generated content would be regulated demonstrates that this bill is not, as the minister and others have suggested, solely about Canadian culture.

Third, this could set a very dangerous precedent for the future. Today, this new government regulatory machine that is being built plans to filter content based on what it considers to be Canadian, but this could be repurposed in the future for other means. Not being able to hold the CRTC accountable in determining what is or is not Canadian content may concern some, but not being able to hold it accountable on future issues such as social cohesion, as Minister Mendicino has alluded to in the online harms conversation, is even more concerning.

There are also deep concerns about the process of this legislation, the lack of debate and the government failing to genuinely listen to Canadians. Our right to free speech and free expression must be sacred, and we should not be in a situation in which a bill like this is being pushed through Parliament in this way, with such limited debate and opportunity.

Thank you for having me here. I look forward to your questions.

[Andrew Cash]

—will not be passed on to Canadian-owned independent labels or artists and that those contributions are not tied to what content is or is not in the bill.

The music business has always been complicated, and is even more so now. We want to ensure that creators who are impacted by Bill C-11 are consulted and that our voices are heard when this bill gets to the CRTC.

I would like to also underline CIMA's support for CDEC's amendments, as well as for the Racial Equity Media Collective's submission and suggested amendments, which would ensure the government's stated objective to see greater equity and inclusion in the broadcasting system is achieved.

We look forward to building stronger partnerships between artists, Canadian-owned labels, platforms and the cultural policy objectives of the Government of Canada.

Thank you so much.

[Andrew Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm the president and CEO of CIMA, the Canadian Independent Music Association.

Our membership includes Canadian-owned music companies, artist entrepreneurs, managers, publishers, promoters, consultants and many other solo self-employed entrepreneurs.

CIMA supports the principles behind Bill C-11. Every entity doing business in Canada operates under some form of federal or provincial regulatory requirements. Online streaming and social media companies should too. These platforms should contribute back into the cultural ecosystem they profit from in the form of, among other ways, financial contributions that can be invested in the sector's industrial infrastructure and artists. We think these things are fair and reasonable and, frankly, a very long time coming.

For over 25 years I was a singer/songwriter, producer/performer and I have to tell you that rarely a day passed when I didn't think: How can I build an audience outside of Canada? That's because the music I was making often didn't fit into the narrow confines of Canadian radio formats at the time. Sometimes it did, but usually it didn't. It was pretty clear that in order to survive, make a living, raise a family, in other words have a middle-class income and life, I had to find a global audience for my songs, which, by the way, I never quite found.

But today, because of a number of factors, including the opportunities created by streaming and social media platforms, more and more of our artists and labels are building that global audience, whereas in the past they would have had no commercial avenue. I think that may be why 75% of all Juno nominees this year were from the Canadian-owned independent sector, and many are finding audiences in markets all over the world.

This growth is also made possible by important public investments in the industrial infrastructure of the Canadian-owned sector through FACTOR and Musicaction. This is a huge success story and a reminder of the importance and potential impact of additional funding from new digital platform partners to the system.

You know that too often when we talk about creators, we tend to hold up the exception as the rule, the über-successful influencer on Instagram, the number of streams Drake has amassed this month or the hit bands that underpin the CanCon structure of terrestrial radio. But they don't tell the true story or the whole story. It has always been, and continues to be, a precarious feast-or-famine life for 95% of those who work in the creative arts, both on and offline—including, alas, Juno nominees. But we do have an incredible opportunity here now to begin to lay a new foundation to build and grow a more stable middle-class arts and culture sector in Canada. So we must really understand the sector we are attempting to legislate and regulate, the opportunities for our artists and Canadian-owned labels if we get it right and the serious ramifications if we get it wrong.

CanCon was put in place to build a domestic industry for a domestic market. Today, we need to invest in the success of Canadian companies and artists for a global market. For CIMA members the best way for Canadian artists to be discovered is to have incredible artists supported by excellent, smart, well-resourced and highly competitive companies that can succeed in the global marketplace, with IP ownership remaining in Canada. We applaud anything in this bill that successfully facilitates these goals. An outcome that results in Canadian artists locked into Canadian-only playlists and a Canadian-only digital ecosystem would be unacceptable.

How music is promoted and shared by music fans on social media platforms has become key to the growth of Canadian-owned independent music, and so we agree with and support the comments by the minister and the chair of the CRTC, who have both said that so-called user-generated content would not be regulated.

Today, music companies have commercial relationships with platforms, therefore, we must ensure the cost of the financial contributions a platform may be required to make—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Hello, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 30 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of Thursday, May 12, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Those attending in the room must be masked for safety reasons.

To those on Zoom, please look at the bottom of your screen. You will see a microphone icon. Please mute yourself until you are ready to speak, and then you can unmute your microphone. There is also a globe icon at the bottom of the screen that helps you go into French or English, depending on your choice. Those in the room know that they can plug into translation at any time.

We're not allowed to take photographs during the meeting.

I want to ask you one more time to remember to speak through the chair.

Witnesses, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone to activate or close it. Thank you very much.

We're going to the first panel. Witnesses, you each have five minutes for your organization. You can decide how to divide up the speaking time within your organization. I'll give you a 30-second call, so that you can wrap up, and then we will go to a question and answer segment. I will tell you how that works then.

The witnesses in this round today, from 3:30 to 4:30, will be as follows. From the Canadian Independent Music Association, we have Andrew Cash, president and chief executive officer; from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Jay Goldberg, Ontario director; from ICI Television, Sam Norouzi, vice-president and general manager; and from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, we have Andrea Kokonis, chief legal officer and general counsel.

To begin, we'll hear from the Canadian Independent Music Association and Mr. Cash for five minutes, please.

Access to Information

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just these documents. That is just one of many actions being taken by the NDP-Liberal coalition government.

Let me give other examples. Ministers can now end democratic debate without notice, just at will. In addition to that, of course, documents are being refused to be granted with regard to the study of the Emergencies Act. In addition to that, the members opposite are now moving Bill C-11, which would shut down our ability to use the Internet with freedom. It would control what we can see, what we can hear and what we can post online.

Why is the government so determined to kill democracy?

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

Madam Chair, when I look at some of the witnesses.... For God's sake, Spotify is on everybody's phone, and we haven't heard from them. That is the new media. We heard from J.J., who talked about the new media today. I come from the traditional media. I went after Bell today. I'd like to talk to APTN. I have other issues with the radio and television industry.

The new media, Madam Chair, as we heard today from J.J. and others, need to be very front and centre, because we're going back 31 years on the Broadcasting Act. I know it needs to be modernized, but look at the legacy this committee will leave once this bill goes through the House. Is it going to be another 31 years, Madam Chair, before we do another? It's properly called the “streaming” act now, because it is going to change.

I think we need to talk about the new media as much as we talk about the traditional. I don't think we've had a chance, around the table, to discuss it. We heard from one guest today who opened a lot of eyes on the freedom of expression and doing it his way. Maybe I don't listen to him as much, but he obviously has a big following. Some of these YouTubers have bigger followings than Bell and Global. That's where this industry is going right now. That's where Bill C-11 needs to go. The act was changed from the Broadcasting Act to the streaming act for a very good reason. It's the 21st century. The Broadcasting Act is archaic. We need to move forward, and streaming is going to be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have a hard stop at 7:30. We are back where we started. This is an attempt to never get to this decision. I would very quickly like to remind everybody that, when we passed a motion in good faith—it was unanimously passed by this committee—it read:

That the committee hear witnesses on the topic of C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts for one meeting lasting five hours during the week of May 23, 2022; that the committee continue to hear witnesses for an additional three meetings lasting five hours each during the week of May 30, 2022....

We are in that week right now. Again, this was a clear motion intended to define what we do, and we are now finding that this has all been a.... It was unanimously passed. We have never, at least while I've chaired this committee, had an exhaustive list of witnesses. When we're going to do work, we make a decision that we will let that work last a certain amount of time with a deadline, and that deadline is stuck to. If we didn't get all the witnesses in before that deadline, well, we didn't.

The clerk works very hard to call witnesses. Many witnesses could not come in during the motion that was moved and unanimously passed, so we have finished our witnesses. We have achieved 20 hours. We have achieved 19 hours this week. Twenty hours in total were asked for, and we will have an extra hour. This committee now has 20 hours. It has fulfilled the request unanimously agreed upon in the motion that I just read to you.

We now need to move forward, in the tradition of committees. There was no minimum attached to those 20 hours, I may add, so we are now moving to the next phase, which is to set a deadline for amendments. We have a hard stop, as I said, at 7:30, so we have a few more minutes for this motion on the floor, in keeping with our tradition and with what we said. I would like to ask us not to go over a motion already duly passed—unanimously passed by this committee.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This has kind of caught me off guard, because, when I look at the witness list of the Liberals, us, the Bloc and the NDP, I find that 33 groups that requested to come from the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals haven't been heard from yet.

When I look at that, I say they can't be happy. These are people who took time to write. They want to come and express their feelings on Bill C-11, and many are from the government side. I know the minister is coming tomorrow. The departmental officials have generously said that they will come tomorrow afternoon. Also, as you know, we've extended tomorrow's time from 3:30 until 6:30, and we only have four witnesses coming in the first hour tomorrow.

We have many people who have expressed a major concern. Some are supportive of this bill, and some are not supportive of this bill. There are some important groups. I look at APTN, and we haven't heard from them. They're an NDP witness. APTN is one of the reasons the CRTC.... I don't have to tell you, Madam Chair, that CBC, the public broadcaster, wasn't doing their job in representing the people of this country, and that's why APTN got started in Winnipeg and has spread. I give the CRTC credit that it is a mandatory station coast to coast now. I think we need to hear from them, because there are some issues with Bill C-11.

I just pick them out because it is Mr. Julian's wish to get everything together by four o'clock, eastern time, on Friday, and I'm surprised that he wouldn't want to hear from APTN. They're one of the major forces in this country. We don't have a lot of ethnic organizations that we've heard from. We've heard from one today, and that was quite shocking. They're not being recognized by Canadian television, whether it's Bell, Global or even the public broadcaster. They've been shut out.

We have lots to consider here, and I think APTN is one of the...and we're talking a traditional broadcaster here. That's where I come from. I really want to hear from them. I'd like to hear from National Community and Campus Radio. They're another organization, Madam Chair, that has been recommended here by the NDP. Obviously they don't seem to care if they come to committee or not—

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have just done that, but will do it again.

I move that the deadline for submitting amendments for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑11 be 4 p.m. this coming Friday.

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

I move that the deadline for submitting amendments for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑11 be 4 p.m. this coming Friday.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, it's okay. I appreciate your jumping in.

Mr. McCullough, I do believe this bill is about bilingualism. I believe this bill is about ensuring that English-language minority content in Quebec and French-language minority content in the rest of the country is treated with respect and that we give the opportunity for people in both languages to express themselves across this country and develop their own original programs.

In the last Parliament, Mr. McCullough, this committee adopted many amendments to this bill that dealt with this very issue. We've had many witnesses come to talk to us about how important this is.

My question again to you, sir, about this bill is this. Do you believe that it is fair in Bill C-11—an important part of Bill C-11—that the federal government is protecting French content and French original creation of content across Canada in all forms?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me. I'm sorry, sir, but the committee knows exactly what its topic is. It's Bill C-11.

Thank you. Please answer the question.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have also found the article you wrote that says that bilingualism is a threat to Canadian democracy.

Part of Bill C-11, as a national government, is protecting the French fact across Canada. I am asking this question to you in English and not in French because I am not trying to score political points on it.

Can you tell me why you believe that bilingualism is a threat to Canadian democracy and whether or not you believe the federal government should have a role to play in protecting French culture across Canada?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

J.J., what you're talking about is the desire under Bill C-11 that the government has to protect Canadian culture. Ultimately what it means is that CanCon, anything that fits that definition, which is an antiquated definition to begin with, will be bumped up in the queue in terms of discoverability online, and other material that doesn't meet that antiquated definition will actually get bumped down, maybe even be on page 553 of the Internet, where it will never be discovered in its lifetime.

What impact will this have on digital first creators?

[Marla Boltman]

If I may, I guess what you're asking is why Bill C-11 matters to us.

We share the longest international border with the most dominant power and most prolific producer of entertainment content in the world, and for better or for worse, American content has an incredible influence over our culture. However, history has taught us time and time again that failure to protect and promote our culture and our identity is a recipe for foreign domination.

Our ability to protect and promote Canadian culture and identity happens through our sharing of stories, be they film, television, journalism or music. By whatever audiovisual means, the survival of our stories has always rested on government support, and Bill C-11 will allow us to remain in control over our culture and our stories by shoring up that support.

Requiring contributions from foreign tech giants that extract billions of dollars from our country will help sustain our industry while driving investment and innovation in the creation of Canadian content that continues to reflect our diversity of voices and who we are as Canadians. Foreign contributions will level the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and foreign platforms. Frankly, it sends a message to the world that Canada is open for business, but there are no more free rides. If you benefit from the system, you must contribute to it.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like go to Ms. Boltman now.

Ms. Boltman, the Friends' brief talks about the tens of thousands of jobs lost over the last few years and cites that Google and Facebook made $7.5 billion in Canada from digital ads in 2019.

Is this why Friends is pressing the committee to adopt Bill C-11? Is it that we're seeing, in addition to its being an uneven playing field, that we're essentially hoovering money out of the country and some of it should come back to actually create Canadian productions and provide for the ability of Canadians to tell stories, both to themselves and to the world?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Very quickly, you're saying that Canadians are very successful in being able to reach a global audience. Obviously they depend on that. What will Bill C-11 do to that ability?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

I will start with you, Ms. Messier. I know you have been carefully following our discussions on Bill C‑11, and even on Bill C‑10, since the beginning. This is an issue that is important to you. I would like to hear your thoughts on the situation.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Do you really believe that this bill will help ensure that, going forward, if we put in the right type of legislation...? I did hear you say that you have some suggestions on some amendments. But the overall spirit of C-11, from your perspective, would it be a good thing for Canadians in general?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you so much to all the witnesses for joining us. This has been a very fascinating conversation.

For me, C-11 is about fairness, equality, inclusiveness, openness and respect. I think maintaining our Canadian culture through film and television is something that we as Canadians, as lawmakers and as citizens should be striving to do.

Ms. Boltman from Friends, I think the best line I've heard this evening was “crashing on our cultural couch”. Thank you for sharing that, and I'll keep that in the back of my mind as we proceed.

I wanted to ask a few questions of Ms. Jenkinson from BSO.

We had a meeting earlier this week and heard from some witnesses that government should not be involved in the regulation of any type of broadcasting. In particular, we heard from one witness that some online streaming giants not wanting to carry such unique voices as OUTtv was capitalism at work, that it was fine and that the government should not be ensuring diversity in those voices.

I am completely opposite to that. I think that, in a democratic process, we should use democracy and the ability for government, through law, regulation and directives, to ensure that we have good Canadian content that reflects Canada today.

I want to get your opinion on that statement from a witness earlier this week.

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

That's a good point, because last year with TSN Radio, you flipped the switch on three markets, eliminated it in seconds, and then you went to comedy channels. You did this across the country, from Vancouver onward. You hold several radio properties, which are under Bill C-11. It's disrespectful to the listeners of TSN Radio, which you own in the Vancouver markets and so on. You cut Hamilton overnight and flipped the switch on the comedy channels without any input from the CRTC on licensing. It was just done. Jobs were lost and people were escorted out of the business. This is what we're seeing.

Yes, I'm going to give you kudos on Canadian news. You've exceeded your obligations in most markets. You have it in the morning, at noon, five and seven and late at night in many markets, so I will give you kudos for that. You've exceeded the hours required by the CRTC for news coverage.

At the same time.... You can talk about Canadian production, but I see very little Canadian production between seven and 10, which is the prime time. I see The Big Bang Theory over and over again at night. It's on three or four times.

Can we see any Canadian productions in the seven to 10 slot to promote Canadian culture, so that you don't have to go to L.A. and buy those foreign competitor shows that you're now up against, from the big, foreign people you just talked about? Is there any hope that Canadian programming from seven to 10 can rival other programming that people can see, other than the NHL?

[John Lawford, Executive Director and General Counsel, Public Interest Advocacy Centre]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre defines the consumer interest in broadcasting as ensuring that consumers benefit from access to a wide variety of programming in the broadcasting system that offers choice in an affordable manner.

Unlike in 1991, consumers now pay for almost all broadcasting, whether with money or with personal information, including their online subscriptions, cable TV and video on demand, delivered by a BDU, or over the top, via the Internet. Consumers are now a key stakeholder in this debate. We are of equal importance to creators, platforms and producers.

We believe that extending CanCon financial support requirements to online services such as Netflix or Amazon Prime, and even social media platforms such as YouTube and Facebook, when used as program distributers, are generally supported by Canadians.

However, the bill grants the CRTC discretion to set the financial and potential other obligations of online undertaking registrants, no matter their size or type, provided they distribute any programs, which is overbroad. To solve this, we support an amendment to the bill exempting small online undertakings below a high Canadian revenues threshold, perhaps $150 million, from financial and other conditions. This threshold would not affect registration or information requirements.

Consumers naturally resist the insertion of CanCon into automated plays or algorithmic suggestions of platforms such as YouTube, and digital first creators are concerned that such discoverability tools will backfire and reduce their audiences.

PIAC believes that the user-generated content problem can be addressed by redefining “discoverability” as not one concept, but two: static discoverability and dynamic discoverability.

Bill C-11's only new mandatory broadcasting policy requirement is proposed new paragraph 3(1)(r), which states:

online undertakings shall clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming, in both official languages as well as in Indigenous languages, and ensure that any means of control of the programming generates results allowing its discovery;

Clearly, discoverability is key to the drafters and must stay in some form. This policy objective mandates both static discoverability and dynamic discoverability. The first half could be satisfied by a banner ad on YouTube that simply links, upon a consumer's click, to selected CanCon. It is static. It is unobtrusive and likely unobjectionable to consumers, but still clearly promotes and recommends CanCon.

The second half of the new policy objective is dynamic. It requires AI prediction tools to insert a CanCon video or song into a user's auto-play feature or to dynamically suggest links. It is intrusive and disruptive to the user's expectations and experience. It is overkill to achieve the goal of “promote and recommend” CanCon. It is even more intrusive than the exhibition requirements on traditional broadcasters, because the online world is a world of abundance and consumer choice, not scarcity, where mandated exhibition makes more sense.

Digital first creators are rightly concerned that the bill's requirement to use dynamic discoverability will backfire and actually demote the importance of, and user engagement with, their content. Canadian users who are involuntarily exposed to discoverability links will avoid or react negatively, thereby signalling to the AI globally and in Canada to demote the content.

The solution is to require only static discoverability tools and to require any Canadian content creator who wishes to have their content promoted, even by static discoverability, to apply to a new CanCon authorization authority, likely the CRTC. This will allow digital first creators the choice to continue to operate untouched by this entire regime, which PIAC believes they want, or to have their content promoted in the limited sense of static discoverability.

PIAC recommends amending proposed paragraph 3(1)(r) to remove the last 15 words, thereby directing the CRTC to satisfy the bill's discoverability requirement with only static discoverability tools.

I welcome your questions. Thank you.

[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.

[Reynolds Mastin]

Change is needed to correct this market imbalance. The bill should ensure that the CRTC is empowered to require and enforce collective terms of trade between these buyers and independent Canadian producers. Terms of trade would provide a code of baseline conditions to be used in good faith negotiations between the parties when licensing a program.

This is not a novel solution. In 2003, the U.K. adopted terms of trade in its own Communications Act. Less than a decade later, the value of the U.K. independent production sector had almost tripled. In fact, this tool has been so successful that the U.K. government recently announced that it would maintain and modernize terms of trade. Given its success not only in the U.K. but also in France and Germany, we are confident that the adoption of a terms of trade amendment in Bill C-11 would result in similar success here in Canada.

Our third and final amendment would be to close a legislative loophole that generally excludes telecom service providers from the application of the Broadcasting Act. This exclusion no longer makes sense at a time when ISP and wireless services are playing an ever greater role in our broadcasting system.

Today Canadians watch content through their phones, tablets, laptops, and yes, also in their living rooms on TVs but those televisions increasingly stream programs over the Internet. The CRTC should have the ability to determine whether and how telecom providers could contribute to the creation of Canadian programming and the policy directions should instruct the CRTC to do this in a way that protects consumers and upholds the principle that those who benefit from our system should contribute to it.

In closing, we applaud the government for the introduction of Bill C-11 and look forward to responding to any questions you may have.

[Reynolds Mastin, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Media Producers Association]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members.

My name is Reynolds Mastin, and I am the president and CEO of the Canadian Media Producers Association. The CMPA represents more than 600 companies across Canada engaged in the production of Canadian programming.

With me today is Catherine Winder, a member of the CMPA board and the CEO of the Vancouver-based production company, Wind Sun Sky Entertainment. Catherine has built a prolific career as a multiplatform adaptor of intellectual property, with such projects as Star Wars, The Angry Birds Movie and Invincible, to name a few. Thank you for inviting us to appear today.

The CMPA supports the passage of Bill C-11. The modernization of our broadcasting regulatory framework is critical to maintaining our national sovereignty, promoting a diversity of voices in our system and serving Canadian audiences.

[Joan Jenkinson, Executive Director, Black Screen Office]

Good afternoon.

My name is Joan Jenkinson. I'm the executive director of the Black Screen Office, which is a non-profit, non-partisan advocacy association.

Our mission is to make Canadian screen industries equitable and free of anti-Black racism and to empower Black Canadians working within the screen industries to thrive and share their stories.

The BSO was founded in the fall of 2020 with the support of Telefilm Canada and the Canada Media Fund in response to Canadians' growing awareness of the need to take action to fight anti-Black racism. By this fall, the BSO will have released three research studies. One is on creating authentic and inclusive content. A second report will be Canada's very first race-based audience survey. A third report is a comprehensive labour market study of Black professionals in the Canadian screen industries. We also support Black producers and creatives with content incubators, by creating pipelines to decision-making roles in the sector and in attending international film festivals and markets. We work with industry partners to fund Black content creators.

Thank you for inviting the BSO to talk to you today about Bill C-11—the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. The BSO supports the Racial Equity Media Collective's submission to this committee with proposed amendments to the bill. We agree with others about the need to ensure that all the players who work within the Canadian broadcasting system that compete for Canadian audiences and earn revenues from it should also contribute to it. However, the bill could be improved with a few small consequential amendments.

Canadians of all backgrounds have not had access to programming within the Canadian broadcasting system that authentically reflects the diversity of this country. The proposed amendments in Bill C-11 will prioritize greater equity and inclusion. We welcome Bill C-11's references to serving the needs and interests of racialized Canadians, but wherever the word “racialized” is used, we ask that it be replaced with “Black and racialized”. We request this amendment as recognition there has historically been greater oppression of Black Canadians and greater barriers to inclusion for them than with other racialized Canadians.

For example, in the 2019 Statistics Canada survey, 45% of Black Canadians expressed that they experienced discrimination in the past five years compared to 27% from other visible minorities. This discrimination can play out in education, health care, employment, housing and, yes, the Canadian screen industries. There needs to be a targeted strategy to break down these systemic barriers and fight anti-Black racism. Lumping Black Canadians in with all other racialized Canadians risks policy and regulation being adopted that do not consider the specific needs and challenges of Black communities.

I would also like to address comments I've heard at this committee that under-represented Canadians have access to unregulated platforms, such as YouTube, for content that reflects them. I would like to ask why Black Canadians should be limited to user-generated and short-form content found on YouTube and TikTok and not have access to longer form stories found in serialized dramas, sitcoms and documentaries that reflect their lives, experiences and interests.

It is true that Black Canadians have access to content from the U.S. and the U.K. that is created by Black screenwriters, directors and producers, but that content does not reflect the Canadian Black experience. This is important. Canadian Black communities are incredibly more diverse than African American communities. We consist of communities in Nova Scotia and southern Ontario that are older than Canada, newer communities made up of people from the Caribbean, and more recent communities from Africa. With limited exceptions, the many stories of these various communities are not being told.

Why can't there be everyday Black Canadians in romcoms, sitcoms, sci-fi series, kids' show and documentaries?

The Black Screen Office looks forward to the swift passage of Bill C-11, with the proposed amendments and the subsequent CRTC proceedings that will create a regulatory framework that will support the creation, delivery and promotion of more Canadian programming that reflects the lives and experiences of Black Canadians.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Jonathan Daniels, Vice-President, Regulatory Law, BCE Inc.]

How did the regulatory regime enable it? Through bold regulatory decisions that were made over 50 years ago to harness the power of Hollywood for the greater good of Canada through creative regulatory measures that put Canadian broadcasters at the centre of the broadcasting ecosystem.

Licence rules required partnerships between foreign and Canadian broadcasters, creating such success stories as Discovery Canada, a partnership between Bell Media and Discovery. Another example is simultaneous substitution rules that ensure that broadcasters can monetize all the Canadian viewership and generated revenues that could be funnelled back into news and Canadian shows. These solutions were not always obvious. It took the vision and fortitude of your predecessors to bring our ecosystem to life.

Let's be clear. Today these rules no longer work. Our access to popular U.S. shows has become increasingly challenging and expensive. Foreign streamers are bidding up the costs of programming acquisition. Even more concerning is that major U.S. studios have either cut out domestic broadcasters all together or are about to do so. Disney+ and Paramount+ are already using their own streaming platforms to reach Canadians directly. Others like HBO have launched their own OTT platforms in the U.S. and could still choose to do so in Canada. With the ability to go directly to Canadians on an OTT basis, we are starting to see these platforms refuse to sell us their content all together.

Why does this matter? It matters because it puts all we do—and by "we", I mean all that Canadian broadcasters do—at risk. Canadian broadcasters produce Canadian news that quite simply is essential to our culture, to protecting our democracy and to our national sovereignty. Let's not delude ourselves. The entire Canadian broadcasting ecosystem is funded by profits generated from foreign content. We cannot expect broadcasters to continue to produce and support the Canadian content that we do without access to foreign content and partnering with foreign players.

We can ensure the central role of Canadian broadcasters by securing access to foreign content. We can also incentivize foreign streamers to partner with Canadian broadcasters, much like foreign linear services have done for decades. We believe Bill C-11 should explicitly enable this. That is why we are proposing two important amendments to clauses 3 and 5 of the act today.

Finally, we wanted to let you know we are supportive of both the CAB's and Unifor's proposed amendments. A copy of them, as well as our specific amendments to clauses 3 and 5 of the act, are attached in our submission that we sent to the clerk.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. We look forward to answering your questions.

[Karine Moses, Vice-Chair Québec and Senior Vice-President, Content Development & News, BCE Inc.]

Madam Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for hearing from us today.

Bell is Canada's largest broadcaster. We operate a variety of broadcasting services across Canada in English and in French.

We support Bill C‑11 and urge its swift passage into law. It is long overdue. The bill begins to level the playing field between us and our foreign competitors, and that is important to the Canadian broadcasting system.

That said, the bill can and must be improved. Bluntly put, it does not properly recognize the central role Canadian broadcasters should have in our own broadcasting system. After all, it is the Broadcasting Act. The discussions to date—including those that occurred as part of Bill C‑10—have dealt with important issues, but have also almost completely ignored what domestic broadcasters require to succeed.

As it stands, Bill C‑11 does not explicitly incentivize foreign content providers to work in partnership with Canadian broadcasters.

This needs to change. Let me explain why.

Historically, Canadian broadcasters have succeeded by running hugely popular U.S. shows that appeal to Canadian audiences and attract significant advertising and subscription revenues. In turn, these revenues are used to fund the creation, production and showcasing of Canadian content.

At Bell Canada alone, we spend $1 billion annually on Canadian productions, both our own and with independent producers. Part of this spend is for local, national and international news that provides uniquely Canadian perspectives on events here and around the world.

Let me be clear. Everything we are able to achieve as Canadian broadcasters is directly related to the profits we make by accessing foreign content. Without it, we simply don't have a business. We have achieved that access through a regulatory regime that enables it.

Go ahead, Jonathan.

[Hélène Messier, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de la production médiatique]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for having me today.

I am Hélène Messier, president and chief executive officer of the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, AQPM.

The AQPM advises, represents and supports more than 160 independent Quebec film, television and web production companies. Members of the AQPM also produce content for online platforms, such as documentaries or web series. Therefore, many of them are also creators of original digital content.

On February 1, 2021, I appeared before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to talk about the importance and urgency of passing Bill C‑10. One year later, I am reiterating the same message concerning Bill C‑11.

How do things stand one year later? Canadian domestic production and Quebec production are both declining. Less and less Canadian content is being produced in Canada. In fact, 58% of spending in the Canadian audiovisual sector now comes from companies that are headquartered outside Canada.

Independent production companies now account for 31% of the production volume—that figure was 35% last year—and broadcaster in‑house productions, which are essentially news, public affairs or sports programs, account for 11%.

Some will say it's great that Canada is a land of welcome for foreign businesses, but that leads to a loss of intellectual property for Canadian businesses and job losses for Canadian creators and actors.

Giving up our ability to create, produce, showcase and broadcast our cultural content to benefit foreign interests is like accepting foreign companies exploiting 58% of our agricultural land, according to their own standards, and controlling the marketing of grains, fruits and vegetables, while selling them back to us at a profit. On top of that, we would be thanking them for the jobs they have created. That is what Bill C‑11 remedies by giving the CRTC the tools it needs to support all actors that decide to do business in Canada.

Online broadcasting services occupy a space that is constantly growing in the broadcasting ecosystem. In Quebec, 70% of francophone adults subscribe to at least one on‑demand video service, with Netflix being at the top of the list. In the francophone market, individuals in the 18 to 34 age group consume on‑demand online content more than they do traditional television. In the 18 to 24 age group, people watch YouTube nearly eight hours a week, while TikTok is now one of the most used platforms by the youngest people and has grown by 55% over the past year. The TikTok platform even became an official partner of the Cannes Film Festival this year and created for the event a competition of short films under three minutes in which both experienced and emerging filmmakers participated. This situation was unimaginable only a year ago.

The use of social media to broadcast original and professional audiovisual content to reach audiences that are forsaking traditional media is a phenomenon that will keep growing. So it is essential that Bill C‑11 enable CRTC to include in its area of jurisdiction both subscription-based streaming companies, such as Netflix and illico, and social media companies, such as YouTube, Facebook and TikTok.

It is also important for companies that provide Internet and mobile telephone services to be included in the bill, so that the CRTC may potentially determine how they could contribute to the creation and presentation of Canadian content. Those companies are currently completely excluded from the application of the act. Yet they play an important role in the ecosystem, not only by enabling content broadcasting and distribution, but also by providing privileged access to certain broadcasting platforms. For instance, Telus users get free access to ICI TOU.TV Extra; Vidéotron users have the same privilege, for three months, for Vrai and Club illico; and Bell Media and Rogers offer similar packages for Crave or Disney+.

The AQPM is also proposing certain amendments for the audiovisual industry, which are the result of a collaborative effort with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions or with the Canadian Media Producers Association and the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. I may tell you about this later. Otherwise, I will send you those amendments.

Thank you very much.

[J.J. McCullough, As an Individual]

Hello, friends. My name is J.J. McCullough and I am a professional YouTuber from New Westminster, B.C.

Today I hope to teach the committee about Canada's vast YouTuber community and why so many of us fear Bill C-11, a bill we did not ask for and do not need, and one that threatens the success we've already achieved.

My channel subject matter is mostly cultural analysis with a focus on Canadian identity. My video topics have ranged from a biography of Wilfred Laurier to the history of potato chips to why different political parties use different colours. My most popular video, which is about a Dairy Queen in my community, has been reviewed over eight million times.

Professional YouTubers like me earn a living from in-video advertisements, with ad revenue generally correlating with the popularity of our videos. A YouTuber subscriber's count can offer a very rough estimate of its channel's potential audience size. My channel recently passed 750,000 subscribers. In total my videos have been viewed 230 million times. Now, these numbers might sound impressive, but I am actually one of this country's mid-level YouTubers at best.

According to socialblade.com, I am merely the 414th-most popular Canadian YouTuber. Indeed, according to Social Blade there are over 100 Canadian YouTubers with over 3.5 million subscribers and over a billion video views. However, popularity at this level isn't necessary for success. My friend Joe Lee is a professional Canadian YouTuber who makes videos about life in Vancouver and who was recently able to parlay the popularity of his channel into his own clothing line. He has just 156,000 subscribers and 12 million views, making him the 945th-most popular Canadian YouTuber.

This should hopefully offer a sense of the size of the YouTuber community as a faction of the Canadian cultural economy. The tremendous success and even worldwide fame of many Canadian YouTubers in the absence of government regulation should invite questions about the necessity of Bill C-11. An unregulated YouTube has been a 17-year experiment, and the result has been an explosion of popular Canadian content produced by Canadians of every imaginable demographic.

Now, much of the debate around Bill C-11 has centred on so-called user-generated content, which is often meant as frivolous social media posts, but proposed section 4.2 states that the government is interested in regulating content that “generates revenues”, which describes the sorts of videos professional YouTubers create. Regardless, it is important to understand that it is simply impossible to regulate a platform like YouTube without also regulating creator content. It's like promising not to regulate books while regulating what can be sold in bookstores. Hence subclause 3(7) of this bill states that online platforms must “clearly promote and recommend Canadian programming”, but what is Canadian programming?

We know from the precedent of television that merely having a work produced by a Canadian is not good enough for the CRTC. The nationality of basically everyone involved from editors to musicians to visual effects artists must be factored in too. A detailed budget is expected, and the project's theme and subject matter must be explained. The CRTC website features countless forms TV producers must fill out in order to get their work certified as officially Canadian and thus worthy of promotion on Canada's heavily regulated airwaves.

Most Canadian YouTubers shudder at the thought that this could soon be our fate as well. Given the broad powers of the CRTC, which Bill C-11 expands to include digital platforms, the Canadian YouTuber community is right to worry that the continued success of their channels could soon be dependent on their ability to make content that's Canadian enough to obtain government endorsement.

Even more ominously, proposed section 9.1 of this bill says the CRTC can dictate “the proportion of programs to be broadcast that shall be devoted to specific genres” on digital platforms. Given that YouTubers make videos of every genre imaginable, from fitness to architecture to political commentary, it is frankly terrifying to imagine that government may soon have a hand in determining which genres of video are more worthy of promotion than others.

In summary, anyone proud of the tremendous success of Canadians on YouTube should be deeply concerned about the damage that Bill C-11 could do to their livelihoods.

I also worry that the dreams of the next generation of Canadian YouTubers will become less achievable once they're forced to navigate intimidating new regulatory hurdles my generation did not. Most of all, I fear the damage that will be done to Canada's legacy as a global leader of cultural entrepreneurship once our online creators are forced to make narrowly nationalistic content under duress in order to win the favour of a government in denial of what we've accomplished on our own.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I want to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

Because of the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, this committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in the room and remotely using Zoom.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, those who are in the room should wear a mask. I actually encourage people to wear a mask to speak, because that's when particles are spewed, so to speak.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait so that I can recognize you before you speak. If you look at the bottom of your screen, for those who are virtual, you will see that there's a microphone icon. Please click on that to unmute yourself, and click on it to mute again when you're not speaking. There's a globe at the bottom of your screen, which is used for interpretation. You may go to English or French, or whatever suits you. For those in the room, you know you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I also want to recognize that no photographs should be taken of this meeting. Finally, if you want to speak, you should speak through the chair.

Thanks very much. I want to welcome our patient witnesses. All I can say is that you have patience.

I would like to welcome, as an individual, J.J. McCullough. Also we have the Association québécoise de la production médiatique, Hélène Messier, president and chief executive officer. We have BCE Inc., with Jonathan Daniels, vice-president, and Karine Moses, vice-chair Québec and senior vice-president, content development and news. From Black Screen Office, we have Joan Jenkinson, executive director. From the Canadian Media Producers Association, we have Reynolds Mastin, president and chief executive officer, and Catherine Winder, chief executive officer, Wind Sun Sky Entertainment Inc. Then, we have Friends, with Marla Boltman, executive director; and finally the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, with John Lawford, executive director and general counsel.

Each group will have five minutes. You can divide who speaks in that five minutes amongst yourselves, but you have five minutes. I will give you a 30-second notice so that you know that you should wrap up. When everyone is finished, we will then move to a question-and-answer segment.

I will now begin with J.J. McCullough.

Canadian Heritage

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yes, individual creators are protected under this legislation. It is the platforms that we are targeting.

Let us not forget that we have been able to protect Quebec and Canadian culture by making Canadian creators more discoverable on platforms, including radio, TV and now the Internet.

We want to ensure that Canadian creators are seen, heard and appreciated. That is exactly what Bill C-11 does, and that is what the Conservatives still do not seem to understand.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to two great online content creators. Julia Westlin and David Michaud get millions of views on YouTube and are known throughout the world. They make a living from their art.

Under Bill C-11, as it now stands, the CRTC could regulate their content, which would have a major impact on their livelihoods.

Can the Prime Minister categorically assure us that the content that is generated by all social media users, including Julia and David, will be exempt from this bill, yes or no?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear that Bill C-11 applies to platforms, not to users.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the heritage minister was not able to answer any of my questions on Monday, so I am hoping that perhaps the Prime Minister might be able to assist me today.

The heritage minister has claimed repeatedly that Bill C-11 does not capture user-generated content, but the chair of the CRTC, Mr. Scott, has said that, in fact, user-generated content is captured within Bill C-11.

Both of these men cannot be correct. I am wondering if the Prime Minister could clarify this for the sake of Canadians watching today: Should they believe his minister, or should they believe the chair of the CRTC?

[Tim Uppal, Edmonton Mill Woods, CPC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the many flaws in Bill C-11, the Liberals continue to force this legislation through Parliament.

Last week, the CEO of Canada's most successful YouTube channel told the heritage committee that Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It has been written by those who do not understand the industry that they are attempting to regulate.

Artists and creators who work in digital media have been clear: Modernization does not mean taking an outdated, 30-year-old regulatory system and simply applying it to today's technology. While the Liberals claim there is now an exemption for user-generated content, this legislation clearly allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That means that virtually all content can be regulated by the CRTC.

It is clear: Bill C-11 is flawed, and it must be scrapped.

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

Thank you. I'll have to cut you off on that because I want to get to a couple of other questions.

Mr. Sinclair, thank you for your presentation tonight.

You mentioned the impact of CanCon, how that helped The Tragically Hip. There were Canadian artists who emerged before there was Canadian content, but far fewer. After we put in place CanCon, a lot more Canadians were able to succeed both in Canada and internationally. Is that what you foresee with C‑11, that there are some Canadians who are succeeding now, but more Canadians will be able to succeed with the provisions of the bill?

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

Thank you very much. I may come back to you if I have time, but I want to switch to Ms. Patell and YouTube.

We've talked a bit about the policy directive from the minister. We haven't seen it. I'm assuming you haven't seen it. We heard earlier that the CRTC hasn't seen it. A lot of what will come out of Bill C-11 will be defined by what the minister puts in his policy directive. We know that policy directives can change, so that a future government can issue its own policy directive and redefine things. We've been told that the minister will go in a certain direction with the policy directive, but we have seen nothing in writing.

I want your thoughts on the aspect of this policy directive that no one seems to have seen yet. The government is taking the “just trust us” approach that it will be what they say it will be and what they hope it will be. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[Jeanette Patell, Head of Canada Government Affairs and Public Policy, YouTube]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

For well over a decade, content on YouTube has been reflecting Canada's cultural mosaic, raising diverse voices and sharing Canadian stories around the globe.

Thanks to YouTube, creators like the Hacksmith are building businesses, artists like Shawn Mendes are breaking through and Canadians from all walks of life can share their voices with the world. Canadian YouTuber Lilly Singh explained it best when she said, “For Canadian creators who don't fit the mainstream mould, the openness of YouTube provides the opportunity to find their niche among billions of people.”

We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.

In many ways, YouTube serves as a digital video library of Canadian culture, past, present and future. It has allowed our Canadian heritage moments to cross borders with over 28 million views.

And Encore+, our partnership with the Canada media fund, has brought CanCon favourites to viewers around the world.

We support the objectives of Bill C‑11, and we want to work together to achieve these shared goals.

I want to be very clear about YouTube's position on Bill C-11, because it is often misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented.

Some believe that we want to avoid all regulation. This is not true. In fact, when the minister says that an official song by The Weeknd on YouTube should be subject to the act, we have no objection to that, and we certainly have no objection to further financially contributing to Canadian content.

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.

And when I say “content”, I mean all content—whether that's a dance challenge, a cat video, or an official music video by Charlotte Cardin.

If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations and how Canadian creators advertise against their content. This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.

Bill C-11 could deeply hurt Canadian creators and viewers. For viewers who rely on us to serve them content that is relevant to their interests, artificially forcing an open platform like YouTube to recommend content based on government priorities would backfire. It imposes supply-side measures onto a demand-based technology and ignores two critical features of today's digital reality.

First, Canadians have infinite choice. If the government mandates that they be recommended content that is not personally relevant, they will simply abandon the video or even give it a thumbs-down.

Second, these behaviours train our systems, and that's where the risk to creators comes in. The system learns that this content is not relevant or engaging for viewers, and then it applies those lessons on a global scale. It means that, ultimately, creators boosted in Canada as CanCon could be demoted in search results around the world. That is a terrifying prospect for Canadian creators, who depend on international audiences for over 90% of their watch time, and it would directly hurt their revenue.

It is possible to support Canadian musicians, artists and storytellers without putting thousands of creators at risk, and we have some ideas how. The first is to protect the livelihood of Canada's digital creators by narrowing the language of proposed section 4.2 to only capture full-length commercial music. The second is to strengthen proposed section 9.1 to prevent regulatory impacts to the recommendation algorithms. Finally, it is to narrowly apply broadcasting regulations and better reflect differing technology and business models.

We are confident that, with more precision in Bill C-11, the government can accomplish its objectives. Ultimately, we all have the same goal: to preserve and celebrate Canadian stories and culture.

Thank you for the chance to speak with you today on this important piece of legislation.

I look forward to your questions.

[Stéphane Cardin, Director, Public Policy, Netflix]

Thank you.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Since we appeared before this committee in February 2021, we've continued to invest and grow our footprint in Canada. Last fall, we opened our corporate office in Toronto and hired our first local content executives. They've since travelled across the country and engaged with creators to find the next great Canadian stories that we'll share with the world.

Over the same period, we kept the cameras rolling in studios and on locations across the country while keeping our cast and crews safe during COVID-19. We continued to collaborate with top animation studios in Canada on titles such as The Last Kids on Earth, and several leading VFX companies here worked their magic on shows such as The Adam Project, starring our own Ryan Reynolds. Last November, we launched our first selection of mobile games, including several titles from Canadian game developers.

All of these investments add up to Canada remaining one of our top production countries globally. In fact, since 2017 we've invested more than $3.5 billion in Canada for films and series that have launched on Netflix. This includes our own titles, co-licensing agreements with Canadian independent producers and broadcasters, and acquisitions of both classic and new series and films in English and in French. Each of these models contributes to the system.

In addition, we've provided substantial support and opportunities to Canadian creators. We've enabled emerging and diverse Canadian talent like Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, star of the hit series Never Have I Ever, to secure their breakout roles and achieve global recognition. And we've partnered with over 20 organizations across Canada to advance the careers of over 1,000 creators from every province and territory, with a focus on creators from underrepresented communities.

All of this demonstrates that Netflix is committed to Canada.

To the extent that Bill C‑11 aims to create a flexible framework that will enable the CRTC to recognize the different ways that individual online services contribute, to tailor conditions of service applied to online undertakings, and to modernize the definition of Canadian content, we believe that is the right approach.

We remain concerned about a rigid approach that would simply transpose the current regulatory requirements of Canadian broadcasting groups onto online streaming services. This would not create a level playing field, nor would it be fair or equitable.

Unlike Canada's large private sector broadcasters, Netflix would not have the ability to meet its obligations through categories such as news or sports programming, which represent the majority of their Canadian content spending, and titles that are produced or solely financed by Netflix still would not qualify, even when the majority or totality of creative roles are held by Canadians.

We believe a new framework should also recognize that streaming services provide an unparalleled opportunity to promote Canadian stories to global audiences. The phenomenal success of titles like Lupin, Schitt's Creek and Jusqu'au Déclin demonstrates that quality stories no longer have borders.

Accordingly, we and other members of the Motion Picture Association Canada, or MPA‑Canada, have proposed amendments to the bill, as outlined in our written submission.

When the government set out to modernize the Broadcasting Act, it stated its ambition to create a world-class communications sector and highlighted the importance of enabling and promoting Canadian culture, contributing to economic growth and safeguarding the interests of Canadian consumers, including affordability and choice. To achieve this, Canada must build a balanced and forward-looking model that acknowledges the unique contributions of each participant in the system.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

[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 Lewis, International Vice-President and Director of Canadian Affairs, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees]

Thank you.

IATSE is the largest union in the entertainment industry, representing 32,000 Canadian creatives and technicians across film, television and live performance, with another 10,000 creatives working under our agreements as they learn and acquire the skills and certifications necessary for membership. IATSE members are highly skilled cinematographers, costume designers, aerial riggers, makeup artists, hairstylists, set decorators, scenic artists and more, all working behind the scenes. In a word, we are the crew.

I first want to state that the IATSE supports the federal government's efforts to modernize the Broadcasting Act through BillC-11. We are also pleased that Minister Rodriguez wants to re-examine what should qualify as a Canadian production.

What does make a film or TV production Canadian? Despite what you regularly hear, CanCon is not necessarily about telling Canadian stories. What's happening is that due to dwindling revenues, Canadian media companies are receiving less money from domestic broadcasters. They'd therefore like to create more funding by having government require global studios and streamers to stop the “free ride” and kick in to fund CanCon productions.

The thing is, they already do. Global studios and streamers are the second-largest source of financing for Canadian-owned content production, with foreign pre-sales and advances accounting for 15% of total financing. By comparison, the Canada Media Fund accounts for 10%, and Telefilm accounts for 1%.

Minister Rodriguez referenced creating good, middle-class jobs as a Bill C-11 objective. Global studios and streamers are now also the largest employers of Canadians working in film. They account for over half, 58%, of total production investment in Canada and provide the majority of jobs—60%. Highly skilled Canadians are able to stay in Canada. New infrastructure like studios and equipment provide opportunities that weren't possible without foreign investment.

Cultural policy should support investment in Canadian creative workers and not exclusively benefit Canadian production companies. It is important to celebrate, protect and promote our culture, but the current system wrongly relies on a few mandatory conditions like IP ownership or control, plus a 10-point system in which films must score at least six to be considered Canadian.

Under the current system, The Handmaid's Tale doesn't qualify as Canadian. It's based on a novel by Canadian author Margaret Atwood, who served as a consulting producer. It features Canada-centric plot lines, was filmed in Canada—employing hundreds of Canadians—and garnered 75 Emmy nominations. Canadians were recognized internationally for their skills in art direction, production design, hairstyling, makeup artistry, costume design, visual effects and editing.

The story is similar for Jusqu'au déclin. It's a French-language Canadian storyline featuring Canadian actors, written by Canadians and filmed by Canadians. Like The Handmaid's Tale, the workers on this production also garnered awards. Also like The Handmaid's Tale, it also doesn't qualify as Canadian. The only thing not Canadian about this production is that Netflix funded it.

We need a fair system to determine which productions should be considered Canadian. The Canadian 10-point system is not only flawed; it's exclusionary. The point system prioritizes the hiring of Canadians, as it should. Having a Canadian director gets you two points. A Canadian screenwriter is worth two points. A costume designer is worth zero points. The head of makeup or hairstyling is worth zero points. We're talking about creative positions that are recognized with awards like Oscars, Emmys, BAFTAs and Canadian Screen Awards. The Canadians performing them, however, don't count for a single point, not to mention the hundreds of Canadian crew members.

What should a new system look like? First, the four conditions that are currently mandatory, such as IP ownership, should be considered but not determinative. Second, the 10-point system must be expanded.

In the U.K., the British Film Institute uses a 35-point cultural test, and productions must score at least 18 to qualify as British. The higher point system means more factors can be considered, such as whether the film is based on British subject matter, whether it's a majority British cast, whether it's a majority British crew and where the story is set. The Netherlands' 210-point cultural system considers all of this and more.

These countries, and many others, demonstrate that a stronger, fairer system is possible. We are confident that's the intention behind Bill C-11. The IATSE supports its passage. We must modernize our system so that it best serves and promotes Canada, our workers and our stories.

Thank you.

[Pierre Karl Péladeau, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebecor Media Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Pierre Karl Péladeau. With me today is Peggy Tabet, vice‑president Regulatory and Environmental Affairs.

Bill C‑11, which revises outdated legislation from 1991, is an opportunity for parliamentarians to address the growing historical inequity between foreign broadcasting platforms and Canadian companies.

As you are no doubt aware, a CRTC licence was required to obtain the status of broadcaster and cable operator. That licence was legitimately attached to conditions and regulations. Technology, such as the Internet, and globalization have made it possible to skirt the licencing requirements.

Regarding this new fundamental and inescapable equation, where foreign giants with gigantic financial capabilities have swooped in, we say that we must now remove Canadian businesses from the burden of regulations and conditions that continually stifle them and threaten their survival.

Last January, proof was provided beyond a shadow of a doubt. In fact, the Académie de la transformation numérique at Université Laval published a study that concluded unequivocally that, for the first time in Quebec, paid online viewing services have surpassed traditional cable television services. Indeed, 71% of Quebec adults subscribe to paid online viewing services, while 66% subscribe to a cable television service.

For years, Quebecor has been reiterating and alerting the various bodies that traditional local broadcasters and cable operators, such as TVA and Vidéotron, that showcase our culture and promote our artisans and talent, must face fierce competition in an outdated and unfair regulatory environment. The unbridled competition from online platforms such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney+ is unfettered, and as I said, the CRTC's overwhelming regulations threaten the sustainability of local businesses and, therefore, our cultural sovereignty and our ability to inform Canadians with rigour, while having the resources to do so.

The goal going forward is to restore fairness and reduce the regulatory burden. Indeed, over‑regulation has also contributed to the weakening of traditional local broadcasters and cable operators. This approach has been a monumental failure. Canadian broadcasters are at an all‑time disadvantage and are struggling to make a go of it.

In total, between 2010 and 2020, the combined profits before interest and taxes of the major traditional private channels fell by nearly $216 million. TVA alone has seen a drop of almost $60 million. Apart from the CBC/Radio‑Canada, no business can survive without profits.

In this context, Parliament must restore fairness between Canadian and foreign businesses, and substantially reduce the regulatory and financial burden, such as the fees referred to in Part II. As such, it is of grave concern that Bill C‑11 no longer contains the principle of fairness among the various players in the industry, which was present in the previous bill. To put an end to the current two‑tier system, Parliament should amend the bill to ensure that all broadcasting undertakings are treated fairly and equitably.

However, there is a simple solution. Instead of asking the CRTC for a new set of sprawling regulations with mind‑boggling requirements, Parliament should focus on the essentials, such as a lighter regulatory regime in which foreign online platforms contribute financially to our ecosystem and to the various industry stakeholders, to maintain a strong and robust Canadian broadcasting system.

Honourable members of Parliament, thank you very much for your attention.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Some of the things that have come up in the hearings are the exclusion and discrimination currently taking place with online streaming companies. OUTtv in testimony talked about online streaming companies basically refusing to carry them, so I want to hear your comments on the CRTC in terms of accessibility or exclusion or discrimination.

How would the CRTC handle those kinds of cases? Currently online streaming companies are not subject to any sort of oversight. How would that change with Bill C-11?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

There's a lot of discussion about the bill and what it means for YouTube, TikTok, Netflix and other platforms. While Bill C-11 directs you to respect the different ways in which these platforms operate, the act is fundamentally technology neutral and platform agnostic. Can you tell us what that means to you?

[Rachelle Frenette]

My understanding of the charter statement that was issued by the Department of Justice is that it set out that programs that are uploaded by an unaffiliated user of social media would not be subject to the act unless prescribed by regulation. In deciding to prescribe such regulation, the statement then goes on to list the number of factors that are set out in Bill C-11.

It would appear that the Department of Justice charter statement did in fact have these provisions within their contemplation when they made the statement that Bill C-11 is charter compliant.

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

Young Mr. Wyatt Sharpe would be a great suggestion as well.

Obviously, the CRTC is constrained and directed by a couple of different things, one of them being legislation itself, and the second being policy directives from the minister.

I want to start by confirming that you have not yet been given a policy directive on Bill C-11. Is that correct?

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

Are you saying that Bill C-11 is more restrictive of the CRTC than the Broadcasting Act is?

[Ian Scott]

I think it's both, with respect, and my colleagues may join me.

You made reference, and I was referring to proposed section 4.2, not by specific reference, when we talked about the CRTC's ability to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content. It's very limited as my legal colleague has explained.

There is no subsection 2(2.1), as is proposed in Bill C-11, in the Broadcasting Act as it exists today. What I was really responding to—and I'm trying to put more clearly—was that, when the discussion takes place that says we are encroaching in new areas and that the legislation gives us new powers, the point was that we have had jurisdiction over broadcasting, that broad definition I read earlier, always. It has not been used in a detailed way. We have used an exemption provision. Now there are specific provisions in Bill C-11 that say the act does not apply to users, and then it circumscribes where user-uploaded content could be subject to any regulation.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to apologize to our witnesses as well. We wanted to have you come forward to answer these questions, and for the life of me, I can't understand why a member of Parliament would block public officials from answering questions from a parliamentary committee. It just doesn't make sense. We appreciate your patience and the fact that you have waited more than two hours to answer our questions.

I want to start off with you, Mr. Scott. You said in your testimony on May 18, “We have never interfered in individual content.” You also referenced that, under the Broadcasting Act, speaking of user-generated content, “We could do any of those things today under the Broadcasting Act”, and also said that, “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to” put in place regulations—I think that's filling in your comment—to do as required in C-11.

My question is this. Since you have never interfered in individual content even though you believe you have the ability to do those things under the Broadcasting Act, what might have changed in Bill C-11, or do you see it as a similar situation, in which the CRTC would not choose to use any of the powers given to it?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I appreciate Mr. Julian and his enthusiasm, but I will keep going.

Critics of Bill C-11 have said that it will give the CRTC “sweeping powers” to regulate the global Internet from every large platform to every single user and what they post. Could you describe all the elements of the bill that scope and constrain the CRTC's powers?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

In Bill C-11, the concept of programming control is key for proposed subsection 2(2.2). Social media services do not “exercise programming control” over content uploaded by everyday users and creators. Proposed subsection 9.1(6) goes on to exclude powers that do not make sense in this context, such as the proportion of French-language programs. Proposed paragraph 10(1)(c) says the CRTC cannot make standards about these programs. This means content uploaded by everyday users and creators could not be regulated for things like obscenity, portrayal of violence or any other issue relating to the content itself. Is that fair to say?

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

I mentioned that because the old broadcasting has changed. When I look at the head of the CRTC—and it's very difficult right now with the Internet and everything going on with Bill C-11 and then Bill C-18, which I talked to you about the last time, on May 24—I don't know what that person looks like. Do you or anyone in your department make any recommendations to the minister?

This new chair of the CRTC will be visionary. It's not that you aren't, but this one—if you don't mind my saying—will have to have a little more on the plate to deal with the Internet situation and YouTube and all that we've been talking about here for the last six months. It will be a difficult position to fill.

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

Did anyone from the public office reach out to you or anybody on the table there within the last two weeks about this bill, Bill C-11?

[Ian Scott, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee.

I'll forgo the introductions. You've identified my colleagues. We are pleased to appear before the committee, specifically this time to speak about the need for Bill C-11.

The modernization of Canada's Broadcasting Act is long overdue. Created in the early 1990s, the act was a product of its time. It fostered the creation of a series of tools that were appropriate for the public-policy goals of the day, namely to protect and encourage the development of Canada's broadcasting system. In the walled garden this system created, Canadian films, music and television programs were given the opportunity to flourish.

I don't have to tell you how that reality has changed with the Internet. Those goals supported by the Broadcasting Act and the tools it created became less relevant as Internet technology embedded itself deeper into the homes, and onto the phones of Canadians.

As regulators of the broadcasting system, we paid close attention to these changes. We judged these changes were complementary—rather than detrimental—to Canada's broadcasting system, while we continued to keep a closer eye on the trends and innovations those technologies created.

Each passing year brought new changes to the system, giving Canadians a welcome ability to consume new content in new ways. Digital platforms have created and continue to create opportunities for Canadian artists and content producers but also challenges, particularly for traditional media.

In 2018, at the request of government, we conducted an in-depth study of the environment and issued our report called “Harnessing Change”. In it, we lay bare a simple truth: Canadians will rely increasingly on the Internet to discover and consume music, entertainment, news and other information in the coming years.

Our report therefore recommended that future policy approaches should focus on the production and promotion of high-quality content made by Canadians that can be discovered by audiences in Canada and abroad, should ensure that all players benefiting from the Canadian broadcasting system participate in an appropriate and equitable manner and should be sufficiently nimble to enable the regulator to adapt rapidly to changes in technology and consumer demand. We made similar recommendations to the broadcasting and telecommunications legislative review panel.

All of this brings us to Bill C-11, which the CRTC views as a much-needed piece of legislation. More effective tools, such as those proposed in C-11, are needed to ensure that Canadian stories and music can be enjoyed by audiences in Canada and across the globe. In our view, the bill proposes three very important things.

First, C‑11 builds on the existing Broadcasting Act to clarify the CRTC's jurisdiction regarding online broadcasters. It would give the CRTC new regulatory powers to deal with online broadcasting services, including non‑Canadian ones.

Second, it would give us a more flexible approach to regulation. The current Broadcasting Act does not specify how traditional players in the Canadian broadcasting system must contribute to the act's policy objectives. Bill C‑11 would allow us to make that determination as it regards online broadcasters and put in place the regulatory frameworks to support those goals.

Finally, it would modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers. Although the Telecommunications Act allows us to impose administrative monetary penalties to address non‑compliance, no such provisions exist in the Broadcasting Act.

Madam Chair, the need for modernization of the Broadcasting Act has only become more urgent.

I will stop there and invite questions from the members.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Hello, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, this committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, and, actually, members attending in the room must wear masks, according to the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy orders of March 10, 2022.

Those on Zoom, please note that at the bottom of your screen there is a globe icon for interpretation. You may choose what interpretation you're going to need. For those on the floor, you know that you can actually plug in and receive interpretation from the room itself. No photographs are meant to be taken during this meeting.

I would like to make comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to speak, and then mute yourself after you finish speaking. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen, again, for interpretation. In order to speak, you can mute or unmute yourself as needed.

Today, for our first hour of the meeting, we have one organization, and it is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Present for this group will be Ian Scott, chairperson and chief executive director; Scott Hutton, chief of consumer, research and communications; Sheehan Carter, director general, strategic policy; and Rachelle Frenette, general counsel, deputy executive director.

As the CRTC is very well aware, because they've been here before, the actual commission will have five minutes to present and then there will be questions and answers from the floor, during which you may be able to elaborate or answer any questions that are asked of you in a segment beginning with six minutes.

Right now, Mr. Scott, you may begin for five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To bring further clarity to the request that I am putting before this committee with regard to the revised charter statement that is being asked for, it is because there is a discrepancy between what the Minister of Canadian Heritage is saying and what the CRTC chair, Mr. Ian Scott, is saying concerning whether or not Bill C‑11 captures user-generated content.

To illustrate this further, I did ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage a very important question in the House of Commons yesterday, and I gave him the opportunity to clarify one way or the other. The first question that I asked the heritage minister in the House of Commons during question period yesterday was, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma here, because the heritage minister keeps telling Canadians that user-generated content, such as YouTube videos, is out, but Mr. Scott, the chair of the CRTC, has said that actually user-generated content is in. Both of these men cannot be correct, so I would ask the minister to please tell the truth.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage then responded by saying this:

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is very parliamentary, but I will still, out of respect for our democracy, answer the question. I am quite surprised that the Conservatives quote the CRTC, because they keep attacking the CRTC like they keep attacking the CBC. Actually, there is no institution they do not attack. Now it is also the Bank of Canada, for some of them. The thing is that this is simply to ask streamers to contribute to our culture. That is it—

The members of this committee will observe that the minister did not answer my question. Instead, it was talked around, which baffles me because it really is a very simple question, and I believe it can be clarified very easily. The minister simply needs to communicate whether his intent is in fact to capture—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Given that for the Minister of Justice it is one of his most important responsibilities to examine legislation and then to provide us with this charter statement, and given that the testimony provided by Mr. Scott is incongruent with what the minister is claiming, then I would say that it is very important that we gain a better understanding as to what is going on here.

Again, I would remind the committee, through you, Chair, that it is not just us, not just this committee, being informed, though that is very important, because ultimately we do have the responsibility to wade through this legislation and understand it at a very detailed level. Also, again, it is for the sake of Canadians and making sure that they have access to accurate information.

It is also to make sure that they are having Bill C-11 applied to them in the way that the minister intends. If he intends to capture user-generated content, then this bill needs to very clearly say that. I see where it does, but others would say that's more of a grey area, so let's just clarify that. If in fact Bill C-11 isn't meant to capture user-generated content, just say that as well, but regardless, this bill requires a great degree of clarity. The charter statement can help bring that clarity:

A Statement identifies Charter rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by a bill and provides a brief explanation of the nature of any engagement, in light of the measures being proposed.

A Charter statement also identifies potential justifications for any limits a bill may impose on Charter rights and freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter provides that rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limits if those limits are prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This means that Parliament may enact laws that limit Charter rights and freedoms. The Charter will be violated only where a limit is not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

In other words, if Bill C-11 does in fact capture user-generated content, then it can be argued that it is in breach of section 2(b) of the charter, which is on the right that Canadians have to freely express themselves. In what we now call the “new public square”, which would be online, Canadians should be protected to be able to share their opinions, their thoughts and their beliefs without being regulated by the CRTC.

You can see the dilemma, Chair. If user-generated content—the content that individuals post online—is captured by this bill, then it would be in breach of section 2(b) of the charter. If that's the case, then, this note does say that Parliament must show that it is “demonstrably justifiable”. That is what this says. However, again, if user-generated content is not captured by this bill, if we want to make it very clear that it's not—I should say if the minister wants to make it very clear—then there are some adjustments to this piece of legislation that are needed in order to make that absolute and in order to then protect people's individual rights and freedoms as written under the charter and, in particular, in section 2(b).

Here in this explanatory note, the justice minister goes on to write that:

A Charter Statement is intended to provide legal information to the public and Parliament on a bill's potential effects on rights and freedoms that are neither trivial nor too speculative. It is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of all conceivable Charter considerations. Additional considerations relevant to the constitutionality of a bill may also arise in the course of Parliamentary study and amendment of a bill. A Statement is not a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a bill.

In other words, this charter statement can be adapted, which is exactly what we are asking for—we being my Conservative colleagues and I—and of course, we're hoping that we can gain the support of those around this committee table. We hope that they too want as much clarity as possible when it comes to Bill C-11, and to what extent it captures online material and regulates it.

Now, I recognize that my Liberal colleagues across the way may not be amenable to this because, right now, the minister is putting forward this narrative that user-generated content is—according to him—left out of this bill, but that is not what Mr. Scott says. Again, he is the one who is responsible for making sure that Bill C-11 is enacted, and if he is interpreting this bill—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's interesting to me that my colleague raises this question of right and wrong. He is saying to you, as chair.... I believe he was saying through you, perhaps to me, that I know what is right.

It's interesting to me, because what I know to be right is to defend Canadians. What I know to be right is to insist on truth. What I know to be right is to fight for justice, which means that we should be pursuing clarity with regard to Bill C-11 and insisting on a revised charter statement, so that we can in fact make sure that user-generated content is kept out of the scope of this bill and that it is clarified to the nth degree by the justice minister.

That is what I know to be right, in case Mr. Julian cares to understand my moral compass and what I am contending.

With regard to Bill C-11 and the charter statement that has been put in front of us, as of April 1, 2022.... I've lost my train of thought, so I'll just start from the beginning with regard to the explanatory note.

It states, “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.” In other words, this statement exists to inform the conversation that takes place here. If the charter statement is in fact misinterpreted or not clear, then it is actually not informing us correctly, but rather misinforming us in terms of how we move forward on Bill C-11.

This explanatory note goes on to state, “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”]. By tabling a Charter Statement, the Minister is sharing...”.

I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but there are a number of members here in the room who are speaking, and it's a bit distracting.

I'll just let you speak to that.

[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—

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

Madam Chair, we have the CRTC coming. I think this may well be an important motion to discuss, but to not give an opportunity for clarification to the chair of the CRTC strikes me as weird, quite frankly, and unprofessional. What Mr. Scott said at the meeting held on May 18 was as follows: “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required”.

I would like to quickly respond to the general tenor of those comments, and to Mrs. Thomas. That's all true today. We could do any of the things Mrs. Thomas spoke about today under the Broadcasting Act. In other words, those provisions currently exist, putting aside Bill C-11. It seems to me that clarifying those comments is valid. It seems to me that the motion, of course, is in order, as you've mentioned, Madam Chair, but to cut off the CRTC from testifying is bizarre. It's simply inappropriate.

I would ask Mrs. Thomas, through you, Madam Chair, to simply table consideration of the motion, which she has the right to do, until after we've heard from the CRTC and enabled the chair to clarify his comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think the text is referring to Bill C-11, so it's on topic.

We would like to know if this motion should be debated and dealt with now or we should continue with the witnesses who are waiting here and came specifically to speak to this issue.

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

If you had your crystal ball and you looked 10 years in the future, if Bill C-11 were not adopted—if we just set it aside—what do you see as the impact of continued unregulated foreign companies basically doing whatever they want in Canada, and that very uneven playing field that so many witnesses have spoken to?

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to turn to the room now briefly and to Mr. Desjardins.

You talked a little bit about part II licence fees and, effectively, their amounting to a tax on traditional broadcasters, on members of, obviously, your association.

Leaving aside Bill C-11 for a second and looking at those class II licence fees and the impact they have, obviously you would support eliminating those fees, as has been suggested in the past. What type of financial impact would it have on your membership if we were simply to take those off members of your association?

[Wyatt Sharpe, Host, The Wyatt Sharpe Show]

Thank you for having me here today.

My name is Wyatt Sharpe. I'm a 13-year-old non-partisan journalist and host of the Wyatt Sharpe Show.

I've previously had the opportunity to speak to many people including the Prime Minister here in Canada, the leader of Canada's NDP, the leader of the official opposition, Canadian premiers, the former prime minister of Finland, Ukrainian MPs and several other people.

Again thank you very much for the invitation to join you here today. I greatly appreciate it.

To start off, I'll just say that as a journalist, I believe it's my role to not provide opinions. I'm here in my capacity as a non-partisan journalist.

Just to get this out of the way quickly before accepting the opportunity to appear today, I spoke with other non-partisan journalists and they provided their advice.

I've grown my show via YouTube. I've interviewed numerous people. I've had columns published in my local newspaper and here in my small town and community. I've written articles for the Toronto Star and looniepolitics.ca .

Obviously, Bill C‑11 will affect YouTube and various other social media channels.

I look forward to providing a non-partisan aspect of this legislation today. I look forward to speaking with you all and answering any questions that you might have.

[Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about this important bill.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, is the national voice of Canada's private broadcasters, representing more than 800 members around the country, including the vast majority of private radio and television stations and specialty services.

The Broadcasting Act is fundamental to the way that broadcasters are regulated in Canada, and as you've certainly heard, it's well out of date.

I know you’ve heard from many parties on this bill and its predecessors, and you know the essentials: That technological change has vastly transformed the way that Canadians receive and consume audio and visual content, and Canadian broadcasting policy has failed to keep pace with this change.

Unregulated foreign players have had a decade to enter the Canadian marketplace without any hindrance or oversight, and Canadian broadcasters compete directly with them for subscribers, the rights to content, advertisers and audiences. Moreover, Canadian broadcasters must pay hundreds of millions of dollars in part II fees annually, which do nothing to sustain or develop the Canadian broadcasting system, while foreign players pay none.

Canadian broadcasters deal with a substantial regulatory burden. Simply put, Canadian broadcasters play by the old rules and unregulated foreign platforms play by their own rules.

This is why this legislation is so important. Canadian broadcasting companies must plan several years ahead to determine how to invest in Canadian content and talent. Faced with long production cycles and increasing costs, modern media businesses cannot afford to make split-second decisions. That is why Canadian broadcasters are desperate for regulatory clarity and certainty. They need to know the rules they and their foreign competitors will be operating under to plan their businesses, and they need to know that the rules will be fair and equitable.

This is why we welcome the introduction of Bill C-11.

Bill C-11 was introduced to level the playing field. It acknowledges the presence of foreign digital platforms and would require them to contribute to Canada’s broadcasting policy objectives. For Canadian broadcasters who are asked to carry the entire burden of supporting the audiovisual creative sectors, it’s well past time for a system that is fair, equitable and flexible.

Canadian broadcasters are willing to compete, but they cannot do so in a system that allows increasingly dominant players to take as much as they want and only give back as much as they like.

We have often heard that this legislation was introduced to ensure we continue to tell Canadian stories, and for most Canadians, the most important stories they see and hear every day come from our newsrooms. Maintaining vital, independent and professional newsrooms in communities across the country is a fundamental commitment of Canada’s broadcasters. However, to be clear, this is a commitment that has seen them lose tens of millions of dollars over the past decade. It is unsustainable without urgent policy reforms.

In an era of misinformation, it is critical that we continue to support newsrooms that reflect Canadian communities. We know that digital streamers don’t have the interest or the wherewithal to do this.

It has always been the case that the entertainment programming that draws the largest audiences in Canada helps to sustain the news and information programming. Allowing foreign streamers to continue to skim all of the financial benefit from access to the Canadian market without giving anything back will ultimately reduce the number of Canadian voices being heard—fewer Canadian artists, and critically, fewer Canadian journalists.

While we fully support the passage of Bill C-11, we have three very focused amendments that we feel are essential to ensuring the bill does not entrench an inequitable, two-tiered system between regulated broadcasters and currently unregulated streaming platforms.

This includes amendments to clause 3, where we have asked for foreign streamers to contribute to a production fund where their spending can be monitored; to clause 5, where we are seeking to ensure that there is not a two-tiered system of regulatory obligations, but a fair and equitable approach to Canadian entities and their larger foreign competitors; and to clause 11, to resolve the inequity of part II fees.

It is vital that we get this legislation right. It is vital that we pass it, so we can move forward as an industry and usher in a broadcasting system that reflects today’s realities.

Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[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.

[Justin Tomchuk, Producer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Justin Tomchuk. I'm a filmmaker, musician and entrepreneur based in Montreal. Along with my fiancée, I run two YouTube channels with sizable followings.

We produce what is known as user-generated content. Since our productions derive revenue “directly and indirectly”, as described in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a) of Bill C-11, it's clear that we would fall under the umbrella of the proposed regulations.

The first YouTube channel we operate covers how Canadian products are manufactured. The first company that we featured was a new business in Montreal that makes handmade candy. All videos that we made with them have gone viral, with their most popular one achieving 30 million views. From that, their company has made a ton of international sales and became well known online to the point that American tourists were crossing the border just so they could visit their shop in person.

We’ve since featured a guitar maker in Montreal whose video is approaching 10 million views; a cutting board company in Nova Scotia that reported a huge spike in online sales; and a maple syrup farm near Ottawa that received a wholesale order from as far as Kuwait. Some of our videos were shot entirely in French and still received millions of views from a mostly American audience.

All these videos were shot out of our own pocket, qualifying for no available arts funding, and despite that, they accomplished all of this economic activity. We never received any government funding whatsoever, because we don’t qualify for it. Either our productions are deemed too small and we’d lose the intellectual property of our content, such as with the NFB, or we disqualify from arts funding because our productions are commercial in nature. In fact, because our business pays tax, we contribute funding to these programs that exclude us.

The second YouTube channel that we operate is a series of animated shows, and the majority of revenue is derived from merchandise sales such as clothing, posters, toys, vinyl records, etc., products that I source myself, some of which are from Canadian manufacturing companies. These products are exports and bring revenue into Canada and into manufacturing jobs.

Our channels have highlighted Canadian products for the world to see and purchase. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would make that more difficult and potentially destroy our visibility internationally.

Bill C-11 implies vague changes to these platforms to prioritize Canadian content to Canadians, but it would in turn deprioritize Canadian content to an international audience. The social media platforms cannot allow Canadian content to enjoy heightened exposure to Canadians without detracting exposure internationally, as it creates an uneven playing field on the platform. Less Canadian content would be shown globally as a result.

Second, the recommendation algorithms consider whether a viewer stays to watch the content and for how long. Forcing Canadians to watch CanCon content through recommendations will result in lower audience retention, as the recommendations would no longer be based on their interests. This further deranks a video’s standing and damages its visibility. Thus, this bill would hurt the exact content it is trying to promote.

Ninety-seven per cent of our viewers are international. Bill C-11 would make Canadian content a mirror instead of a window. It would stifle independent productions, result in more piracy, breed resentment among consumers and make it more difficult to attract an international audience to purchase Canadian products.

Proposed subparagraph 4.2(2)(a) needs to be removed from Bill C-11. Bill C-11 needs to make the distinction between paywalled premium distributors such as Netflix and user-generated social media platforms such as YouTube. The bill should be scrapped entirely, as it makes any online undertaking available in Canada, regardless of size, burdened with the obligations of the CRTC, which would reduce access of international content to Canadians. If this bill comes to pass, other countries may see it as precedent to adopt similar regressive laws, resulting in less Canadian content being shown internationally, effectively destroying any homegrown media and making it harder for even legacy media, not just digital creators like myself, to have access to emerging, premium, international distributors.

A solution to the problem Bill C-11 is trying to fix is to make streaming platforms give consumers the ability to filter content by region so that Canadian content can be shown when it’s sought and not by force. If we are concerned with how these social media companies are impacting us as Canadians, we should legislate transparency into how the algorithms recommend content before we enforce changes to them and damage an entire thriving online industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to meeting number 27 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Thursday, May 12, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person and on Zoom.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy, those who are in the room must wear a mask. I would like to add that you may speak with a mask on—the clerk does so all the time.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those on Zoom, if you look at the bottom of your screen, you can see the microphone icon. Click on it to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. You have a choice at the bottom of your screen for interpretation. There is a little globe, and if you press it you can get interpretation in the language of your choice. For those in the room, you know that you can use the earpiece on the desired channel.

Do not take any photographs of this meeting, please.

Everything you do must be directed through the chair.

I want to welcome the witnesses. Thank you very much for taking the time to come to this meeting today.

We have Justin Tomchuk, a producer who is appearing as an individual. We have Carol Ann Pilon, executive director of Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada; Kevin Desjardins, president, Canadian Association of Broadcasters; and Wyatt Sharpe, host of The Wyatt Sharpe Show.

Just for the sake of the witnesses, each organization has five minutes to present. I will give you a 30-second sign so that you know you should be wrapping up. You will have time during the question and answer session to finish your thoughts, if you didn't get to finish them in the five minutes.

We will begin with Justin Tomchuk for five minutes, please.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that user-generated content will be exempt from regulation under Bill C-11.

However, the bill states in black and white that the CRTC will have the power to regulate all content that directly or indirectly generates revenues. This means that almost all content will be regulated. Experts are against the idea.

Can the minister categorically assure us that all user-generated content will be exempt, yes or no?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we are standing up for them, as we are standing up for other cultural workers, for producers, for actors, and for our technicians, which is something the Conservatives cannot do. They cannot say they are going to support Bill C-11 because it is important to tell their stories, because it is important for music, or because it is important for television. They never said that, and they never will.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about representation. Yesterday, we heard a troubling revelation at committee. An organization dedicated to opposing Bill C-11 admitted that it was paid by YouTube and TikTok, but they claimed to represent exactly that, digital creators, saying they were grassroots. That is called astroturfing. Of course, this was never revealed before, and it raises serious questions. Did the Conservatives know this when they invited that organization?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives care about Canadian creators, but the Liberals continue to ignore the negative impacts of Bill C-11. This morning, digital creator and 47-year-old skateboarding mom Oorbee Roy told this to the committee: “not only does this bill not help me; it hurts me and actively undermines my needs.... I literally have never gotten a seat at the table, except now. As a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters.... Please don't suppress my voice.”

Will the government do the right thing and fully exempt user-generated content and remove proposed section 4.2 from Bill C-11?

Broadcasting Act

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees that Canada needs a modernized Broadcasting Act that fits today's digital age. Unfortunately, Liberal Bill C-11 is another in a long line of bad Liberal bills. Bill C-11 would create more red tape for businesses and creators, put more control in the hands of the incompetent CRTC and open up a Pandora's box of Internet regulation.

If passed, Bill C-11 could give the government the power to decide what Canadians can and cannot post on their social media profiles. Bill C-11 would limit consumer choice, drive up prices, create further uncertainty for Canadian businesses and creators and limit the free expression of all Canadians. It is time for the government to scrap Bill C-11 and get back to the drawing board, once and for all.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, you talked about the importance of looking ahead, and, sure, I think we can all agree to that. That's no problem. We can look ahead and anticipate what's to come. However, what I believe is perhaps unreasonable in this scenario is that we're being asked to put forward amendments without yet having heard all of the testimony that is to be brought forward to this committee. We don't know what those remaining witnesses might bring forward with regard to recommendations for amendments. There seems to be a lack of any sort of logic to enforce that or to make sure that we bring forward amendments before hearing from those witnesses.

I would highlight for the committee that the agreement we came to was not for a maximum of 20 hours. Nor was it a hard stop at 20 hours. It was for a minimum of 20 hours of witness time. I can appreciate that the last hour within that minimum framework will be granted— that is the right thing to do—so thank you, but also, let's acknowledge the fact that there are many more witnesses who have asked to come before this committee. Perhaps it is worth acknowledging that and seeing if it might be possible to give additional time.

For example, we have a bill in front of us that is going to have a direct impact on places or companies like Apple or Amazon or Roku, none of these has been invited as a witness, as far as I can tell, thus far. I'm wondering if there would be opportunity to bring forward witnesses such as the ones I have listed just now.

In addition to that, I think we as a committee have a responsibility to make sure that multiple voices are represented here on behalf of Canadians. That is our job. To rush this through without giving a chance for a variety of witnesses—including the ones I have listed—to be heard from seems irresponsible. Again, I would just encourage the committee to perhaps consider going above and beyond that minimum threshold of 20 hours.

The other thing I will state is this: It stands out to me that the CRTC chair, Mr. Scott, testified in this committee a couple of weeks ago, at which point he stated that the CRTC does have the ability to regulate user-generated content within the framework of this piece of legislation, Bill C-11, as it stands. That is interesting to me, and to many Canadians, because there is a charter statement that says otherwise and deems this bill charter-compliant.

The CRTC chair Mr. Scott and the charter statement cannot both be true. It would seem, then, that a new charter statement is required at this committee before we can move forward and consider the bill in clause-by-clause, because if in fact this bill, as it stands, is not found to be charter-compliant, then that would need to be revisited. Again, this committee would not be doing its diligence or functioning in a diligent manner if it did not take that into account. I would encourage this committee as well to call for a new charter statement before we continue proceeding to clause-by-clause consideration.

Madam Chair, in summary, I'm asking for two things. I'm asking that we consider the fact that when we discussed hours granted, we said a minimum of 20 hours, so there is opportunity to hear from additional witnesses who would like their voices to be added here at this committee.

The second consideration that I am putting before you as chair and the rest of the members of this committee is that a new charter statement is required in order to ensure that this bill is in fact compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Again, I will highlight that there is an incongruence between the testimony of Mr. Scott and what the charter statement says.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Waugh.

I am listening, and I have made a consideration. I would like to respond.

I think we had all agreed when we started and embarked on Bill C-11 in good faith.... I sat here and I listened to everyone talk to each other quietly in the room. We suspended in order to do that. It was not a question or a tentative suggestion. We had agreed that there would be 20 more hours of hearing witnesses.

By Thursday, June 2, we will have achieved 19 hours. I am certain we could ask the clerk if we could extend one of those meetings by one hour. She would try to find a way to do that, if everyone is insisting on the 20 hours. It is what we had all agreed on.

I think we have always had meetings where we were doing thing one and looking ahead to do item two. It is not unusual for committees to look ahead. We are looking ahead.

I have had suggestions from the floor. It is important that we respect the clerk and the legislative assistant and the legislative analysts, who would like us to give them some formal direction. It has been suggested by one of the members of this committee, and agreed on by two other parties, that in fact a hard deadline...or not a hard deadline, because Mr. Méla has told us that the deadline can fluctuate. If we have a deadline for the majority of amendments to come from this committee by four o'clock on Friday, it means that if on the weekend or on Thursday we hear some things that we want to change, Mr. Méla has assured us that we have the ability to do that while we're considering amendments. These can come from the floor.

I don't see that this is necessarily unfair. I think this is about good faith. This committee has always worked on good faith and on consensus. I think we saw that when we agreed on the 20 hours of witnesses.

What I would like to suggest is that the majority in this room...and I think I would like to hear if there is opposition to that hard deadline, because I'm going to call for a vote on it.

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

No, I think you responded. You said it's not okay. We've had some other witnesses who say that's fine and I deeply disagree with that.

You're saying it's not okay. You've had undoubted success. I gather from your testimony and your responses to questions that you see a role for Bill C-11, but what you're concerned about more is getting improvements within the bill.

In the discussions we've had today and the questions that you've had, are there areas specifically where you think Bill C-11 can be improved? You certainly talked about the CRTC and I understand that. Are there other areas where you think Bill C-11 can be improved so that it is a benefit, from your perspective?

As I mentioned, many of our witnesses have been strong advocates for Bill C-11.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to come back to Ms. Roy.

I found your testimony very interesting, because we've had, of course, a significant number of witnesses stepping up and very positively talking about Bill C-11. We've had a number of witnesses talking about amendments. We had some people who are opposed to C-11, but at the same time there seem to be very compelling arguments for it.

I want to come back to the issue of TV, and I would like you to respond to it. You mentioned earlier that it is curated, the streaming service. That's fair enough, but is that exclusion, that discrimination, something you feel we should be concerned about?

[Pierre Trudel]

In fact, the challenge is to update the regulations that all the countries of the world have deemed necessary to implement to ensure that everyone has a real voice and can have a say. Of course, the technical world of the Internet allows for many more possibilities. However, we have seen and are seeing more and more that the Internet, as it currently operates, is dominated by a number of large companies that are practically monopolies, and it is these companies that regulate the system.

So, indeed, the great challenge is to update the regulation not to try to keep some kind of dead regulation artificially alive, but rather to modernize the state's way of doing things. The presence of the Internet implies changes in everyone's way of doing things, including those of the state. I am among those who believe that Bill C‑11 will have to change the way regulations, particularly through the CRTC, operate to take into account the fact that we have a technological framework that is very different from the one that existed before.

What does not change, however, is the need to ensure the fair operation of this space for exchanges, which has become considerable and impressive. We need to make sure that it continues to work in such a way that Canadians also have a voice.

I think that is how Bill C‑11 should be viewed—not as an attempt to keep an embalmed corpse alive when things are dying. It is quite the opposite. There are opportunities, and we need to make sure the regulatory system works in a way that equips all Canadians to take their place in this different but challenging environment.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Denton, I'm hoping you can weigh in here.

There's been a lot of talk around the Broadcasting Act and it needing to “be updated”. It's said that this is what Bill C-11 is all about. However, in your opening remarks you would say otherwise. I'm hoping that perhaps you can talk a little bit about how this bill is actually quite regressive in nature and how it brings speech under the control of government through the categorization of “broadcasting”.

[Pierre Trudel]

In fact, the issue of algorithms is crucial, because by default, that's how speech is regulated in the large platforms. At present, it is the companies that own these large platforms that have control over the algorithmic processes, and it is they who are targeted by the bill. Let's not kid ourselves. It is not individuals who are targeted, but the large companies that own the large platforms. However, these algorithmic processes have the disadvantage of being very opaque. They are not very visible. We do not know how these platforms and algorithms work, and no independent authority is in a position to know.

The strength of Bill C‑11 is that it puts in place mechanisms that will allow an independent body, the CRTC, to hold the major platforms accountable, particularly with respect to the operation of their algorithms.

Are the algorithms of these platforms compatible with the principle and values of inclusion that we cherish in Canada? Do these algorithms discriminate against some of our fellow citizens, for example against LGBT+ groups, which were mentioned earlier? We don't know at this point. We must rely on the good faith of companies, and I do not doubt their good faith. In fact, if these companies are acting in good faith, they should have no difficulty explaining how these algorithms work and demonstrating that this is completely compatible with Canadian values, particularly with regard to equality.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all our panellists for being here today. It is much appreciated.

I will direct my question to Professor Trudel.

Much of the debate on Bill C-11 has muddled a very important distinction. The Internet does not simply equate to social media platforms, and platforms don't equate to the whole of the Internet. Social media platforms are headed by companies that are making tutorial, algorithmic, data-led business choices every day in running these platforms, and that has a direct impact on creators on these platforms and the users themselves.

Can you speak on this distinction and on why it's important that we study Bill C-11's regulatory obligations for these companies?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm super-impressed. I want to be like you when I am 45.

For my next question, I want to ask you about CanCon and discoverability. Under Bill C-11, we know that anything that falls within the definition of CanCon will be bumped up in the queue. In other words, it will be forced in front of the eyeballs of Canadians in order to give it preference, in order to “promote” it. However, it is my understanding that this will have a detrimental impact.

I'm hoping that, as an individual who uses YouTube largely as your platform and TikTok as well, you could comment on what this will do to you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to follow up on Monsieur Trudel's comments about the exclusion about TV. I'll direct my questions to Mr. Palmer, Mr. Denton and Ms. Roy.

We had testimony last week where OUTtv was excluded from a number of streaming platforms, which were basically saying they weren't interested in LGBT content and won't put that content on their platforms. We've had some proponents—people who are opposed to C-11—saying that they don't want gatekeepers for the streaming services, but it seems to me that this is a key example of big companies acting as gatekeepers in an exclusionary and discriminatory way.

I wanted to get comments from each one of you about this exclusion. For OUTtv, the company was basically saying that they're not going to have that content, without explanation. It could be indigenous peoples or it could be racialized people. There is a whole range of content right now that companies basically can choose, as they did with OUTtv, to exclude. There's no regulatory oversight.

Mr. Trudel testified that C-11 has an advantage of bringing to bear some regulatory framework.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Palmer. How do you feel about that exclusion? Do you feel that companies are acting as gatekeepers? Would you admit that in this case it's very clear that their acting in that way?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Trudel, I'm turning to you once again.

I found the end of your exchange with Mr. Bittle interesting. Some people say that no country has regulations on digital platforms and online businesses that are as invasive as Bill C‑11. Yet in your column in Le Devoir on May 3, you talked about the European bill on digital services, which aims to make platforms accountable in general, especially for illegal content, violence, and so on, but which also addresses transparency in the operation of recommendation algorithms.

Tell us a little about this European approach.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you very much, Professor.

Past witnesses have speculated that leaving the door open to regulating user-generated content might invite the CRTC to censor individual posts in the future.

Could you explain how proposed paragraphs 3(1)(g) and (h) prohibit this in Bill C-11?

[Pierre Trudel]

As I understand it, the CRTC does not have the power to impose taxes. This bill does not give it the power to do so, and certainly not with respect to digital creators. I don't see where Bill C‑11 would give the CRTC such power.

The bill does, however, ensure that companies that earn revenues from the Canadian market reinvest them in Canadian creation.

[Timothy Denton]

The basic point is that the current regulated universe has about 4,000 to 5,000 entities. With Bill C-11, the range of entities that would come under CRTC jurisdiction may get up to several million. Indeed, there are no limitations, as far as I can see, on the range of sources because it's just an IP address, of which there are billions, so take your pick.

The basic premise of Bill C-11, and the broadcasting telecom review that preceded it, is an almost infinite faith in the wisdom, capacity and talent of government to make complex and difficult decisions. A government is good at making some decisions sometimes, but with the range of authority being handed over to these people, who are only human, after all, and very much bound by law and regulation to make decisions in a slow and deliberate way, it won't work.

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

You're right.

I'll move over to you, Mr. Denton. What are your thoughts?

I think that public policy and public confidence in the CRTC are low in this country. I will say that. We have seen some decisions they've made, and some that they haven't made for up to 11 years.

Is there any way we can have some trust in the CRTC to follow through on regulations on Bill C-11, as you see it?

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

Yes. I'm worried about Bill C‑11, but I'm more worried about Bill C‑18. As you know, because you were there, you had no business in newspapers. The CRTC will now be chosen to pick winners and losers, but that's for another battle with Facebook and Google.

What recommendations would you make, because you were on the CRTC for five years, that would give us, let's say, some confidence that it is capable to deal with Bill C‑11? Is there anything you can point out so that it would listen, as we are today, and take heed of an experienced person like yourself? Perhaps we can look forward to a couple of suggestions that would provide us with at least a bit of confidence in the CRTC.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Welcome, guests.

I'll just be honest. I don't share the enthusiasm that some of you have for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Trudel have been talking about the CRTC. We've waited 17 months for the CRTC to approve the licence of the CBC, the public broadcaster. We've waited a year now for a three-digit system for suicide, and I have some others.

On July 20, 2015, the CRTC said it would review the French-language music policy. Today, almost seven years later, the CRTC still has not finished that review. In 2008, it said it was going to review the 1990 indigenous policy and implement a new policy in 2011. Well, 11 years later, it still has not finished that review.

Mr. Palmer, you were there in 1991 for the Broadcasting Act. Am I incorrect in my assumption that the CRTC is well over its head. There's no way that it can possibly look after Bill C‑11, when I've just stated four or five issues that it hasn't dealt with in the past 11 years.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Pierre Trudel]

Yes. In my opinion, there are two ways to improve Bill C‑11.

First, I would remove the proposed provision that prohibits the CRTC from requiring the use of algorithms or software solutions. These are tools that can be useful in regulation. I don't understand why the CRTC would be prohibited from using tools of this nature if it deems it appropriate. In my view, subsection 9.1(8), which the bill proposes to add to the Broadcasting Act, should be deleted.

On the other hand, I would add something in the bill about the requirement for the CRTC to hold public hearings. It says that the CRTC will be able to make orders to impose conditions on undertakings that will be regulated, that is, those that have a significant impact on Canadian broadcasting policy. It seems to me that the CRTC's issuance of such orders should be conditional on the holding of public hearings at which everyone can be heard and make their views known. In my view, this is a tradition of Canadian broadcasting policy that should be maintained.

In Canada, we have been successful in creating a national dialogue on these often difficult and controversial issues. The CRTC has been, and should continue to be, that forum in which any actions or orders it considers could be openly debated by all citizens and interested groups. For this reason, I believe that the CRTC's obligation to hold public hearings should be expanded so that it also applies when it makes orders.

So those are the two improvements that I think could be made to the bill: removing the prohibition on requiring the use of software and expanding the obligation to hold public hearings.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I also thank all the witnesses. We are very happy that they are here, because their testimony is important.

We have been having witnesses here since last week, and the overwhelming majority of them support Bill C‑11. Some of them have proposed amendments to us.

I will start with Mr. Trudel.

You said you support the bill. Do you still find that it could be improved?

[Pierre Trudel]

I do not share these concerns. The Broadcasting Act already gives the CRTC full discretion, and more importantly, requires it to deal only with activities that have a demonstrable impact on the achievement of Canadian broadcasting policy. In the past, the CRTC has used the current section 9(4) of the Broadcasting Act to avoid regulating precisely what it did not have to regulate, to the extent that it did not affect the achievement of the policy.

It seems to me that we could just as easily have been content with this approach, which, in my view, offers the best safeguards to ensure that we do not regulate services that have no demonstrable impact on the achievement of the objectives of Canadian broadcasting policy.

If we had avoided introducing what has been introduced in Bill C‑11, I think we would have a much clearer law.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

You were there when our committee was studying Bill C‑10 last year. We had the opportunity to talk to each other a few times. This year, we're looking at Bill C‑11, and as you can see the incorporation of section 4.2, which has been rewritten, into the Broadcasting Act is being proposed once again.

What do you think about the return of the proposed section 4.2 to the bill, which is causing a lot of reaction? Do you think it is clumsy? Do you think it is well written? How do you rate people's concerns about this section?

[Pierre Trudel]

The option that was chosen in Bill C‑11, as I understand it, is to bring broadcasting and transmission activities that use the Internet medium under the Broadcasting Act. There may have been another option. For example, the Yale Report, entitled “Canada's communications future: Time to act”, recommended instead that an entirely new communications act be created, which could have considered these issues in a different way.

There is one constant between the Broadcasting Act of 1991 and the bill currently before you, and that is the concern that companies that benefit from the Canadian audience in the broadcast of their programs contribute to the financing of the production of Canadian programs. This is the basic philosophy of the 1991 Broadcasting Act, and this is what the current Bill C‑11 seems to want to carry forward.

Broadcasting in Canada is not viewed primarily as a market in which there are suppliers and consumers. It is a tool for societal cohesion, through which we want to ensure that everyone has a voice, that there are services in both official languages throughout the vast territory, and that indigenous peoples have a say and an opportunity to have a voice in the system.

So, it's not just consumers using the Internet to broadcast their programs, which is perfectly permissible and legitimate. Indeed, that is why the act provides that the CRTC has the authority to target only those activities that have a demonstrable impact relating to Canadian broadcasting policy objectives. That is the strength of the act, it seems to me.

[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?

[Philip Palmer]

First of all, there is nothing that distinguishes Bill C-11 from Bill C-10 in terms of the constitutional issues that are raised, and there's nothing that makes Bill C-11 more constitutionally acceptable.

The uncertainty that this is going to lead to is that it will hang over the system until the Supreme Court has spoken. The question is really, who is going to then challenge federal jurisdiction over broadcasting? I can't predict who that will be, but it's likely to be some Canadian domestic player that has enough means to finance itself, but not enough means to.... I don't believe the large players are going to be the people who are going to challenge.

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

Thank you so much, I appreciate that.

I want to turn to Mr. Palmer and use some of your expertise as a justice department lawyer for several decades. You wrote an article in relation to the former Bill C-10, called “C-10: An Unconstitutional Power Grab”. One of the lines used in there was:

Years of litigation and uncertainty will be the inevitable result of the legislative overreach of the federal government under the guise of broadcasting legislation.

I want to ask you whether you believe this is still applicable to the current Bill C-11 and what you foresee happening in the months, years and decades to come after the implementation of this bill? What types of challenges do you see from a legal standpoint or a constitutional standpoint going forward?

You touched on it a bit in your opening comments, but if you could expand on that, I'd appreciate it.

[Timothy Denton, Chairman, Internet Society Canada Chapter]

Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for asking us to appear.

I'm Timothy Denton, and I'm chairman of the Internet Society Canada Chapter. Its membership consists largely of former regulators and senior public servants, Ph.D. candidates in communications and professors, together with others interested in communications policy from a pro-Internet perspective. Every branch of the Internet Society is independent of every other one, and all rely on voluntary efforts.

My background is in telecommunications and broadcasting law. I'm a lawyer by training and I have a master's degree in law and communications from the University of Ottawa. I worked at the CRTC in the late 1970s and later I was policy adviser to the minister of communications in the period when we developed the Broadcasting Act of 1991.

Possibly more important, I've also been on the board of the American Registry for Internet Numbers and the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, as well as participating in various bodies that form part of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which is known as ICANN.

I found that, by listening carefully to the engineers and technologists, I learned a great deal about how the Internet works and what its basic features are. I served as a national commissioner of the CRTC under chairmanships of Konrad von Finckenstein and Jean-Pierre Blais from 2009 to 2013.

One of the strangest experiences I had was to come back to the CRTC after a gap of 30 years to find that the mentality had not changed since I'd been there in 1979. The Internet was still referred to as “new media” despite the fact that the Internet had taken shape in 1974. People would go home to watch Netflix but the phenomenon they were watching had no bearing on their jobs. It was as if by casting a magic spell over the Internet by calling it “new media” they could capture it for Canadian broadcasting regulation. In fact, this is the essence of our critique of the new Bill C-11.

There is a fatal ambiguity at work in Bill C-11. It is spoken about as if it were an act to modernize broadcasting law. If that were so, then the act could work by subsidizing Canadian TV productions out of streaming revenues. Various speakers before you, such as Peter Menzies and Michael Geist, have spoken to this effect.

It is the contention of the Internet Society Canada Chapter that the ambitions of government as expressed in this bill are much wider.

The language of Bill C-11 has so defined the word “program” to include any moving images or sounds or sounds and moving images. It has so defined the CRTC's regulatory authority that it covers anything that might engender revenues directly or indirectly. The chairman of the CRTC observed recently that the bill would give the commission authority to regulate user-generated content.

Broadcasting is a form of communication that requires government licensing or regulation. The Broadcasting Act contains very severe penalties for broadcasting without a licence. The act lays out hundreds of thousands' and millions of dollars' worth of fines. Bill C-11 maintains this in its entirety.

By contrast, think about writing, speaking or printing. You do not need a government licence to pick up the phone and talk, nor to write an email. The regulation of speech takes place after one has spoken, not before. Unique to the 20th century, broadcasting reintroduced the idea of the need for prior government permission to be able to communicate using specific technologies. This made sense when broadcasters used airwaves with early radio technology. When very few spoke to millions, there was strong argument for regulation of broadcast speech.

Make no mistake. This bill as written is about speech controls when talking using audio or audiovisual means across the Internet. Indeed, by the expansion of this logic in Bill C-11, the government might just as well define email and talking on the phone as broadcasting.

BillC-11 could be better retitled from online streaming to an act for the regulation of communications across the Internet. It would be a more honest and accurate title.

Thank you. I await your questions.

[Pierre Trudel, Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, colleagues and fellow participants, good morning.

I am a professor of law at the University of Montreal and, since 1979, I have taught the Broadcasting Act. I participated in the drafting of the new Broadcasting Act of 1991, including as research director of the Caplan-Sauvageau Task Force, which was responsible for the current version of the Broadcasting Act.

The purpose of Bill C‑11 is to ensure that all undertakings engaged in the business of broadcasting and distributing programming by means of the Internet or otherwise operate in harmony with the requirements of Canadian broadcasting policy, which is set out in section 3 of the Broadcasting Act and which the bill in fact proposes to amend and supplement. By proceeding with this long overdue update, Parliament will be engaging in a necessary catch-up exercise in the development of the legislative framework for the broadcasting of audiovisual creations, which are increasingly dependent on online environments.

This upgrade is essential to ensure that our communications system functions as a conduit that carries information of all kinds, and also gives Canadians the effective opportunity to choose programming or to produce and broadcast programming that reflects the rich diversity of our society and the existence of Canada's official languages and the languages of indigenous peoples.

Since 1991, the Broadcasting Act has had very clear provisions prohibiting the CRTC from making decisions that would violate freedom of expression. It is unfortunate that because of unsubstantiated allegations that the proposed amendments to the Broadcasting Act may result in regulations that would infringe on freedom of expression, the legislation has ended up with all sorts of exclusions and supposed clarifications that only make the text more cumbersome.

Nonetheless, the wording that Bill C‑11 proposes for paragraphs 3(1)(q) and 3(1)(r) of the Broadcasting Act is to be welcomed. These additions explicitly address the need to promote the discoverability of Canadian works. In this sense, the legislation adjusts Canadian broadcasting policy to the context of online environments.

On the other hand, subclause 9.1(8) that clause 10 of Bill C‑11 proposes to add to the Broadcasting Act, as drafted, would introduce an unnecessary and dangerous exclusion. This subsection removes the ability of the CRTC to require or regulate the use of particular computer algorithms or source codes.

Taking away this ability of the CRTC to mandate the use of technological tools that are consistent with the ways in which online environments operate would paralyze the regulator's action. It would be forced to limit itself to the tools of the past in order to regulate future technological situations.

In my view, there is no rational reason to exclude the possibility of imposing the use of software tools to ensure that undertakings operate in accordance with the principles and objectives of Canadian broadcasting policy. I remind you that that policy aims to be inclusive of minorities, such as persons belonging to racialized groups and sexual minorities, as well as to ensure the place of indigenous peoples in the overall system.

I will conclude by saying that to ensure the transparency of the act, it would also be appropriate to ensure that the making of orders by the CRTC under clause 16 of Bill C‑11 be subject to public hearings.

I am, of course, available for further discussion and to answer your questions.

[Oorbee Roy, Digital Content Creator, As an Individual]

Hi. My name is Oorbee Roy. I'm a mother, wife, skateboarder and Canadian. I come here as an individual who's trying to make a living as a digital content creator to discuss Bill C-11 and how it affects me.

I don't have a million followers. I don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am climbing my way up slowly and methodically, trying to make a living in this space.

Bill C-11 and so many parts of it are fantastic. I appreciate that the intent is to try to help Canadian artists and creators. In theory, pushing out Canadian content on user-generated platforms sounds fantastic—Yay!—but there are a few things concerning to me that should be addressed and understood.

Number one is that, as it currently stands, I don't qualify as CanCon. It is very difficult for small creators to qualify. The platform, which can only push out so much content, will be regulated and will be forced to show big media qualified CanCon 40% of the time. That means I'll have to fight against other small digital creators within that remaining 60% space for visibility.

Number two is that, if I do qualify, then as it stands, each piece of content has to be approved by the CRTC. That means I'll have to wait for the bureaucratic machine over at the CRTC to regulate my “five steps to start skateboarding” video. User-generated content does well when it follows current trends, but by the time my video is approved, I'll miss the trend and my video will bomb.

Number three is that platforms will pay into the CRTC, but I won't see a dime of that money, because as it stands—say it with me—I do not qualify for CanCon. If the platforms are redirecting that money to CanCon, then instead of putting the money into workshops or training or other professional development opportunities for creators like me, it will go to CanCon-approved media outlets.

How does that even make sense? Not only does this bill not help me. It also hurts me and actively undermines my needs as an artist. There's no language in the bill to tell me otherwise.

Frankly, I don't qualify. I'm just not the right fit. That I'm not the right fit is a story I've been told my whole life. I'm too brown. I'm a nerd. I'm too old. I'm female. I'm not feminine enough. I'm not the right demographic, but I've never been the right demographic. My voice has been suppressed far too many times. That's not an easy thing to do, because I have a pretty loud voice.

Somehow along the way, I discovered a platform that allows me to tell my story as I see fit in my own voice. Other people are indeed interested in my story. Somehow this tall, brown, old and somewhat-out-of-shape mom who skateboards resonates with people all over the globe. Authentic, inspiring, genuine content—that's Canadian content.

Listen, I've studied the algorithm at length. I don't exactly know how the algorithm works, but I do know this to be true: Every time a video of mine goes viral, which is not all the time, opportunity comes knocking. For example, the team at TikTok Canada invited me to a Canadian movie premiere of a Canadian movie, where I got to interview a Canadian actor, Ryan Reynolds. I made some TikToks about it. One of them went viral, with 7.2 million views globally—it was a good video—and guess what happened? TV stations started calling me. I signed three global brand deals. In fact, Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada helped me get one of those deals.

If my video is suppressed because the CRTC decides that someone else's content should be artificially pushed over mine, I lose my ability to get in front of my audience. That directly affects my bottom line.

The language of this bill matters. Please, sure, help—great, fantastic—but make sure the language is clear. Minister Rodriguez stated that online streamers don't contribute to Canadian culture: “[It's] very simple. Platforms are in and users are out.”

Herein lies the problem. With all due respect, the minister does not understand the language, and that can be dangerous. “Platforms” are in but “users” are out. My husband, who watches skate videos, is a user, whereas I make a living on the platform as a creator. Without creators, there is no platform for users to watch. To me, then, he's saying that platforms, and by extension creators, are in, but users are out. That's what's concerning to me. A lack of understanding leads to a lack of clarity. Please make it clear or leave that section out.

I want to thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I literally have never gotten a seat at the table—except now, as a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters. If I, as a 47-year-old South Asian mom, can earn a living as a skateboarder, then literally anything is possible. Please don't suppress my voice.

Thank you.

[Philip Palmer, As an Individual]

Madam Chairperson and honourable members, it is an honour to be able to speak to you today and to address C-11.

For more than 30 years, I was a lawyer with the Department of Justice and held a number of senior positions within that department. One of my most memorable and rewarding experiences was to have worked on the drafting and adoption of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. In the course of that work, I became keenly aware of the policy, constitutional and regulatory issues surrounding broadcasting.

Broadcasting regulation is a regulation born of scarcity. Radio waves were and remain a scarce resource. Initially, few persons could be licensed to broadcast to the public. A limited number of licensees meant that a broadcaster could potentially abuse its communications power to manipulate and abuse the public opinion. This, in turn, led to a form of comprehensive broadcasting regulation.

As the carrying capacity of cable increased over the years, the scarcity argument for broadcasting regulation weakened. It was our belief, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that in a 500-channel universe, comprehensive broadcasting regulation would no longer be necessary.

We now live in the Internet age. The Internet is not limited to 500 channels. It has virtually unlimited capacity to permit every form of communication and permit any member of the public to hear an extraordinary diversity of voices. Canadians operate 160,000 channels on YouTube alone. There is no scarcity on the Internet.

Given the bounty of content on the Internet, it is both counterintuitive and, frankly, shocking to witness not the dismemberment of the broadcasting regulation but its extension to the whole of the Internet.

I want to briefly make four points.

First, the impulse to use the Broadcasting Act to regulate the Internet is grounded in concerns of protecting an existing industry. It has no justification in terms of protecting broader public interests.

Second, C-11 lacks a foundation in Canadian constitutional law. Internet streaming services do not transmit to the public by radio waves, nor do they operate telecommunications facilities across provincial boundaries. They and their audiences are the clients of telecommunications common carriers, which are subject to federal regulation. Netflix, for instance, in this case is no more a federal undertaking than a law firm such as McCarthy Tétrault or a chain store like Canadian Tire, both of which rely extensively on telecommunications services.

The third point is that the mere fact that some Internet services compete with traditional broadcasters is not a justification to extend federal regulation over Internet services. Looked at historically, successive forms of delivering popular culture have had their moment in the sun. There has been a progression from vaudeville to movies to radio to television to the Internet. What we see at play today is not some demonic plot by Internet interlopers. What we see is the creative destruction of capitalism. C-11 is not a solution to the problems of broadcasters, but it is an active harm to those who create and disseminate content on the Internet.

Fourth, and lastly, the issues that underlie C-11 are not the ones that can be resolved through regulations. They are largely questions of money. I believe C-11 should be focused on ensuring that the web giants contribute to Canadian programming, not on regulating them.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, the committee is meeting to the study Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, as you can all see, pursuant to the House of Commons order of November 25, 2021. Members attending in person must wear a mask at all times, and members attending virtually will be using Zoom. As for the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending in the room must wear a mask at all times. Actually, you could wear a mask and speak. We can hear you very well. The clerk speaks with a mask all the time.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. First, you cannot take photographs of this meeting, so please remember that. Wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, and for those participating by video conference, if you look at the bottom of your screen, you will see a globe icon. Please use that for interpretation. Those of you in the room, you know that you can plug in for interpretation in the room itself. If you want to activate your mike, there is a mike icon at the bottom of the screen, and when you're not speaking, I would ask you please to mute yourselves.

We will now begin this meeting, and I want to welcome all of the witnesses. Thank you for coming in to meet with us on this very important bill.

Witnesses all have five minutes per individual, or group, to make opening remarks. If you are a group, you can split your time in any way that you choose, and I will give you a 30-second notice. I'll just say it, so you don't have to look up from your notes to see if I'm holding up a card. When you have 30 seconds left, I will give you a signal, and you can wrap up.

Our witnesses today include, as an individual, Philip Palmer. Oorbee Roy is a digital content creator. Pierre Trudel is a professor at the Université de Montréal, and Timothy Denton is chairman of the Internet Society Canada Chapter.

We'll begin with Mr. Palmer, for five minutes, please.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are the ones who got rid of the boutique tax credits. By the way, it is a tool to use in the marketplace to incentivize consumer choices; that is why we do it like that.

Let us get back to what the member said earlier. I actually really appreciated the beginning of his response to that question. He said their job is to critique legislation and to make it better. He said to look at Bill C-11, and that he did not think the government should be doing that.

That is not what the Conservatives are doing, though. The member and his party are not coming here and saying they want to make the legislation better. They are coming here and putting up every single roadblock possible to prevent anything from happening. That is not their job.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a fair question. Lots of people wonder what the role of the opposition is in government.

The role is to make sure that government legislation does get better. We have some very thoughtful but maybe critical arguments on some of the legislation, for example Bill C-11. I do not think the government should be legislating the Internet and regulating what people can and cannot see. I believe in free speech. The Liberals do not. There is another example. I do not think people should have to pay a carbon tax on the gas they use in their vehicles, on the equipment they use to seed or on the machinery they use to grow food for people across Canada. I do not think schools should have to pay carbon tax on their heating. I do not think there should be a carbon tax on bussing kids to school in Saskatchewan. These are policy debates we could have.

The Liberals say, “But they get it back.” My question or comment, and Premier Wall made the same comment, would be this: If the government is just going to give the carbon tax back to Canadians in boutique tax credits, why take it in the first place? Please, why do we not let Canadians keep the money in their own pockets?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Based on that, and we talked about it last time you were here, in all of your social media, in all of your advocacy, you are pretty much just anti-C-10 and anti-C-11. You don't advocate for better working conditions and you're taking money from tech giants. Why should we listen to anything that you have to say, especially in light of the fact that the vast majority of Canadians on these platforms are making zero dollars, and 60% of those who are eligible are making less than $10,000, which is far less than traditional artists? You're representing a system that—

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

I appreciate that.

I want to step away just a minute from you, Mr. Benzie, and go to some of our other witnesses.

We heard some conversations earlier in this committee and others about the definition of Canadian content and some of the challenges that certain entities have had with the definition and assumption of ownership of intellectual property.

I want to turn to Mr. Sonoda and Ms. Noble from ACTRA to get your opinions on the definition of Canadian content and what we may hope or expect to see in a ministerial directive to the CRTC on revising what Canadian content may or may not be post-Bill C-11.

[Margaret McGuffin]

It's been very interesting watching legislation being passed around the world in reference to the tech companies. What we saw in the last two years out of Europe around their copyright act and the misinformation and the misleading statements that were made around that act is something we can learn from here in Canada. We also saw this in Australia with their newspaper legislation, where Google made misleading statements and threatened that the legislation was going to break the Internet.

It is a script that we are seeing over and over again, and you as parliamentarians are going to see it as we move to other kinds of legislation. We need to make sure that the misinformation ends and that there is a way of going through the information that's being presented and making sure that we're not misleading the public or scaring people into thinking that the Internet is going to break. The Internet is not going to be broken by Bill C-11.

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

That's an important point, Madam Chair. I will use the 11 seconds just to stress the importance of the fact we are seeing gatekeeping taking place now, which I think underscores the importance of the discussion we're having on Bill C‑11.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I wanted to go to Ms. McGuffin to ask two questions.

First off, you've mentioned that the web giants don't contribute as much to community as they should. You're very clearly advocating that C-11 help to level that playing field. I want to ask you about that.

Second is a question I'll direct to you and also to Mr. Benzie. We've heard testimony that OUTtv was excluded from a number of the online streaming platforms. We're having this conversation about gatekeepers, but it seems to me that this is an example of gatekeeping, where a whole community is simply excluded from being present on online streaming platforms.

Does that not indicate that we need to start to step up to provide for that level playing field, so those kinds of exclusions can't occur?

I'll go to you first, Ms. McGuffin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

So we have to be very straightforward and remain vigilant in this regard. Thank you, Ms. Noble and Ms. Blanchette.

Mr. Benzie, everything suggests that Bill C-11 will be adopted and that you will eventually have to make representations to the CRTC. Among the proposals that the Bloc Québécois will be presenting again this year, there will be the proposal to reintroduce the concept of referral to the Governor in Council.

Is the fact that you will have an additional tool likely to reassure you, if ever the regulations put in place by the CRTC hurt digital creators?

[Lisa Blanchette]

Sure.

We think that the online streaming act could actually be game-changing for the future of Canadian content creation. It's a major opportunity for performers, in terms of jobs and exposure.

Amending proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) is crucial for us. Our goal is to equalize the regulatory obligations across all broadcasting undertakings delivering similar programming to avoid a cascade effect of traditional broadcasters seeking to lower their obligations to match those of online undertakings.

[Catherine Edwards]

In Bill C-11 our hope is that.... To give you an example, in 2016, the last time the CRTC reviewed its local and community TV policy, there were public notices of consultation that went out, and then stakeholders could weigh in. The not-for-profit community TV groups that are stepping in to fill service holes left in the wake of cable TV closures weren't even mentioned. There were questions of, well, we all know that cable community channels have been regionalized and this and that, but there was no mention that there's actually this viable other sector growing in its place.

What we are looking for in the act is recognition so that, when we talk about who's doing the work at the community level, not-for-profits are at the table. When the online streaming act goes into law and is referred to the CRTC to put in practice and there's more money in the Canadian broadcasting system, at that point we're hoping that there would be funding for a community access media fund that could fund community radio, community TV and new online digital types of media—virtual reality, video game production—where community groups are also involved. The funding comes at the next stage when there are clear definitions of what our role is supposed to be in the act.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to move on to Ms. Edwards from CACTUS.

You've been a strong proponent of community broadcasting. We've certainly seen an erosion in my community, an elimination of community television, except we have volunteers stepping up with New Westminster Community Television, and I'd like to shout out to their valuable work.

You mentioned I believe, if I understood it correctly, a 90% erosion of community television supports, and that effectively we've lost a wide variety of the community televison supports that existed before. How important is it to mend Bill C-11 so that we actually have a very clear obligation around community television that involves members of the community?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for being here today.

This is important testimony we are getting. We deeply appreciate your availability in speaking to the committee about Bill C-11 but also about the possible amendments that can actually improve it.

I'm going to start with Ms. Noble and Ms. Blanchette from ACTRA. Thank you for your work nationally. I'm certainly hearing from ACTRA members across the country who are very favourable toward C-11, but you have pointed out something that's extremely important—that you effectively can't have a level playing field if you have two standards around Canadian production. Currently, the way the bill is structured for foreign online platforms, they don't have the same responsibilities in terms of Canadian production and Canadian employment.

Could you talk about the importance of making sure that the bill does set a level playing field and that foreign online platform companies actually have the same responsibilities as Canadian broadcasters do?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That is not my style, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the witnesses once again for participating today in another important meeting of this committee and for contributing to the study of Bill C-11.

I would like to ask a question of Ms. Hinse, from the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec.

Ms. Hinse, there is a lot of talk about the erosion of regional journalistic coverage, of regional media and, in fact, of major media fleeing the regions. We are seeing this phenomenon in Quebec.

Ms. Hinse, can you tell us a little bit about the role that community media could play, particularly in terms of journalistic coverage, if Bill C-11 recognized their value and if the amendments you are proposing to the definition were adopted?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

In what ways specifically would Bill C-11 be starting to move that conversation forward to make sure we're moving into the 21st century here?

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses, both here and online.

I will begin by talking to Ms. McGuffin from Music Publishers Canada. We've heard, as recently as today, from witnesses that CanCon definitions are outdated, and they do need to be reviewed.

Can you talk about how our online streaming act, Bill C-11, is already starting to redefine CanCon, and what the new criteria of that bill must be to consider this redefinition? What criteria would be important to our culture, our cultural sovereignty and our creators?

[Margaret McGuffin, Chief Executive Officer, Music Publishers Canada]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

It is my pleasure to appear this afternoon to discuss the importance of the online streaming act.

My name is Margaret McGuffin. I am CEO of Music Publishers Canada, which is a membership-based organization largely made up of Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises representing all regions of the country, as well as large international companies with offices in Canada.

Music publishers invest in thousands of Canadian songwriters and make significant investments into the songs and scores that are heard every day on the radio, on television, on streaming services, in video games, in film and television productions and on new emerging platforms around the world. Seventy-nine per cent of the revenues of my members flow to Canada from foreign sources. We know the importance of the global market.

Bill C-11 is a long-awaited and much-needed update to the Broadcasting Act. We welcome the legislation's goal of bringing online broadcasting under the act, particularly for ensuring that streaming services help Canadians find Canadian songs and stories on platforms operating in Canada.

As technology has evolved, so has the way Canadians consume content. Our members and the songwriters they work with have embraced these changes and are actively engaged on these new platforms, both in licensing the content and in creating new digital content. Music publishers and songwriters are digital creators.

However, digital streaming services have been in Canada for almost a decade without fully supporting Canadian music. These platforms are keen to capitalize on Canadian talent without fully supporting the environment that helps the industry grow. It is critical that this uneven playing field changes now.

Over the last few years, we have challenged the digital platforms to work with us to find ways to harness their technology to help Canadians promote Canadian songs and stories and we will continue to do so. Most of the time these days, though, I hear about what the tech platforms can't do, not what they can do.

Clearly, the CRTC needs the ability to regulate when necessary to further Canada's broadcasting policy. Bill C-11 does just that. It provides an important balance by giving the commission the tools it needs to regulate when market forces fail. Modernizing the Broadcasting Act will ensure that, as technology evolves and online platforms continue to grow, Canadian creative industries, including music publishers, songwriters and composers, will also continue to thrive.

Without this modernization of the Broadcasting Act, Canada will see parts of our creative industry suffer. We risk an entire generation of new young storytellers and emerging businesses losing opportunities to develop, grow and benefit from their talents. Their songs may never be discovered or promoted in their own country.

As you've heard earlier in these meetings, this is especially dangerous for songwriters, composers and music publishers whose work represents and gives voice to our indigenous and French-language cultures. The online streaming act will undoubtedly support Canadian creators and the businesses that invest in them by creating jobs and ensuring that our stories can be found and heard in English, French and indigenous languages.

Let me close by saying that, contrary to what you've heard earlier, the proposed amendments will not disadvantage digital creators from exploring new opportunities on new digital platforms or limit freedom of expression, nor will Bill C-11 break the Internet or ruin the user experience. Those working in the creative industry ecosystem are some of the biggest proponents of freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Bill C-11 addresses a distribution issue. It does not create a freedom of expression issue.

Why are we seeing these scare tactics from globally dominated tech companies? The bottom line is that they have made a healthy fortune by benefiting from the Canadian system and not contributing to it. It is time for that to end.

I would encourage you all to think critically about the arguments made by the tech companies that extract revenue without the corresponding investment. It is our opinion that Bill C-11 will be a much-needed modernization of the Broadcasting Act to address the very real inequalities that have resulted from an increasingly digitized world.

Thank you. I am happy to answer any questions.

[Dave Forget, National Executive Director, Directors Guild of Canada]

Thank you, Warren.

Bill C-11, as currently drafted, establishes two standards for the requirement to use Canadian talent with different rules for Canadian and foreign online broadcasters. Specifically, proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) maintains the historic requirement that a “broadcasting undertaking shall employ and make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use, of Canadian creative and other human resources” but only for Canadian broadcasters, while proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) creates a significantly weaker obligation to “make the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources” for foreign online undertakings.

This objective can be achieved by using a common definition of “Canadian program” and applying similar requirements for both domestic and foreign online broadcasters. Proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) remains the lifeblood of the broadcasting policy. While we understand that the current definition of a Canadian program may need to be revised, we think it is imperative not to lower the standard for requirements to use Canadian talent and creative resources. Without making this amendment a priority, we are concerned that the positive impact of the new act on the domestic production sector would be limited.

The opportunities to tell Canadian stories would continue to decrease by the alarming rate of on average 10% per year to the point where both the English- and French-language markets would be unable to compete globally.

Members of the committee, we thank you for your time and will be pleased to respond to any of your questions.

[Warren Sonoda, President, Directors Guild of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee.

My name is Warren Sonoda. I'm the national president of the Directors Guild of Canada. With me today is Dave Forget, the DGC's national executive director. We appreciate the committee's invitation to present DGC's comments on Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

The DGC is a national labour organization representing key creative and logistical professionals in the film, television and digital media industries. Today we have over 6,000 members covering all areas of direction, design, production, logistics and editing. Bill C-11 represents the realization of a very historic opportunity to modernize Canada's broadcasting system, ultimately serving the interests of all Canadians by supporting the creative community and Canadian audiences alike.

Growing from 132,000 jobs in 2011 to 216,000 jobs in 2021, Canada's film, television and digital media sector is thriving, but it is primarily driven by the foreign service production side of our industry. As audiences and revenues migrate to online broadcasting platforms, funding contributions to Canadian programming have steadily diminished. The new act will level the playing field for all broadcasters, whether the program delivery is mostly to Canadian homes via online, cable or over the air.

Historically, Canadian broadcasting public policy shared both economic and cultural goals, building a robust domestic production industry while ensuring the future of our artists and creators. This is the fine equilibrium that Bill C-11 proposes to restore.

The economic growth of an industry can be defined by various metrics, but too often the intangible, long-term impact of cultural policy is not fully valued. It contributes to the development of a national identity, shared consciousness and successful careers. More precisely, we know that there is no better tool than scripted content and documentary filmmaking to illustrate what cultural policy does.

Shows like Schitt's Creek and Transplant, films like Scarborough and Beans and documentaries like Our People Will Be Healed and Anthropocene share the uniquely personal point of view of their Canadian creators.

The decision to safeguard the future and livelihood of Canadian creatives and storytellers rests in your hands, committee. Getting this right ensures diverse, original, high-quality Canadian programming for Canadian and international audiences for decades to come. In the absence of a rapid intervention to create an environment where Canadian artists and creators can flourish, the current ecosystem will remain unsustainable, leading over time to fewer opportunities and eventually the loss of our culture and identity.

The DGC is aligned with Canadian broadcasters as well as the production and creative communities to urge the adoption of this legislation without delay, with one caveat. Please amend the bill to strengthen requirements for the use of Canadian talent.

Going back to first principles, Canadian content is not just about who commissions it, who owns it or on what platform the program is exhibited. It's about who makes it. We mean, of course, the director, writers, performers, artists, technicians and professionals who create the programming, the entire creative team and the many colleagues I work with every day who contribute to the creative process.

It's over to you, Dave.

[Scott Benzie, Executive Director, Digital First Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee for having me back. My name is Scott Benzie. I'm the executive director of Digital First Canada, an organization that advocates on behalf of creators in Canada that choose free user-generated content platforms as their main distribution method.

I'd like to spend a minute to directly address the structure of Digital First Canada. Digital First Canada is a new organization that has been bootstrapped from the team at Buffer Festival. Yes, we have received some funding from our industry partners, including platforms and private industry involved in the success of digital creators. No, we do not have a formal membership structure where we receive fees from creators, nor do we receive any funding from the government, unlike some of our colleagues who will appear and who have appeared before you.

Now to the task at hand, which is Bill C-11. It is a shame that we and a handful of people like us had to spend the last year or so arguing a now true and confirmed fact—namely, that user-generated content is in this bill. In fact, over the last year, I was publicly attacked and accused of being a purveyor of misinformation from officials for stating it. Even today, about two hours ago, the minister stated that people who say it's in are conspiracy theorists. UGC is in this bill. Saying otherwise is misleading or you are being misled.

Now that it is on the table and in the open, let's have some constructive observations. I've had many conversations with our peers in legacy media about our support for the bulk of the bill that includes curated platforms in the broadcast act. In addition, we have been having the fight about UGC platforms contributing more to Canadian creators for far longer than most of you have been on this file.

With that being said, let's get a little technical. The exemption to the exclusion in proposed section 4.2 is not a sandbox; it is the Sahara Desert. As crafted, it includes almost the entire Internet. I welcome being challenged on that, but it is a fact. Mr. Scott confirmed that while creators themselves are not written into the bill, their content can be treated as “programs”. With that clause, all audiovisual content online is in the bill. With UGC platforms, you cannot separate the platform from the content or that content from its creator. If the mandate of the regulator is only restricted by a policy directive, it is your duty to see this power wrestled away because we might not like the next government so much.

Now, I don't believe the UGC platform should be exempt from all regulations. I believe they should have to contribute to the cultural sector. I believe they should be contributing to the creators that use those platforms primarily. If we just roll the cash into the system, we will literally be subsidizing lobby groups on the backs of independent digital creators. We will not be addressing the needs and supports that digital creators could use to grow faster. We believe in a higher level of transparency in the industry across the board. There are a lot of questions about where the money that the platforms already contribute is going today.

What's the problem? It's discovery. The minister has repeatedly assured digital creators that their videos would be exempt from the bill. The discovery clause does not reflect that promise. While there is no call for the CRTC to impose specific algorithms, there is a very problematic word, that being “outcomes”. Most platforms are binary, and the promotion of one piece of content results in the demotion of others.

You might ask, “Who cares? If it's Canadian, everybody should be happy.” That's just it. Digital creators do not qualify as Canadian, and even if they did, the process to have every piece of content certified is not just problematic; it's impossible. The bill has the intent of promoting Canadian content to creators. While that's admirable, most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery and niche content globally, and are participatory, not passive. Forcing something unnatural on them, such as local discovery, is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance on TikTok, Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry.

There seems to be an impression that regulating the Internet and forcing certain content into the algorithm is a panacea for all that ails. Spoiler alert—it's not. Success online is hard work. It takes consistency, technical knowledge and knowing how to engage and grow your community. It is hustle, not handouts.

Imagine with me, if you will, legislation that actually helps not just digital creators but those groups we have heard from that are struggling on the platforms—a convergence of Canadian talent as opposed to ripping one out in favour of another. This bill favours a failed legislative solution instead of education, co-operation and acceleration. Imagine legislation where resources are put in place to join the Canadian cultural sectors and amplify our strengths.

We are not asking for anything in this bill except for the protection that the minister has promised. Please fix this bill so that we do not need to have the same conversations in the Senate, or even in the courts, for years to come.

Finally, the world is watching our activities here. No country has ever taken the step to regulate content this way. I would conclude with a very real warning. Canada cannot take this action and expect fair and equal treatment abroad. If the U.S., France or other jurisdictions take the same approach, you will effectively kill a group of creators that have global success and global contracts with brands, and that spread Canadian voices and values to a world that I believe benefits from them.

Thank you.

[Catherine Edwards, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations]

Thank you for inviting us.

As the director of the Canadian Association of Community TV Users and Stations, and with my colleague from the Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, our comments chiefly concern community TV, but we have consulted closely with our community radio colleagues. Our requested amendments to Bill C‐11 are in sync.

As described in our brief, the key challenges for the “community element” are the lack of a clear definition on the one hand and a description of its role on the other. The definition of the public and private elements are self-evident: Theyʹre based on ownership. In CRTC policy, community radio is defined as not-for-profit and community owned.

The number of community radio stations has stayed steady at about 200 licensed stations and an estimated 60 indigenous ones, but community TV was traditionally managed by the private sector and has suffered as the cable industry underwent massive ownership consolidation and technical interconnection of formerly separate cable systems over the last few decades. While there were once more than 200 distinct cable community channels, there are now no more than 10% of that number. The vast majority in smaller communities have been shuttered. Those that remain in more populous parts of the country have become regional specialty channels, such as the single, province-wide Rogers TV in New Brunswick.

Amélie.

[Eleanor Noble, National President, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Vice-Chairs, committee members and staff.

I'm Eleanor Noble. I'm a Canadian performer and national president of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists. Joining me today is Lisa Blanchette, ACTRA national's director of public affairs and communications.

On behalf of ACTRA's 28,000 members working in English-language screen productions across Canada, I am pleased to appear today to share the artist's perspective as part of the committee's study of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

We've been closely following the progress of this bill and, like other industry stakeholders, we also want to ensure a strong and vibrant industry for Canadian content for years to come. That is why we were pleased to see that the proposed legislation will require online undertakings, including foreign services, to contribute to the production and discoverability of Canadian programs.

While we welcome the majority of the changes in Bill C-11 to amend the Broadcasting Act, we wish to voice our concern about some of the bill's amendments that would have a significant and detrimental impact on our industry, jobs and our culture. As a working Canadian performer, I can tell you that Canadian content production is at risk.

Before any changes are made to the current Broadcasting Act, we should acknowledge that the existing act has both served us well and has been remarkably technology neutral. Therefore, we believe that any changes being contemplated to the act should only be made if they will help better support and uphold the fundamental purpose of the Canadian broadcasting system, which is to ensure that Canadians have access to original Canadian programming and music, as well as entertainment, information and news programs.

With that said, we must take the opportunity today to sound the alarm about a proposal in the bill that could significantly reduce the requirement to use Canadian creative resources and other resources. It would put Canadian stories and creators at great risk.

While production activity in Canada is booming, even in the face of varying public health restrictions over the past two years, there is growing concern, because opportunities to tell Canadian stories are decreasing and Canadian content production in both English and French is lagging further behind. We're seeing a downward trend in the production of Canadian content, owned by Canadians and made by Canadian writers, producers, directors and performers.

“Profile 2021”, released this past April by the Canadian Media Producers Association, captures the economic activity in the screen-based media sector between April 2020 and March 2021. The report highlights that Canadian content production declined by 12% in that period, while foreign service production saw a marginal increase of 1% over the same time period.

We welcome foreign production investment over the long term, but we're concerned that there will be fewer and fewer opportunities to tell Canadian stories. If we don't create an environment in which Canadian stories, storytellers and creators can continue to thrive, our culture and identity may be lost. We must maximize the use of Canadian talent.

To address the emergence of global online streaming services now providing programming to Canadians, Bill C-11 creates two classes of broadcaster: Canadian broadcasting undertakings, including domestic online undertakings; and foreign online undertakings. This approach becomes problematic when a lesser standard is introduced for foreign services. Specifically, proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1), which we speak about a lot, establishes a lesser standard for foreign services, instead of adopting the stronger language found in proposed paragraph 3(1)(f), which governs Canadian broadcasting undertakings.

Creating this two-tier approach would significantly reduce the requirement for foreign online undertakings to use Canadian creative talent and would devastate our screen-based media production sector. This is an industry that contributes more than $11 billion to our country's GDP and generates over 216,000 jobs for hard-working Canadians. For me and for my fellow ACTRA members, who are already precarious workers, this could lead to a loss of work opportunities for Canadian performers.

The purpose of the online streaming act is to equalize obligations between broadcasting undertakings to “level the playing field”, in the words of Canadian broadcasters. There is no rationale for establishing a lesser commitment for foreign online undertakings operating in Canada, given their financial strength and market clout. The goal must remain to create a level playing field between domestic and foreign undertakings.

ACTRA, along with other industry peers like the Directors Guild here today, agree that Bill C-11 must be amended to remove any reference to a lesser standard for foreign services. We have included a proposal to amend paragraph 3(1)(f).

We also support the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions and Racial Equity Media Collective. They've also put in proposals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good afternoon everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I want to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are in their place during proceedings. You can speak through a mask and be fully heard. I just wanted you to know that, if you feel you need to wear a mask at all times.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and mute yourself when you're not speaking. I may say that for those on the floor as well, because when the floor isn't muted, I hear my voice like a disembodied thing shouting in the room.

Regarding interpretation for those on Zoom, there is a round globe at the bottom of your screen, and that is your interpretation button. You can go to English, French or whatever you desire. For those in the room, you know you can use your earpiece to get translation. You're not allowed to take photographs of this meeting.

Secondly, the first round would be for witnesses. That's all of you in the little boxes here. You're going to have five minutes to speak. That five minutes could be divided. That's five minutes per organization, so if there are more than one of you for an organization, you can split it any way you like or just designate one person to speak. After that, there will be a question and answer period, and that will be followed according to the formula that we have. Please remember to direct all questions through the chair.

Thank you very much, everyone.

We're going to begin this meeting.

With us today, from the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, we have Eleanor Noble and Lisa Blanchette. From the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, we have Catherine Edwards, executive director. From Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec, we have Amélie Hinse. From Digital First Canada, we have Scott Benzie, executive director. From the Directors Guild of Canada, we have Warren Sonoda, president, and Dave Forget, national executive director. Finally, from Music Publishers Canada, we have Margaret McGuffin, chief executive officer.

We will begin for five minutes with the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, and either Ms. Noble or Ms. Blanchette.

You have five minutes. Let's begin.

Canadian Heritage

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree that we may disagree on some points, but we can still respect each other. I think that is fundamental in the House.

Bill C-11, once again, is very simple. We are asking those big streamers, those platforms, to contribute to Canadian culture. Why? Because that is important for us. It is important to be able to tell our stories and to keep telling those stories that are fundamental. That is the only thing the bill does.

We hear a lot of theories, conspiracy theories, and this and that, but we want to help our culture. For once, I would have loved for the Conservatives to help us, but I guess they will not.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the Conservatives are very creative, because they invent a lot of stuff.

Bill C-11 is only about online streamers, those companies, so that they contribute to the Canadian culture. It is very simple. Platforms are in and users are out. That is it.

Could the Conservatives please, for once, support our artists and our cultural sector? That would be really nice.

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

Mr. Speaker, we can support the cultural sector by taking user-generated content out of this bill and letting Canadian creators thrive here at home and internationally.

The Liberals claim that user-generated content will not be included in Bill C-11, yet the chair of the CRTC contradicted the government and said that it would and that it could regulate user-generated content.

We still have not seen the government's policy directive on Bill C-11. The government could do that right now. It could release the policy directive and confirm and make it clear that user-generated content would be excluded from the bill.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing at the committee is that our cultural sector needs Bill C-11. It is fundamental. This is what we are hearing day after day. Our musicians, producers and creators all need it. This is what we put forward. It has the support of a lot of people across the country.

I would like, for once, the Conservatives to support our industries and for once to support the cultural sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, Morghan Fortier, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, appeared before the heritage committee, and had this to say about Bill C-11:

It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate....worst of all, section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet use of everyday Canadians and small businesses.

This is the creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel. It is someone we should be celebrating and not holding back. Will the minister make the very simple commitment to remove section 4.2 from Bill C-11?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

That's great.

In your mind then if Bill C‑11 were to come into effect, would it help you generate more Canadian content or would it hinder the good work that you're already doing?

[Monica Auer]

I'm not prepared to speak to each of those sections in detail. What I am prepared to say is that, from my perspective, Bill C-11 attempts to clearly regulate broadcasters, not individual users. There's a distinction. It is able to regulate broadcasters that carry content provided by users. It is very clear that it is not directly regulating users, but it is also clear that it has the power to regulate the platforms that carry users.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

There have been some incorrect interpretations of Bill C-11—this isn't directed at you, but to some other opponents, many across the way—related to user-generated content. Some go so far as to say that cat videos will be taxed. Many have focused on proposed section 4.2 to overstate the scope of the bill. There are 12 different places in the act that exclude social media users.

Can you speak to those sections of the bill?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you.

Patrick, you talked about a number of Canadian artists who have great success online. How are Canadians finding them? What are they doing? How are they finding them? Right now, without Bill C-11, how are we getting these millions of views? I think you mentioned somebody with billions of views. How is that happening?

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will rephrase my question. I was giving a passionate speech, and I did not know whether I had 60 seconds to ask my question.

We obviously want to have a solution.

The solution is what is proposed in Bill C‑18, which incorporates certain aspects of bills C‑10 and C‑11. The groundwork has been laid, and this should be acknowledged.

My questions are as follows: What is going on? What can we tell our constituents?

As it stands, we have had only two hours of discussion and debate on such an important bill. I expect to hear an answer from my colleague across the aisle, because this is not the first time this has happened, and my hunch is that it will not be the last. I would like an explanation.

[David Fares]

Thank you very much for the question, MP Uppal.

I think, or I hope, I demonstrated in my opening remarks that we already are investing heavily in Canada and we hope to be able to invest more in Canada. We're investing in Canada because it's a great market to invest in, whether it is production or whether it is producing our own facilities or infrastructure in the marketplace with the virtual production stage that ILM is producing in Vancouver.

It's a good market today. What we are hoping is that Bill C-11 will preserve a level of flexibility such that we can continue to invest in the best way we can to the Canadian ecosystem based on the nature of our services. It's really a flexible regime that we're seeking, because we all do great things but we do things differently. We would just like to be able to maximize our investments by allowing us to do what we do best in the marketplace.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Starting with Disney, just hearing from you about the Canadian content or Canadian stories that you have produced, I would think it would be a dream scenario, for someone who wants to have any story told, to have Disney tell it. There's also the job creation in Canada. I know that, like other provinces, Alberta, my home province, is working really hard to get major productions to come to the province and to create those jobs.

That's all being done without Bill C-11. What would bring a major international brand to Canada, not only to create jobs but also to create Canadian stories?

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

Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for a few years now. I have sat on that side for many years, and I know how important the work of the opposition is. However, at that time, as with other members, we respected the House and Canadians.

I think that there is a way to work together respectfully, and I want to commend my official opposition critic who does exactly that. We may disagree on a lot of things, but he is very respectful. He respects the work of committees and the House, and he respects the bill too. I would love the Conservatives to be a little more respectful of the whole process, and we have seen what they have done on Bill C-11 and others.

Now it is time to work for democracy, not against it. A strong, free and independent press reinforces democracy, and that is exactly what Bill C-18 is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would tell my colleague that the bill she is referring to is the former Bill C‑10, which is now Bill C‑11.

Today we are talking about a different bill, Bill C‑18, on which we are generally working quite well with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, and in particular the member for Drummond, who is the Bloc Québécois's heritage critic and who works very hard and very diligently on everything that he does, including as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I thank the Bloc Québécois for highlighting the freedom of the press and for emphasizing that the media must be independent and that print media must be strong and autonomous. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C‑18, which would enable the media to not only survive but also succeed. The bill would also ensure that the media is strong not only in major cities, but also in the regions. We are talking about media in all forms, big, small, print, radio or television.

Together, all these forms of media help strengthen our democracy. Journalists representing these media outlets ask us tough questions here, questions that we sometimes do not want to answer, but it is our job to do so. That is why we need to ensure that these media outlets survive and grow even stronger in the future.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses. I appreciate their time and their being here.

I would like to continue the conversation with Mr. Rogers, but I first want a chance to talk to the independent broadcasters group, specifically Mr. Fortune.

There have been some voices claiming that the online streaming act would somehow give some sort of unprecedented control over what content we see online. Right now these companies are....

Could you comment further on the power platforms currently have as gatekeepers for access to programming and services, and how, as the system exists now, they can already exercise those preferences or even discrimination?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, let us put things in context.

If we look at what has been actually happening in our country, we see that over 450 news outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 in the last two years. Does that have an impact? It has a huge impact on our democracy. Our democracy is not becoming stronger; it is becoming weaker because of that. Things are changing. Things are evolving extremely quickly, and what professional news media outlets are doing has value, and the web giants have to recognize that there is a value and that it is normal that they contribute.

I am very surprised that my Conservative friends have a problem with that, because they even said in the last campaign that this is what we should do. There is an agreement, almost a consensus, that we have to act and that we have to act now. The Conservatives have been stalling debate in this House. They did it with Bill C-8 and Bill C-11. They like to stall things. If they do not want to come here to work, then they should move aside and we will do the work.

[Monica Auer]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh.

In terms of the CBC decision, it's bizarre that it's taking this long. I have no reason to explain it. I should tell you that, having worked at the commission, I admire so many of the commission staff working under difficult times, especially during the pandemic. As I understand it, leadership comes from the top. If the commission itself—the commissioners—is not requiring timeliness, I don't think we can blame the staff for that.

I'd like to also mention that my data, which I had looked at for the CRTC, showed that from 2000 to 2021, the commission staff had increased by a quarter—from 400 to more than 500. There are resources there. The commission got additional funding just to help it begin to do this and Chairperson Scott addressed the fact that he had allocated 100 people to start preparing for C-11.

However, the fact remains that when you try to find out what the commission is doing, it is difficult to find out. Why is that? Why can't we actually have ongoing, regular reports from the commission about what it is doing?

When you think about the issue of transparency—because timeliness is really, in a way, part of transparency—why don't we actually know today who is making decisions at the commission? The commission's process of making decisions changed after the 1982 charter. That's why there's a requirement in the 1991 act that they who hear decide. The problem is that it's the chair who decides who decides. That means the independence of the commission is compromised.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to pick up with the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.

It's been 17 months and we still haven't heard boo from the CRTC on the licensing of CBC, our national public broadcaster. Next month, in June, it will be a full year and we're still waiting for a three-digit suicide helpline. These are two examples where the CRTC isn't doing its job today.

Ms. Auer, I think you've hit it right on. With a staff of 650-plus, they are still not capable of doing what they should be capable of in the Broadcasting Act. I want you to expand on that.

I have talked excessively about the CRTC. They cannot handle today's facts, yet we're going to be piling C-11 on, plus C-18, it looks like. I'd like your thoughts, please.

[Joel Fortune]

Let me try to start, Mr. Julian.

There's a gap now in the bill. That's the main thing. That's our key point—there's a gap. Right now the Broadcasting Act clearly covers the activities of cable and satellite companies. They're called distribution undertakings. It's clearly covered in the act. There's a regulatory regime and ultimately the CRTC has clear jurisdiction to ensure that all players are treated fairly and that everybody makes an appropriate contribution to Canadian broadcasting.

Bill C-11 goes a little bit along that path, but it doesn't create a similar environment for online distributors. These are the platforms like Roku and others that make available programming services with third parties on their platforms. Increasingly, our own Canadian cable and satellite companies are going to take this route. They're going to take their services online. They're going to use the Internet to deliver third party programming services.

Our concern is that the commission will not have the same type of authority in that environment that it has now in the cable and satellite environment. Ultimately, I think we're going to look at a substantial weakening of how Canadian programming services are delivered to Canadians in our own market. I think you heard from Mr. Danks last week that access by Canadian services to the domestic market is really a precondition for global access on these platforms. We need to use our own market to our own advantage, and to that end we need sufficient authority to make sure Canadian services are present and treated fairly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would rather we now talked about another provision, Ms. Blais, since my time is rather limited.

I wanted to hear what you had to say about proposed paragraph 3(1)(f). In my opinion, this is an extremely important provision. The amendment you're suggesting is also very important because of the nuance it tries to address or remove.

I don't know if you're familiar enough with this provision to tell me about it, but proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) talks about maximizing the use of Canadian human and creative resources. However, the end of the wording proposed in Bill C‑11, if I'm not mistaken, allows for some flexibility in the case of foreign undertakings.

Can you explain to me why you want to delete that part of the proposed wording?

[Nathalie Blais]

First of all, the reason we suggest deleting the end of the wording proposed in Bill C‑11 is that we believe it introduces uncertainty as to the limits of the Canadian broadcasting system. A court could be led to believe that foreign broadcasting undertakings are not part of the Canadian system. We also believe that the reverse could be true. There is uncertainty in this regard, and it could in some ways make the issue worse. Indeed, if the provision were to be amended, the question could arise as to how Canadian ownership and control should be interpreted. This issue has already been decided by the Court of Appeal in 1998. At that time, the Court of Appeal stated that Parliament had not limited the field to Canadian-owned and controlled broadcasting undertakings, but rather had provided that the Canadian broadcasting system must be, in effect, owned and controlled by Canadians.

In our view, amending paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act to try to include foreign undertakings may be shooting ourselves in the foot, when the provision already allows for some foreign ownership.

In fact, in the report published in 2003 by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was chaired by Mr. Clifford Lincoln at the time, the calculation was made based on the definition of control in fact and it was concluded that 46.7% of Canadian broadcasting undertakings could be foreign-owned without affecting Canadian ownership and control of the system.

There are between 600 and 700 broadcasting undertakings in Canada. We therefore believe that there is sufficient room for the addition of foreign-owned undertakings operating in whole or in part in Canada. There is no need to amend paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act other than to perhaps clarify what the broadcasting system is, now that our system is no longer closed.

I don't know if my colleague would like to comment on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses very much for being with us today. Once again, their testimony is very enlightening and their opinion is very useful to us.

I'll start with Ms. Blais.

I'd like to talk about paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act. Bill C‑11 already proposes an amendment to this paragraph, which deals with Canadian ownership. The proposed version is as follows:

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall, with the exception of foreign broadcasting undertakings providing programming to Canadians, be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;

In your proposed amendment, you suggest deleting the exception mentioned in the bill, in order to include all broadcasting undertakings operating in whole or in part in Canada.

Ms. Blais, could you tell me what your intention is in suggesting this amendment to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a)?

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to turn for my last bit of time to Ms. Monica Auer, from the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.

You made a comment about timelines and the timeliness of the CRTC—I think you said based on rumours, guesses and gossip. I'm not sure I have that written down exactly.

If the CRTC is going to be given this additional responsibility through Bill C-11—and down the road through Bill C-18 as well—how do you see that affecting the timeliness and the responsiveness of the CRTC going forward, given this new scope of responsibilities that they'll receive through this piece of legislation?

[David Fares, Vice President, Global Public Policy, The Walt Disney Company]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for inviting me here today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the important relationship between Canada and the Walt Disney Company, as well as Bill C-11.

Canada is one of Disney's top four production markets. In the last three years, our content spend in Canada, across all of our production companies, was approximately $3 billion on content to be featured on multiple platforms for worldwide distribution.

We produced six of our most recent feature films in Canada. In 2021, we produced 18 TV and VOD original series in Canada, with Disney+ Originals offering a source of growth for productions in Canada. Indeed, when Disney+ launched, three of the six originals on the platform were produced in Canada.

We have also produced in Canada uniquely Canadian stories. Barkskins, produced by National Geographic, tells a unique Quebec story, following two French families over a 300-year period, beginning with their arrival in New France. The Barkskins production team worked closely with the Wendat nation to ensure historical accuracy and respect.

Turning Red, a Pixar animation film released on Disney+ on March 11, is a love story to growing up in Canada, created and directed by Canadian award-winner, Domee Shi.

We are also producing a series based on the award-winning Canadian novel, Washington Black.

It is important to note that Barkskins, Turning Red and Washington Black do not qualify as Canadian programs under the CRTC's current definition, notwithstanding their unique Canadian stories.

Our close relationship with Canada is not limited to productions but includes a permanent physical footprint with state-of-the-art and innovative facilities staffed by high-skilled talent. Two of Disney's production companies have a physical presence in Canada and are expanding to fuel growth in the audiovisual sector, including infrastructure and skills development. Industrial Light & Magic, a visual effects subsidiary of Lucasfilm, has one of its five global offices in Vancouver, employing 500 people at any given time. ILM is expanding its footprint in Vancouver, building a 20,000-square-foot virtual production stage. The Stagecraft LED system will ensure that Vancouver continues to be one of the most innovative visual effects hubs in the world.

In August 2021, Walt Disney Animation Studios announced that it will open its first production facility outside of Burbank, California, in Vancouver, hiring 400 high-skilled employees over the next two years.

Disney also works with independent Canadian production companies, helping them grow and establish themselves as leaders in their fields. Two important examples are Mercury Filmworks in Ottawa, an animation studio with which Disney has worked on at least 10 productions, and Omnifilm Entertainment, based in Vancouver, which is a live action production company with which we have worked on at least five productions.

Madam Chair and committee members, I understand that a main motivating driver behind Bill C-11 is that, if you benefit from Canada, you should contribute to Canada. I hope that in the last few minutes, I have successfully demonstrated Disney's proud contributions to Canada and its creative ecosystem. We hope to invest further in Canada, and a flexible regulatory regime will allow us to maximize those future investments.

From our perspective, a flexible regulatory regime would recognize that each company offers a different proposition to its consumers. Accordingly, consumer expectations flow from a company's particular offering. Disney+ is unique in that it predominantly offers content from Disney's own brands: Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, National Geographic and Star. Given this unique offering, we hope that Bill C-11 will allow each company to contribute to the health of the Canadian AV ecosystem in a manner consistent with the service it offers, thereby fuelling consumer choice, benefit and diversity.

As I noted, Disney is proud of our contributions to Canada, but they differ from those of Canadian broadcasters by the very nature of the content we offer. For example, Canadian broadcasters devote a significant portion of their content spend on news and sports, which is content that Disney does not produce in Canada. We would welcome the opportunity to work with you to ensure that Bill C-11 recognizes and embraces such differences.

The Motion Picture Association of Canada will be filing proposed amendments to the committee in writing, and the Walt Disney Company fully subscribes to these amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

[Patrick Rogers, Chief Executive Officer, Music Canada]

Good morning.

It's a pleasure to be here with the committee to discuss Bill C-11. Music Canada is the trade association for Canada's major labels: Sony Music Entertainment Canada, Universal Music Canada and Warner Music Canada. Canada's major labels sign and partner with Canadian artists, helping them achieve commercial success in Canada and export that music abroad. Overwhelmingly, it is artists partnered with major labels that Canadians listen to on the radio, stream or hear synched to their favourite TV shows. I'm in the enviable position of telling the committee we support Bill C-11's core principles of accessibility of Canadian content through regulating broadcasting on the Internet.

Canada's commercial radio rules, developed five decades ago, were integral to today's successful Canadian music industry, with Canada's major labels leading the way. Those rules opened new opportunities for careers and professional development for artists, labels, studios, managers, venues and an entire emerging Canadian music industry. That commercial success in turn enabled businesses to reinvest in the next generation of talent. In fact, I like to think that our members have served as an example for this bill.

Proposed paragraph 3(1)(f.1) requires making the “greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources”. That is the business model of Canada's major labels. We have offices in Toronto and Montreal full of Canadians, making Canadian music for the Canadian market and the world. In a global digital marketplace, success in Canada is a stepping stone to international success.

Music is one of the most recognizable and successful exports. Canada is the eighth-largest streaming market in the world. Out of the top 10 most streamed artists in the world, three of them are Canadian. Those names you all know—Bieber, The Weeknd and Drake—but I want to tell you about some of today's biggest Canadian success stories that perhaps you haven't heard about.

Ali Gatie, raised in Mississauga, is an artist of Iraqi descent who surpassed 3.5 billion streams for his 2019 single, It's You. Tate McRae, a singer-songwriter from Calgary, one of the world's artists to watch, held down the number one spot for five weeks on Billboard's emerging artists chart, with over 3.2 billion career streams. Eli Rose, a Montrealer, named Breakthrough Artist of the Year at the 2020 ADISQ awards, with numerous hits, has 14 million global streams and counting. These are just a few of the names of the next generation of Canadian talent, and they're finding success in streaming that maybe they wouldn't have found in radio alone. These successes come from both the incredible talent of these artists and from the investments made by our members, publishers, indies and the platforms that license the music.

Turning to the bill, we support the bill as the minister describes it. We agree when he says the CRTC should not regulate the algorithms of online services or user-generated content. We hope the committee will clarify the bill text to clearly reflect the minister's intent. The committee has now heard about the CRTC's potential to reach into algorithms and to regulate user-generated content. That wiggle room in the bill, compared to the minister's certainties, was at first confusing, but following the outgoing chair of the CRTC's testimony here, that wiggle room is concerning. This can be fixed by honing the language of the bill to reflect the minister's stated intent. The bill can be amended to clarify the prohibition on the CRTC regulating algorithms, and the language regarding professional content can be sharpened to reflect the minister's statement of no cat videos.

The global music industry has just come back from nearly two decades of decline. The growth reflects the hard work of companies like ours to ensure that music uses are licensed and artists are paid when their music is played. We know what happens when Canadians feel there's too much friction between them and what they want to hear: They will find their music elsewhere. If regulation proves too burdensome on our industry partners, we know that consumers will move to unregulated spaces, which, by definition, will be harder to license, which will mean a devaluation of music, making it harder for artists to be paid when their music is played. That flies in the face of the good intentions of this bill.

To that end, I ask the committee to listen carefully to the platforms that will be regulated. They are our business partners, and they are where our artists and labels increasingly make a living in the 21st century. Ultimately, they are the people who bring your favourite artists to your phone, your car and your living room.

In conclusion, this is an important bill, with real-world goals.

I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

[Monica Auer, Executive Director, Forum for Research and Policy in Communications]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for inviting the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications to appear today. We undertake empirical and policy research in communications and participate in a range of CRTC proceedings.

The forum strongly agrees that Canada needs a new statute to serve the public interest by ensuring the availability of and Canadians' access to high-quality Canadian news and entertainment programming and to serve our economy's need for jobs and investment, but we fear that the contradictions, gaps and loopholes that exist in Bill C-11 will thwart Parliament's objectives.

Our written submission recommends changing eight aspects of Bill C-11. As other witnesses have already addressed some of these issues, I will highlight just three points today.

First, while the current Broadcasting Act and Bill C-11 state that the best way to implement Canada's broadcasting policy is through a single independent public authority, Bill C-11 erodes this independence by handing cabinet the power, in proposed subsection 7(7), to override the CRTC when it exercises any or all 39 of the CRTC's powers in part II.

Proposed part II.2 also lets cabinet regulate eight administrative violations. Bill C-11 also leaves intact the existing limit on CRTC decision-making independence, enabled by the chairperson's power to “decide who decides”—that is, which CRTC commissioners may actually make decisions. Rather than weakening the CRTC's decision-making independence, Bill C-11 should strengthen it.

Second, gaps in Bill C-11 will make current serious problems with the CRTC's transparency, accountability and timing even worse. The section 5 regulatory policy now ignores the public interest and discourages the CRTC from regulating if doing so may be a “burden”. It is next to impossible for the public to refute claims about future burdens or to make the case for stronger regulation to implement the broadcasting policy. Despite collecting programming data from Canadian radio and TV programming services for half a century, the CRTC has not published such data in decades.

Bill C-11 should require the CRTC to report annually on section 3's implementation to enable oversight by Parliament and Canadians alike, and should set a more rational test for undue regulatory burdens. Bill C-11 does propose that the CRTC publish relevant evidence before consultations affecting minority-language communities, but it should do so before all consultations, and CRTC determinations should be signed by those who make them.

As for timeliness, divining when the CRTC will decide matters is now based on guesses or gossip. Bill C-11 ignores this problem and makes it worse, since those accused of administrative violations may wait forever to be formally cleared of wrongdoing. The bill should require the CRTC to complete its investigations within a reasonable period. In brief, this bill is a rare opportunity to reduce problems with the CRTC's transparency, accountability and timeliness.

Finally, drafting loopholes may, in any event, stymie Bill C-11's implementation. In particular, proposed paragraph 2(2.3)(a) excludes online programs that are “ancillary” to a business's primary activities. This may simply encourage creative business structuring and court challenges, and is at odds with the existing requirement in section 9 that the CRTC exempt broadcasters unable to contribute materially to the broadcasting policy. Requiring off-line but not online distributors to negotiate reasonable terms of carriage with programming services will simply hurt, if not kill off, Canada's small and medium-sized domestic programming services, fuelling, in the interim, calls for “me too” deregulation. If Bill C-11 wants the single system envisaged in subsection 3(2), it should clearly define its reach and treat “like” media alike.

To conclude, our fear is that, if left as written, Bill C-11 will simply not achieve Parliament's stated objectives, and that, even worse, court challenges of its implementation by the CRTC will create long delays and cost Canada and those working in its creative sectors quite dearly.

Fixing Bill C-11's drafting problems will strengthen Canada's communications system by ensuring that it is an independent regulatory authority actually serving the public interest by making evidence-based decisions in a fair and timely manner.

We strongly support the general purpose of Bill C-11, but thoughtful revision now gives you the opportunity to craft outstanding 21st-century legislation. We are confident that this is your committee's intent.

Thank you.

[Luc Perreault, Strategic Advisor, Independent Broadcasters Group]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Luc Perreault and I am a strategic advisor for the Stingray Group, which is a member of the Independent Broadcasters Group, more commonly known as the IBG. With me is Joel Fortune, who is legal counsel for the IBG.

Our association consists of 13 independent broadcasting companies that are not affiliated with any of the major Canadian cable or satellite distributors.

The members of our association are television and radio broadcasters working in all areas of digital media. We offer Canadians a wide variety of content: local news, weather information and emergency alerts, documentaries, lifestyle magazines and programs, Canadian and world-class cinema, music, drama and sports. We do this in French, English, indigenous languages and 25 third languages spoken in Canada today.

We support Bill C-11. Canada needs to update the Broadcasting Act to better reflect the Internet and the ever-increasing presence of online broadcasting services in Canada. Our primary concern is that Bill C-11 restricts the CRTC's authority to supervise a critical element of online activity: the oversight of the distribution, discoverability and fair treatment of Canadian apps and services online.

Let me be clear. We are not talking about access to social media services. What we are talking about is access to closed platforms operated by Internet services, like Roku, Amazon and Apple TV, and by Canadian operators, like Rogers, Bell and Quebecor. These large companies use the Internet to distribute third party programming services in the same way and compete directly with cable and satellite.

In the United Kingdom, the government has announced that it intends to empower its regulator, Ofcom, to ensure that the U.K.'s services are offered and treated fairly by these online platforms. Ofcom will have a dispute resolution function to address issues that arise between online platforms and online services. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has already looked in depth into the regulatory treatment of virtual MVPDs. We call them “virtual BDUs” in our system. The FCC's review relates to whether these virtual BDUs should have carriage obligations for local television signals. This review remains open.

In other words, other major jurisdictions, including the U.S., are already seized with online distribution issues. Their expert regulatory agencies, Ofcom and the FCC, are exercising or being given the jurisdiction that IBG-GDI and others have proposed be included in Bill C-11 that are now absent.

[Tulsa Valin-Landry, Vice-President, Communications Sector, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for inviting us to discuss Bill C‑11 with you.

My name is Tulsa Valin‑Landry, and I am the vice‑president of CUPE‑Quebec's Communications Sector, which represents close to 6,700 broadcasting workers in Quebec. With me today is my colleague Nathalie Blais, who is the representative for CUPE's research service.

The members we represent work in all types of broadcasting companies, whether in distribution, radio, local specialty or community television, or on the Internet. They actively participate in our democratic life by producing local, regional, national and international news, and contribute to the production of entertainment programs, just like independent producers. This is a particular feature of Quebec that we would like to draw your attention to.

Bill C‑11 is very important to us. Since 2014, we have made multiple interventions, either alone or in a coalition, calling on the government to establish legislative and regulatory fairness between traditional broadcasting undertakings and online businesses operating in Canada, like Netflix or Spotify. The impact these foreign companies have had on our industry has been staggering. In just a few short years, television stations considered cultural flagships have gone into deficit, putting jobs, information and Canadian programming at risk.

The purpose of Bill C‑11 is to improve the competitive position of our broadcasters so that they can continue to produce and present programs that are relevant to us, while providing the high‑quality, well‑paying jobs that the Canadian economy needs. By integrating web giants into the Canadian broadcasting system and regulating them, the bill will put Canadian companies on an equal footing with their foreign competitors. It will also protect our cultural and economic sovereignty.

We need new legislation quickly to allow broadcasters to regain their profitability and to protect jobs. However, in its current form, Bill C‑11 contains too many uncertainties. Amendments are essential to strengthen this bill so that future provisions proposed in the Online Streaming Act are not challenged in court as soon as they are implemented. This would have a negative impact on workers, on Canadian broadcasting companies and on the cultural sector. We therefore propose some fundamental amendments to clarify the scope of the bill and ensure the success of the resulting regulations.

First of all, let's be clear that the purpose of Bill C‑11 is not to regulate the entire Internet, as some witnesses have said. This is not true. In fact, the bill applies to online businesses operating in whole or in part in Canada, under subsection 4(2) of the Broadcasting Act, which remains unchanged by Bill C‑11. The feedback we have heard so far suggests that the intent of Parliament needs to be more clearly expressed in the bill to avoid any ambiguity.

I'll pass things over to my colleague Nathalie Blais.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting No. 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 12, 2022, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House of Commons agreement from November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy of March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, you can click on the mike. I'm sure you all know how to do this already, but I'll just go over it quickly. You can click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you will see a little globe, and that is what you press if you want to have interpretation. Those on the floor actually have the interpretation there. I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I want to welcome the witnesses who are here today.

You have five minutes for each organization, not each person, so you can decide amongst yourselves who is going to use up what time. I will say, “30 seconds” when it is time to wrap up.

With us today we have the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Representing them are Nathalie Blais, research representative, and Tulsa Valin-Landry, VP of communications sector. Also with us is the independent broadcasters group with Joel Fortune, legal counsel, and Luc Perreault, strategic adviser. From the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, we have Monica Auer, executive director. Also, from Music Canada, we have Patrick Rogers, CEO.

Without further ado, I will begin with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. I don't know who will speak, but I am just turning on my little five-minute timer for you.

Thank you. You may be begin.

[Kenneth Hirsch]

Yes, absolutely. We absolutely believe that they should and must give back to the system that they take billions of dollars out of every year. We believe strongly in the intent of Bill C-11.

[Tim Uppal]

Thank you.

Also, can you elaborate further on how Bill C-11 will have a detrimental effect on Canadian consumers' ability to view content that they want to view online?

[Matthew Hatfield]

Yes, I think perhaps the minister needs to discuss this with the CRTC and get his facts straight. As people know, it's been a long and frustrating conversation we've all had around Bill C-10 and C-11. I wish we could have clarified the fact that user content was in earlier. I think we all could have had a higher-quality discussion if we'd all been on the same page on that, as we now are.

In terms of telling us that we should just be trusting the history of the CRTC I think no, several times over. No, in the sense that our recent organizational experience with the CRTC has not been that we can trust them to always have the public's interest at heart. People who follow our access campaigns will know that we have a lot of concerns about who the CRTC is listening to when it comes to getting affordable Internet to Canadians and whether it's really their top priority to do that.

Certainly just as a matter of legislation, how do we go about justifying legislation as just “trust the regulator” and just trust that it will work out? That's a very poor standpoint for us to be setting out here. We think that it is incumbent on you as MPs to do better than that and to give more specific restrictions and clarifications to the CRTC as they move forward with anything here.

[Tim Uppal]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, John.

I'm going to continue with Mr. Hatfield.

Last week at this committee the CRTC commissioner basically admitted that UGC is in the scope of Bill C-11. He added that there should be a higher degree of trust in the CRTC as a regulator. What do you think about this, especially since the minister has assured Canadians that UGC is not covered under Bill C-11?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for coming forward today. They have given us compelling testimony that is going to be useful as we look at the bill, particularly at the amendment stage of Bill C-11.

I haven't asked a question yet of Mr. Hatfield and would like to go to him.

First off, my question would be this. Are you concerned about the testimony we've heard today from OUTtv about how they were excluded from a number of streaming platforms and fear that, should there not be measures in place to counter it, other streaming platforms coming to Canada may do the same thing? That's my first question.

Secondly, I thank OpenMedia for its campaign against discrimination in algorithms. We know that there are problems beyond that and that Senator Ed Markey, among others in the United States, has tabled a bill for algorithm transparency because that is, of course, a concern in some sectors. The campaign in the United States “Stop Hate for Profit” also takes aim on algorithms, as you're aware.

I wanted to ask you those two questions. The first is on your concern about exclusion by the streaming platforms. The second is on the issue of algorithm transparency.

[Lisa Hepfner]

Okay.

Madame Paré, you said something to the effect that we have such a strong cultural sector in Quebec and in Canada right now because we have had a Broadcasting Act up until now. What do you see for the future? Should we not have a revived and renewed Broadcasting Act if Bill C-11 is passed in the House? What do you see for our future?

[Michael Coteau]

Thank you so much, and thank you to the interpreters for their important work as well.

I wanted to start off by saying that, in listening to this conversation over the last five hours, I've thought a lot about growing up in Canada in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, and about turning on the radio and picking up some Platinum Blonde or Glass Tiger. Even before that, I listened to 1970s Canadian content and could turn on the television and see a lot of that content.

I think we would all agree, regardless of what your position is on this specific piece of legislation, that putting forward good Canadian content is good for Canadians. It actually teaches about our history and about our present. It helps us understand where we're going as a nation, as well.

I think we need to find a balancing act. The simple truth is that these big Internet giants have become the new deliverers of content. The Amazons, Googles and YouTubes deliver content. If you go into any household in this country today and talk to a young kid, most of their content is coming from online services. We need to build a modern system that's reflective of our values as Canadians, but which also puts in place the realities of today. The world has changed.

I do appreciate everyone joining in on this conversation.

I have a question for Ms. Paré.

Specifically, why is it essential for us to include social media platforms in Bill C-11? Why is the regulatory flexibility under the bill so important to the music sector?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, thank you for the answers thus far.

I want to start with Mr. Hatfield as well and follow up on something he mentioned in response to a question from Mr. Champoux in which he used the terminology of basically firewalling parts of Canada off to effectively prevent international participation. I was just wondering if you could follow up a little bit more about this.

I'm thinking about Canadian creators, indigenous Canadians, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and people from racialized communities who have found success through online means of basically exporting Canadian-created content internationally and how Bill C-11 might impact their ability to reach the global market, especially with very important groups that may not find that success domestically but have found that reach globally thanks to online means.

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

Thanks very much.

I'd like to go back to Mr. Kitt and come back to the issue of local news. Of course, we've seen across this country a loss of employment. As you mentioned at the beginning of Unifor's presentation, what it is doing is pulling apart the links that unite communities, when there is not the same degree of local news available.

You put forward a case for your amendment. I would also like to mention the concerns that have been expressed by some witnesses around proposed paragraph 3(1)(f), where the employment provisions within Bill C-11 are less for foreign-owned streaming platforms than they are for Canadian broadcasters.

I would like you to comment on those two issues, if you could.

[Tim Uppal]

I asked previous witnesses this before as well. We talk a lot about Canadian culture and diversity and trying to use Bill C-11 to protect that, but I've heard from—I'll call them—third-language or ethnic cultural news outlets and cultural media, social media creators, who are saying that they're concerned that Bill C-11 might cut them out because a lot of their content collaborates with international content. It's local but it's produced internationally.

Do you think the CRTC can properly regulate that so Canadians continue to see and connect with other countries? I know it's important for me. It's important for my kids to be able to connect with Punjabi culture and the Sikh faith. We use a lot of online content to do that.

[Tim Uppal]

Thank you.

Much of the discussion around Bill C-11 has been about the discoverability of Canadian content in the new era of streaming services. Even though we have not heard a clear definition provided on discoverability yet, in your view, is Canadian content currently discoverable for Canadians?

[Matthew Hatfield]

I think that connects to, in a sense, what we're hearing from the other witnesses here. We're hearing a lot about revenue and the struggle of being in the industry. I don't think we're considering enough what it's like to be a Canadian Internet user and what people want from their services. Do people want to have a quota imposed on their content where, when I search for cats, 30% Canadian cats must appear in my feed? I don't think people want that.

I think people have an interest in making sure that there is some support available for the production of Canadian culture, but they don't want it crammed on them. They don't want it forced into all their search results. They don't want it forced into all their feeds. The reality is that the majority of the uses people make of the Internet today are not parochial. They're not focused on exclusively Canadian concerns. They are about connecting to a whole global community around many different things.

I don't know if we're speaking past each other or circling the same thing, but I think that Canadians ultimately want something that expands their choice, not that limits their choice. The kind of really heavy-handed provisions in Bill C-10 and, to a degree, in C-11 as well are still here and are about limiting peoples' choices. They're about manipulating the options that people get.

As I said in my opening remarks, we would never consider a situation where the Canadian government would go to Canadian bookstores and say, “We've thought about what Canadians need, and these are the types of titles we want you to put in your front window.” However, through the discoverability requirements we have in this legislation, that seems to be what we're doing through this legislation. It's inappropriate. It's an overreach. If we're supporting Canadian content, it needs to be in ways that are respectful of and responsive to what people in Canada want.

[Tim Uppal]

Okay. I'm happy to jump in. Thank you.

I'm going to go to Matthew from OpenMedia. When Bill C-11 was released, you put this on your website:

Treating the Internet like cable television was a bad idea last year, and it’s a bad idea now.... The Online Streaming Act continues to give the CRTC the power to use sorely outdated 1980s ideas about what “Canadian” content is, to control what shows up on our online feeds and what doesn’t.

We also heard today from the former vice-chair of the CRTC that he believes it will take up to about five years for the CRTC to put together the expertise and the tools that it needs to regulate this for what it's being asked to do in Bill C-11.

Can you elaborate on why the rules designed for old television systems are not compatible with today's digital landscape?

[Randy Kitt]

No, we don't want to confuse the two. This is about broadcasting. I know Bill C-18 is platform-agnostic, which is great, but this isn't about Facebook and Google. This is about Netflix and Amazon. The CRTC and successive governments have allowed these foreign broadcasters and foreign streamers to come into Canada. It's completely changed the business model, and advertising revenues are down.

We need a separate fund in this bill for broadcasters. I envision a day when Bill C-18, Bill C-11 and journalism tax credits could all combine into one really nice fund. Right now, they're still separate, and the Facebook and Google money does not replace what the LPIF did for broadcast news from 2009 to 2014, which the CRTC took away. We need to replace that.

The broadcasters, like Netflix and Amazon—Amazon is a BDU—need to contribute to Canadian local news. It's slipping away. If we don't do it now and we don't ensure in Bill C-11 that the CRTC creates a fund, I fear it will slip further.

[Marie-Julie Desrochers]

I wouldn't want to assume that there's a lack of understanding on their part.

Regardless, a mix of factors come into play. For years, I have been preparing CRTC submissions to advocate for Quebec's music industry, particularly when it comes to French-language music. What that experience has taught me is that the CRTC makes its decisions very carefully and that they are always based on evidence and facts. That is the approach it takes in regulating the industry.

I have never seen the CRTC set out rules that were completely out of step with the reality or consumer habits. The system is built on consumer behaviour.

Today, only 8% of our music is streamed, which is a paltry, marginal proportion. It's devastating to us. We know full well that the CRTC won't decide overnight that the proportion has to go up to 65%. The CRTC examines the situation before making decisions.

The platforms have the power to make an artist's career, just like radio or television. They have the ability to take an artist, help kick-start their career and put their music on the map by giving the public an opportunity to discover it. We have always seen that in Quebec. It's the same for platforms. They know what tools they have, and they know what works. When they appear before the CRTC, they can explain what the best tools and methods are. We can all work together to learn the best ways to regulate practices.

What matters at this stage is ensuring that the bill remains flexible. It has to be technology-neutral because we will be living with it for years, even decades, to come. We can't predict what the future will bring.

TikTok emerged after Bill C‑10 died on the Order Paper and before Bill C‑11 was being considered. The place of TikTok has completely changed in a few months.

Who knows where we'll be in 10 years. That is why the bill needs to be as technology-neutral as possible.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is now my turn to thank the witnesses, who were kind enough to make time for us in their schedules. We certainly appreciate it.

Ms. Desrochers and Ms. Paré, thank you for being here today.

One of the issues that keeps coming up in our discussions on Bill C‑11 is the place of creators on digital platforms. That was also true when we were studying Bill C‑10 last year. Obviously, this is something you keep a very close eye on.

The bill contains amendments that would affect platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, in particular, new section 4.2. It has gotten a lot of attention and is being hotly debated.

What do you think of that new section and the proposed amendments?

Are you concerned?

I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Kirwan Cox]

I would just add that Bill C-11, like Bill C-10, provides tremendous support for the production of official-language minority programming. It also requires that the CRTC pay close attention and consult with us on the question of what kind of programming we should be doing. It's a tremendous step forward and gives us a great step up in terms of where we otherwise would be in trying to reverse the decline we have been facing.

That's about it.

[Kenneth Hirsch]

Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Housefather, and thank you for all your work on this bill and the prior incarnation.

I'll start, and then I'll throw to Kirwan.

The most shocking statistic is that around the turn of the century—this century, so 2000—about 20% of all English-language production in the country was done here in Quebec. Now we've fallen below 6%. We used to be more than a quarter and now we're about 1/20th of the English-language production in Quebec. That situation has to be reversed. It's impossible to keep the community vital when we're in that kind of free fall.

The answer to your question is twofold. Bill C-11 is going to go a long way in saving the Canadian content business across the country, and the six or seven safeguards that we've hopefully been able to build into the bill for official-language minority communities in Quebec and official-language minority communities outside Quebec would guarantee that our communities and our cousin communities, the French-language speakers outside of Quebec, will be able to tell our own stories in our own languages for the foreseeable future. That, I think, is a necessary and vital step to ensuring the vitality of our communities.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My apologies to everyone. That's the first time the headset failed.

I was just asking if Mr. Hirsch and Mr. Cox could talk to us about the challenges that the official-language minority communities in this country face, and how they would be alleviated by the adoption of Bill C-11.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

That would indicate to me that the amendment would have broad consensus with all of the different organizations, English- and French-speaking, across the country. I take note of that and thank you.

Given the fact that I come from the English-speaking minority in Quebec, I also want to give you a chance to talk to the committee about how Bill C-11 will support and enhance the ability of the English-speaking arts community in Quebec to thrive. Also, since we don't have the French-speaking organizations from outside Quebec today—

[Matthew Hatfield]

Thank you so much.

I think the fundamental message from people is that they're not against there being more funding for Canadian cultural content, but they don't want it to come at the cost of their individual choices or at the cost of their own content potentially being regulated in some ways by the CRTC.

There are a lot of ideas that get pushed around about how to set the system up equitably, but I think part of what makes the Bill C-11 conversation so difficult is that there's a lot we don't know about what the government intends or what the CRTC actually intends here. We would have much preferred if there were much clearer instructions about how the CanCon system was going to be redeveloped in this bill.

We recognize that some of that can't be done in the legislation, but we really have no idea how 1980s definitions of what is Canadian are going to be updated and who is going to be in and who is going to be out. We think it should be a fair system, equally accessible to creators creating for every platform across the Internet, for online creators as much as for more traditional legacy media.

Our concern with the way things are set up right now is that it seems to be aimed at a sort of maximalist capture of giving every power to the CRTC, with very little clarity about how they're going to be using it. That's why in my comments today I've really focused on what I think the most important remaining piece is, which is defending the experience that ordinary Internet users have, getting their content fully excluded and getting their feeds left alone.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses this afternoon. It's been great to hear the different opinions and commentary on Bill C-11 and suggestions to go forward.

I am going to start my questions with Mr. Hatfield from OpenMedia, and then I'll probably bounce around and try to hit a few other witnesses afterwards, if I have time. I'm sure the chair will give me an extra two or three minutes at the end just to get to some extra questions here.

Mr. Hatfield, your organization is in an interesting position, because you're not an industry group and you're not a stakeholder group. You're a citizens' group. I often think that this perspective—the user perspective, the consumer perspective, the perspective of the general public—isn't always heard in these types of discussions, especially when we're getting into the more technical issues with something like the Broadcasting Act.

I just wanted to give you a chance to talk and to give us that perspective. What is the public saying? I think you mentioned that 53,000 Canadians have contacted you and, through you, other members of Parliament. What is the commentary? What is the message you're hearing from those who are subscribing to your campaigns?

[Randy Kitt]

Thank you.

The Broadcasting Act and the CRTC prevented foreign broadcasters from entering our market for decades, allowing a thriving media industry that heavily supported local news. This committee got it right again when taking on the Rogers-Shaw merger, when you said, “it is essential that Canadians have access to local news that reflects their identity and reality.” Almost all witnesses in this study said that local news is critical to a strong democracy.

To sum up, local news is in crisis. Local news is essential to the public good. We know that a local news fund administered by the CRTC can work, because they've already done it successfully. Bill C-11 is just a much-needed update to the Broadcasting Act to ensure that Canadians have access to Canadian local programming, which couldn't happen if we let these Internet giants control our media.

Let's not get sidetracked by noise. Let's get Bill C-11 passed with this small amendment to ensure a sustainable future for local news. Let's all imagine a world without news, imagine that void, and now imagine that you could do something about it.

Thank you.

[Olivier Carrière, Assistant to the Quebec Director, Unifor]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

My name is Olivier Carrière, and I am the assistant director of Unifor Québec.

I'll pick up where my colleague Randy Kitt left off.

The local program improvement fund, or LPIF, was created in 2009. At the time, the problem was clear. The CRTC understood that and everyone agreed that the way to fix it was to set up a fund to support local news. In 2014, the CRTC unfortunately changed its tune. Suddenly, a fund to support news was no longer necessary because of the return of advertising revenue.

The CRTC got it wrong. After eight years of decline, it is now clear that the content offering is more and more out of touch with the realities in Canada and Quebec. American media now dominate our living rooms, with no regard for local programming or news.

That is why we can't let the CRTC make these decisions single-handedly. We believe Bill C‑11 should be amended.

Specifically, Unifor supports the bill but recommends that subsection 11.1(1) of the new act be amended by adding paragraph (d), which would establish a fund.

The paragraph reads as follows:(d) developing, financing, producing or promoting local news programming and coverage, using contributions paid by distribution undertakings to related programming undertakings or by distribution undertakings or online undertakings to an independent fund. In making regulations respecting the distribution of the contributions, the Commission must take into account the local presence and staffing of the programming undertaking.

That is paramount. Funding for local news must be tied to the actual number of local human resources needed to produce that news. In our view, that is the most reliable way of ensuring that industry funds will be spent solely on the purpose for which they are intended: making sure that Canadians have access to relevant and timely local news coverage they can count on. In order for people to access relevant news coverage, someone has to make it available.

The Broadcasting Act was created to protect Canadian voices in a marketplace in which they would not otherwise receive support. That has not changed. Bill C‑11 merely updates—or modernizes, if you prefer—the law. The local news model was upended and now deserves some consideration.

I'll turn the floor back over to Mr. Kitt.

[Kenneth Hirsch, Co-Chair, Quebec English-language Production Council]

Thank you, Kirwan.

I'm Kenneth Hirsch, co-chair of the Quebec English-language Production Council.

That said, we do have concerns with the terminology used in Bill C-11. We want to be sure that the language in the act is clear and unambiguous. The nomenclature that appeared in Bill C-10, “official language minority communities” in English, and “communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire” in French, has been replaced in Bill C-11 by the expression “English and French linguistic minority communities” in English, and “minorités francophones et anglophones du Canada” in French.

Thus, the French version of the new wording proposed in Bill C-11 removes the word “community”, which is an important concept for organizations working for these communities and distinguishes them from the majority. To avoid these problems, we would propose that Bill C-11 should return to the term originally used in Bill C-10, which we prefer: “official language minority communities”, and in French, “communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire”.

In addition, Bill C-11 should expressly define these minorities as English-speaking communities within Quebec, and French-speaking communities outside Quebec.

We thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

[Kirwan Cox, Executive Director, Quebec English-language Production Council]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee, thank you for giving us this opportunity to meet you and express our support for Bill C-11, which is desperately needed and long overdue. We hope Parliament passes this legislation as soon as possible.

I am Kirwan Cox, and my colleague is Kenneth Hirsch, from the Quebec English-language Production Council. We represent the English-language film, TV, and media production industries in Quebec. Our objective is to increase the production of films and television by the official language minority in Quebec, which, unfortunately, is now at its lowest level in history. QEPC strives both to increase the vitality of English programming in Quebec and to support Canadian content in both official languages across the country.

Today, we will focus on the official-language minority elements of the act. We are very pleased to see that the official-language minority measures adopted by this committee in Bill C-10, and passed by the House of Commons, have again been proposed by the minister in Bill C-11.

Not since the original Official Languages Act was passed over 50 years ago has any legislation been more important to the vitality, if not the survival, of both official-language minorities than Bill C-11 as now written.

We hope you will support these measures that are so important to us, to our French colleagues, and to the larger Canadian cultural sector.

[Matthew Hatfield, Campaigns Director, OpenMedia]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Matt Hatfield and I'm the campaigns director at OpenMedia, a grassroots community of over 200,000 people in Canada who work together for an open, accessible and surveillance-free Internet.

I'm speaking to you from the unceded territories of the Stó:lo, Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam nations.

OpenMedia is not made up of academics or lawyers. We're a citizens' group. I'm here today to ask that you ensure that the online streaming act respects the choices and freedom of expression of ordinary citizens.

The Internet works nothing like traditional broadcasting. I say that knowing full well that we're gathered to discuss a Broadcasting Act reform bill that would give the CRTC, a broadcasting-era regulator, the power to treat Internet content as if it were broadcasting. However, holdover ideas from the radio and television era are the reason for the deep confusion you've run into as a committee in trying to keep Bill C-11 and its predecessor, Bill C-10, from seriously overstepping the government's intent.

Traditional broadcasting was a top-down system in which the wishes and preferences of Canadians could not be directly expressed. Our only choice was to watch what a broadcaster chose to air on a few dozen channels, or not to watch at all. No one gave us a chance to share our own thoughts and voice, outside a few proud local community stations with limited reach.

The Internet is utterly different from that. Every day, we each make hundreds of choices among millions of channels and pieces of content online. Many of us take on the next step and share our words, jokes and passions back into that system through the same distribution platforms. We're not passive recipients of the Internet. We're active participants in crafting the feeds we want. We follow the individual creators we like and we use platforms like Patreon or YouTube to earn revenue from our fellow Internet users.

Treating the broadcasting system and the modern Internet as fundamentally similar would seem like a joke if the consequences were not potentially so serious.

We've heard for over a year that Bill C-10 and Bill C-11 would never regulate user content. Minister Guilbeault's team pretended that excluding users personally as legal entities meant their content was safe from CRTC regulation. That was untrue. Minister Rodriguez's team is telling us that they've fixed it and that user content is now excluded, but last week CRTC chair Ian Scott confirmed that this is not true and our content is still subject to CRTC regulatory control under Bill C-11.

You need to fix this. We understand that the CRTC believes it has always had the power to regulate our user audiovisual content online. That's a theoretical position and it doesn't matter very much to ordinary Canadians. Concretely, you are now considering a bill through which the CRTC will explicitly take up and use very broad regulatory powers that it has never exercised before over the Internet. The minimum safeguard you must adopt would be ensuring that user-generated content is fully, plainly and definitively excluded from CRTC regulation.

Proposed subsection 4.1(2), which reincludes most of our online user content in the CRTC's control, is the heart of the problem. The three criteria laid out do not meaningfully protect any of our content. More or less, everything earns revenue online, everything has unique identifiers attached to it, and all major online platforms are going to be broadcasting undertakings registered with the CRTC.

All we're really getting from the government right now is a flimsy promise that the CRTC won't misuse this astonishing extended power and a policy direction that they won't even let Canadians see yet. That's not good enough. Policy directions can be changed at will, which means that at any time, a future government could issue new CRTC guidance requiring they regulate our posts directly.

Our online rights must be legally entrenched, not informally promised. Canadians need proposed subsection 4.1(2) to be removed altogether, or much more definite limitations to be placed on it. You must clearly exclude all of our podcasts, TikToks, YouTube channels and social media posts from this bill. Leaving this dangerous loophole clause this wide open is not responsible. It's leaving a door ajar for future mass censorship of Canadians' personal online expression.

While respecting the content we produce, our government must also respect our right to freely choose the content we consume. We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed at the front of our bookstores, but that's exactly what the discoverability provision in proposed subsection 9.1(1) of Bill C-11 is currently doing. Manipulating our search results and feeds to feature content that the government prefers instead of other content is gross paternalism that doesn't belong in a democratic society. Any promotion requirement on platforms for government-selected CanCon should respect our choices and limit itself to optional or opt-in results, not mandatory quotas.

People in Canada are looking to see whether public officials like yourselves are going to defend our fundamental rights. Since last year, OpenMedia community members have sent over 53,000 individual emails to our MPs and the Department of Canadian Heritage on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11.

While our community is interested in seeing Canadian stories told in the 21st century, it cannot come at the price of a blank cheque to the CRTC to take regulatory authority over our audiovisual posts, or having the government decide what we should be watching and listening to. We urge you to fix Bill C-11's overreaching on both these fronts before the bill leaves your hands.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Eve Paré, Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo]

The Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, ADISQ for short, represents independent businesses in Quebec dedicated to the development of musical artists. On behalf of our members, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on Bill C‑11. I am joined today by Marie‑Julie Desrochers, our director of institutional affairs and research.

In Canada, independent businesses are responsible for 95% of French-language music production. That sets us apart from the rest of the world, where large companies dominate the market. The Broadcasting Act has for decades been instrumental in that minor miracle. The act has helped homegrown French-language music spread, structure itself as an industry, reinvent itself and reach the public over the years.

In Canada's French-speaking markets, two out of three songs played on commercial radio are French. On satellite radio, our francophone music has secured a meaningful place for itself among hundreds of English-language channels, despite the initial protests of companies claiming they weren't able to showcase our homegrown music. Our television music programs are broadcast almost weekly on our public and private general interest networks.

All of these showcase media have such a rich and diverse supply of music to draw from thanks, in large part, to broadcasters' contributions, most of which are paid to Musicaction and the Radio Starmaker Fund. Both of those mechanisms are dedicated to funding the production and marketing of French-language music in all its forms, and do so admirably. As a result, artists are able to launch and build lasting careers in Canada and abroad.

The effects of that virtuous circle are impressive. According to the Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec, music produced by local artists accounts for 50% of music purchased by Quebeckers in any given year. People like and choose homegrown music, but first, they have to have exposure to it.

As you know, the way people consume music is changing. Online media represent an increasingly large share of that consumption, alongside conventional media. In March of this year, Léger conducted a survey commissioned by ADISQ, and what it reveals about how the two types of media coexist is quite telling. The results show that 60% of Quebeckers identify the radio as a tool for discovering new artists, making it the most popular medium for musical discovery.

The survey also reveals that 61% of people now listen to music using an online service. Unlike conventional media, online services are completely unregulated, to the point that the effects of the act have been waning for far too long, both funding-wise and promotion-wise. What that means in concrete terms is alarming. ADISQ uses data from Luminate to measure what Quebeckers are listening to every week on online audio services. Just 8% of the tracks people listen to are French.

That is why action is so urgently needed, and Bill C‑11 could finally make the difference. In order for those changes to truly matter, we recommend looking at them through two lenses.

First, the bill should end the unjustifiable inequity currently undermining our ecosystem by treating conventional and online companies differently. The effort to achieve balance, however, must not lead to a lower standard. The support provided by conventional media remains crucial and should be supplemented by online media. That means the bill should safeguard the Canadian character of conventional companies, protect minority languages, enshrine the use of Canadian resources as a clear goal and, above all, adopt a technology-neutral approach so that it covers all services that affect Canada's cultural sovereignty, today and tomorrow.

Second, it is necessary to ensure that the CRTC has the staff, funding and enforcement powers it needs to carry out the ambitious renewed mission with which it is being tasked. No matter what some may argue, the CRTC does not have too much power. All it needs are the proper tools to counterbalance the disproportionate power currently held by foreign companies, which are driven solely by profit.

Some claim that the cultural community is advocating for a handful of creators and producers, but those who do misunderstand the attachment people have to their culture. According to that same survey, 70% of Quebeckers who stream music want platforms to recommend French-language music made in Quebec. Approximately 73% of people think the government should pass legislation to make it mandatory for Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube and similar music platforms to contribute to the funding of such music. That's what you call widespread support.

The work you will be doing in the weeks ahead will benefit Canadians and creators alike. By supporting the diversity of cultural expression, you promote freedom of expression, expand consumer choice and strengthen Canada's democracy. For Bill C‑11 to do what is promised, Parliament must pass a strong piece of legislation that covers all the services operating in our ecosystem and that provides Canadians with a nimble regulatory framework for decades to come.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll resume this meeting.

I will just again mention that there are a couple of things to remember.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those of you participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English and French for whichever you would like. I will remind you that all questions should be addressed through the chair.

We are meeting again to discuss Bill C-11.

Witnesses, I just want to remind you that you each have five minutes for your organization to present, and then we go into question and answer rounds.

I will begin by calling you by name, and you can begin your five minutes.

We will begin with the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo with Eve Paré, the executive director, and Marie-Julie Desrochers, director of institutional affairs and research.

I don't know which of you will be speaking, so I'll just let you begin for five minutes, please.

[Alain Saulnier]

I will focus on the last question.

Doing nothing will marginalize cultural groups, like francophones, all over the country.

Artists, video-makers and authors have worked too hard for lawmakers to suddenly let the market dictate what happens, leaving it up to companies—whose editorial policies and strategies are determined by shareholders—to decide what is good or bad for us. That is not up to them, so we really need to get moving. We can't wait another 30 years for a new Broadcasting Act. We need to act quickly.

In my view, we are in danger right now. By we, I mean francophones, first nations and small cultural minorities other than anglophones in the west. We need to do something, and we need to do it now.

I would call Bill C‑11 a first step. Other legislation is coming, including Bill C‑18, which deals with the media. In fact, I would be happy to appear again once the bill has been referred to the committee. To my mind, we need to start moving the needle now.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations, which were very informative. I hope they and their family members are healthy and safe given the ongoing pandemic.

I have three questions. They are for Mr. Saulnier, Ms. Guay and Mr. Skolnik.

My three questions have to do with comments made by the first panel of witnesses we heard from today.

Number one, the OUTtv Network executive told us that online platforms were engaging in a form of discrimination by rejecting certain content. I'd like to know more about that.

Number two, I want to know how exactly Bill C‑11 could impact Canadian artists. Mr. Payette said that the big companies picked the winners and losers and that the bill could help create a more level playing field for Canadian artists.

Number three, if Parliament does not pass Bill C‑11—if we allow the industry to go unregulated for even more years—what impact will it have on Canada's cultural industry and Canadian jobs?

I'd like to hear from Mr. Saulnier first, please.

[Alain Saulnier]

We've allowed these giants, these platforms, to set up permanently in our jurisdictions, and Canada and Quebec aren't the only ones dealing with this. Every country in the west has had to face this new reality. That's why it has taken everyone so long to respond, although Europe has taken a much more aggressive approach, if you will. Here, though, we have been much too slow to make regulations.

Now, it feels as though we are up against giants and reeling them in at all is impossible. That is why I think Parliament needs to pass Bill C‑11 quickly. If lawmakers don't do it now, they'll just be kicking the can down the road yet again.

Small cultural groups around the world—that includes us, as francophones—will become even more marginalized than they are today. Lawmakers should not wait any longer; nor should they be influenced by the digital giants who want to impose their content their way by deciding what is good and what is bad. We can't go down that road.

[Bill Skolnik]

As you heard, we're in favour of diverse cultural expressions. That's our raison d'être. The window is closing because, whether it's deliberate or inadvertent, the large platforms are taking over. We need to allow particularly our indigenous folks, and other communities as well, the ability to continue to receive funding through the various means that the traditional broadcasters have provided. That is something we want to see continue and that's represented in Bill C-11 by using the platforms and their contributions.

[Tim Louis]

I very much agree. Thank you.

Maybe I could turn to Mr. Skolnik. BillC-11 has important provisions to support our programming specifically for historically overlooked communities. Can you speak to how Bill C-11 will be important to our cultural identity and our community, and how that window is closing and this timing is critical?

[Nathalie Guay]

Thank you very much for the question. I'd be glad to answer it.

I found the methodology used for the calculation at the Canadian Heritage site. I'd be happy to send you the information. It clearly explains how these amounts were determined for both the audiovisual and music sectors.

We would like to point out four major differences between Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11. First, in Bill C‑10, there is a mention of “original programs in French”, whereas in Bill C‑11, unfortunately, the reference is to “original French language programs”. In addition, it's important to us that the expression “official language minority communities” be put back into Bill C‑11.

Then there is the question of the factors that would encourage independent producers to own the intellectual property. I'm talking about the new section that provides guidelines for the definition of Canadian programs.

Finally, with respect to paragraph 3(1)(a) of Bill C‑11, which concerns the fact that the Canadian system ought to be the property of Canadians and under their control, we would propose a different wording, because we believe that the changes made could make it easier for foreign undertakings to acquire Canadian undertakings.

Of course, there is also the new item on social media. We had been satisfied with the final wording in Bill C‑10. Now, we consider the sandbox, as it has been called, to be an acceptable solution. We are very much looking forward to the next phase so that the CRTC can do the work of reviewing the data. We're hearing a lot about how this might play out, and about the various types of regulations that could affect social media. However, it's important to remember that the first phase consists of conducting an analysis and that this can only be done once there is enough transparency and data sharing among the principal stakeholders and the CRTC.

[Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the three groups that are in front of us here this afternoon.

I'll start with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. I believe you were in front of us on Bill C-10, so what's changed, in your mind, between Bill C-10 and Bill C-11?

Nathalie, I noticed that you talked about the $830 million that was supposed to be generated. At the time, it was Minister Guilbeault. Nobody substantiated that $830 million. Nobody knew where that number came from. To be honest with you, as a hypothetical number, the minister at the time said that would be the windfall for Canadian producers. Maybe you can comment on that, because you did bring up the number of $830 million.

[Nathalie Guay, Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Nathalie Guay, the Executive Director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which has only a few requests to make with a view to improving Bill C‑11.

First, the broadcasting system must continue to promote Canadian talent. The suggested wording of paragraph 3(1)(f) establishes two regimes. The first sets higher expectations for Canadian undertakings, including online Canadian undertakings, with respect to the use of Canadian creative resources, expenses related to Canadian programming, contributions to the fund for the support of content development and efforts to promote Canadian programming. The second regime opens the door to reduced requirements on foreign online companies in these areas.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the Canadian Heritage estimate that the bill could lead to the injection of an additional $830 million per year in our ecosystems was largely based on an estimate of spending on Canadian programming and on a contribution comparable to the current obligations of Canadian broadcasting undertakings. With a two tier system, there is a risk of setting this objective aside, not to mention the fact that an imbalance is being introduced between the respective obligations of Canadian undertakings and foreign undertakings.

Second, we think that the CRTC orders need to be subject to the possibility of an appeal to the Governor in Council to have them cancelled or referred back to the CRTC for review and a new hearing. It would simply adapt the current provision in the Broadcasting Act to the new regulatory framework. In addition, it could strengthen both parties' confidence in the CRTC.

Third, we would like to see a public hearing process for orders. We think that this would encourage a more effective way of factoring in the various points of view, particularly with respect to potential stakeholders' varying levels of experience and resources, and also because hearings provide an opportunity to respond to the arguments of other parties.

Fourth, we suggest an amendment to subsection 8(2) to allow for providing full representations concerning a notice rather than simply a summary.

Fifth, we would like the committee to reintroduce a number of terms that had been adopted in the former legislative instrument, Bill C‑10. I could explain that in further detail if anyone would like me to.

To conclude, we are not proposing any changes to the social media provisions. The government has already tightened this up by proposing criteria that the CRTC should use for its analysis. We also believe that adding further details would make the framework less flexible and would create loopholes that would make the new framework obsolete.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Bill Skolnik, Co-Chair, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

I'm going to start.

Thank you, Dr. Fry, and I'd like to thank the committee very much for having us once again. It's a great honour, and we're very pleased to be here. My name is Bill Skolnik. I am the co-chair of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

We are an alliance of 47 associations representing more than 200,000 performers, creators, technicians and professionals, and 2,000 organizations in music, screen production, book and music publishing, live performance and the visual arts. For more than 20 years, our members have been working together to protect and promote Canada's diverse cultural expressions. My colleague Nathalie Guay and I have been delegates at several UNESCO assemblies held to support the objectives of the 2005 UNESCO convention on the diversity of cultural expressions.

Canada, as I'm sure you are aware, was the first country to ratify this convention and is considered a leader in ensuring that the principles of the convention are upheld. This crucial protection and promotion requires the exercise of cultural sovereignty, and that is the essence of Bill C-11. The Broadcasting Act is cultural policy. It is our belief that this tradition and legacy must continue to thrive. Moreover, the review of the Broadcasting Act is an essential part of the tool kit needed to redefine and rebalance our ecosystems.

This committee has had the chance to learn at length about the impact COVID has had on our sector. The CDCE applauded the tabling of Bill C-11 on February 2. We can only hope that this attempt to revise our legislation will conclude shortly so the benefits can reach Canadian creators, artists, producers and organizations as soon as possible. They have been waiting for a very long time.

Finally, allow me to recall that, according to a recent Nanos poll, the legislation has broad support from the public.

I will now turn the floor over to Nathalie who will present the changes that we ask you to consider. These proposals emerged from intense and detailed discussion, and represent a broad and unified consensus crafted by our multi-faceted membership and beyond.

Thank you.

[Alain Saulnier, Author and Retired Professor of Communication from Université de Montréal, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

I taught journalism, particularly investigative journalism, at the Université de Montréal for about 10 years. That's when I became particularly interested in the relationship the media and culture have with the Internet giants. My acquired expertise led me to publish a book in February whose title is Les barbares numériques: résister à l'invasion des GAFAM.

I also spent time as the director of information at Radio-Canada. From 1992 to 1997, I was the president of the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec. More recently, from 2017 to 2019, I co‑chaired Culture Montréal's Commission permanente Montréal numérique.

I said that I was particularly interested in the relationship the media and culture have with the Internet giants, most of which are American, and which I call barbaric.

Here is a quote from my book:

The history of the Western world will record that it was the most important conquest of the 21st century. What am I talking about? The conquest of the digital world and our lands by American superpowers. In fact, it was the most crushing attack on national sovereignty ever experienced by states in the new millennium.

That's why I believe that states and their institutions need to take appropriate measures to protect their media and their culture. In my brief, I place more of an emphasis on the protection of our francophone language and culture. The problem is that I don't think we've understood that for us, francophones, this invasion of our territory by the Internet giants has marginalized our media, our language and our culture. We must never forget that these superpowers are largely American. It's an invasion that has to be resisted.

I believe that Bill C‑11 is one way of accomplishing that. Additional measures will, I hope, be introduced. The CRTC could also address the various aspects of implementing this act. In any event, it's one way of regulating the cohabitation between American Internet giants and us. It's essential to place foreign digital companies and Canadian digital companies on an equal footing.

Giving the CRTC the power to regulate all digital activity pertaining to culture and communications could promote a healthy form of cohabitation between the Internet giants, on the one hand, and our own companies, creators and people, on the other.

Requiring superpowers to reinject a significant share of their revenues here, in creation and production by people from here, is one way of supporting our cultural milieu and our media. That would be the best way to counter the American content that dominates these platforms.

Protecting our cultural sovereignty is what it's all about. Doing nothing amounts to total laissez-faire. Playing the game with those rules would give us nothing. Doing nothing amounts to allowing these Internet giants and their marketplace laws to dictate for us what's good and what's bad. As we have been able to see, they have failed in terms of self-discipline in performing the role of major content regulatory bodies. False information has piled up, particularly over the past two years. And all the while, they have generated record profits.

In Canada, we have always been able to respond when American corporations have attempted to invade our territory with their cultural content. That's why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established in 1936, and why the CRTC was entrusted with the power to regulate communications. Similarly, the government introduced television in 1952 to counter American television when Americans treated Canada as part of their market.

In 1997, the CRTC unfortunately missed the boat when it decided not to regulate the Internet so that it could foster its growth. Well, the growth has happened, and that's the best I can say about it. These days, people under 35 years of age live strictly through the social networks and platforms operated by these American Internet giants. They obtain information through social networks, which weakens our own media. Their main source of music is now YouTube. A little earlier, Mr. Jérôme Payette pointed out that Quebec's market share was only 8% for those among the 10,000 most popular performers. How can you have a career in music when a single play on YouTube earns the songwriter only half a cent.

There is another source of concern. For the first time in our history, traditional television is being outpaced by streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon and Disney+. According to the Media Technology Monitor, 70% of anglophones and 58% of francophones in Canada have a Netflix subscription. That's how people watch television series and movies now.

So today, we need to go through the same exercise again. The Internet giants want to establish their own ground rules and are challenging ours.

As we heard, they are lobbying heavily and fighting against state efforts to establish a healthy form of cohabitation between them and us. That's why we need to act now. Bill C‑11 is a first step in that direction.

As I wrote in my book, it's late, but it's not too late.

Thank you for your attention.

[Dr. Irene Berkowitz, Senior Policy Fellow, Audience Lab, The Creative School, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Hi, and thank you for inviting me. I am appearing as an individual, not on behalf of the Toronto Metropolitan University.

I've been writing publicly on issues relating to Bill C-11 since 2014, when I testified at “Let's Talk TV”.

Bill C-11 to me is not the visionary legislation we deserve. Its story could have been how a small nation of 37 million will engage a global audience of seven billion. As one of few researchers to table original data on new and legacy content, I'm deeply concerned that C-11 will chill Canadian media innovation.

Today, I'll share data from Watchtime Canada, the YouTube study I led, and my book Mediaucracy, which is on legacy media. To be clear, Bill C-11 does not support Canadian storytelling. It supports old ways that define and distribute our stories.

As you heard this morning, Bill C-11 needs clear, decisive amendments. Politicizing this process hurts all Canadians, because we all benefit from a strong media sector, and so does our tax base. Our media is our face to the world.

Our Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asserted in 2016 that Canada would be known for resourcefulness, not resources. Just this month, this May, Trudeau announced a $3.6-billion auto sector investment that will make Canada a global leader in electric vehicles, innovations that he said will create hundreds of jobs.

Without public investment, YouTube, costing more than $6 billion annually at no cost to Canada, created more than 160,000 Canadian entrepreneurs and 30,000 jobs. Make no mistake; as you've heard today, working YouTube, TikTok or Instagram is gruelling. We found that 60% of eligible channels on YouTube earned less than $10,000, and 9% did earn more than $100,000, but it's 100% risk—no free ride.

Yet in open global competition for audiences, Canadians are winning. They're YouTube's number one exporters, with 90% of views outside of Canada, diverse without quotas and enhancing the soft power of our values around the world.

YouTube has empowered local Canadians of every race, ethnicity, ability and gender to engage global audiences. French Canadian YouTubers include this year's Juno nominee singer Charlotte Cardin, Chef Carl is Cooking, beauty artist Cynthia Dulude and Radio-Canada journalist PL Cloutier.

Bill C-11's wrong turn starts with the notion that CRTC has jurisdiction over the whole internet for two reasons. The first is scale. Consider the math. On YouTube alone, 500 hours of content is uploaded per minute, which is 12,000 a day, 150,000 a week. Then add TikTok and other platforms. YouTube does know what's uploaded in Canada; it just doesn't know if the uploaders are Canadian or their team. They don't know if Canadians are uploading from any other place on earth, say, a Buffalo Airbnb, or a VPN. Shoving the new into the old instantly gets absurd.

Second, new media is a feature, not a bug. It's additive innovation. The open Internet paved our way to electric cars, mRNA vaccines and more. Why mess with the earnings of self-starters who never asked a penny from the public purse? If user-generated content, why not video games and reality TV? These are two genres that are healthy because they are market-driven. Bill C-11 gets it backwards. Instead of positioning new media as a model to engage audiences, it ensnares new media in the epic fail part of our old media: disregard for audiences.

Amendments to narrow scope and clearly delete user-generated content would have multiple benefits of quelling concerns about free speech, discoverability—at least for UGC—and the 1950s-style rule-making authorities. The result would focus CRTC on what it does urgently owe legacy media: producer-accessed, platform—agnostic funding.

As a researcher who believes in data-based, goal-driven policy, I ask this: What is C-11's goal? I get that Liberals have the power to pass Bill C-11 as it's written, yet if they do, I suspect challenges will long delay the urgent work and promised windfalls, as you heard this morning.

I'll close with the words by a legacy media CEO who recently sent me an email about Bill C-11. It's short. Here it is: “The industry is shooting itself in the foot.”

Thank you for your time. I'm truly honoured to be here, and I look forward to your questions.

[Jérôme Payette]

No, I don't believe they do.

The CRTC hasn't done anything for the past 20 years. We've been consulted since 2016 on the modernization of the act. At the time, it was within the “Creative Canada” policy framework. After that, if memory serves me, there was a CRTC report, followed by the report from the group of experts on the Yale review panel. Then there was Bill C‑10.

We are now studying Bill C‑11. This will be followed by a period during which the CRTC will gather information, which is the usual way of proceeding. It will really take the time required to properly understand what's going on and take established objectives into account. That will lead to the creation of regulations.

It's therefore still going to take quite a while for this to reach people in the field, the entrepreneurs I represent and the artists they work with. We don't have time to wait much longer. Bill C‑11 has to be adopted and the CRTC has to remain flexible.

I don't know how much speaking time I have left, but I could say more about Ms. Fortier's comments, if you don't mind.

[Ted Falk]

Okay. Thank you for that and thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Geist, you've written on Bill C-11, just as you did previously on Bill C-10. Can you articulate what you believe the government's objectives are and also how they should have drafted the bill to achieve those?

[Michael Coteau, Don Valley East, Lib.]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for joining us today. It's been a very valuable conversation. Thank you so much.

My question is for Mr. Danks from OUTtv.

You mentioned that a shift has taken place in the distribution system in Canada. We've heard from people in the past that there's been a loss of control over what people are seeing and also the control of rights, of content. You mentioned that Bill C-11 would be an important tool to help ensure some equity within the system when it comes to distribution.

Can you talk about the equity piece to this and how putting in place a piece of legislation like this will help ensure there's greater equity within the distribution system in this country?

[Tim Uppal]

Thank you.

Ms. Fortier, you have one of the most successful YouTube channels in Canada. It's really a Canadian content creator's dream situation. If Bill C-11 is passed and enters into law in its current form, how would it impact your business and other businesses like that, or businesses that are striving to be like your business?

[Jérôme Payette]

To answer your question, I'm not really sure of the definition of that term. Based on the one I've been given, they're creators who depend on platforms as a priority distribution method.

However, based on that definition, the music sector is digital first. So we have to pay attention to the meanings we attach to words and expressions. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that Digital First Canada doesn't represent all online content creators, at least, definitely not the music sector.

What troubles me is the lack of consideration the platforms give to local music. They need to do more for us. We're opposed to any change in the act that might limit the CRTC's power to ensure we benefit from regulations made under Bill C‑11.

However, if, at the regulation stage, some audiovisual content producers from outside the music sector are opposed to having undertakings' content distribution regulated, I'm sure the CRTC will take that into account. In fact, when we tell the CRTC that there's no point in regulating an activity, it generally tends not to do it. Our criticism in the past 20 years has been that it hasn't regulated certain activities enough.

Consequently, I don't think that creators who don't want to be protected by regulations have anything to fear—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

That's fine, Mr. Menzies.

Independent production, which is what we're trying to protect by regulatory means, is declining. That has been a concern for the industry for some time. It represents 31% of the $9.5 billion you mentioned, compared to production services, which are provided by foreign undertakings that produce in Canada and buy services, such as visual effects.

However, independent production, strictly speaking, is in decline. So it's false to say that the audiovisual industry is doing well in Canada. If we break down and look at the numbers, it seems quite clear this is an industry that could use a little protection from us.

I simply wanted to clarify that point because I thought the overall figure looked good, but the details sometimes reveal minor surprises that slightly misrepresent the actual situation.

Mr. Payette, I'm coming back to you because there's something very troubling here that I think is interfering in our discussion of Bill C‑11, and I'm referring to the issue of content generated by users. Earlier Ms. Fortier mentioned our fear about this.

What do you have to say to creators who earn a living by sharing content online, the digital-first creators, to win their support for the bill? What would you say to convince them that the bill isn't harmful, that it doesn't threaten them and, on the contrary, could help them?

[Peter Menzies]

You could say that under Bill C-11, you're not going to use this clause 4.2, but 4.2 might be there to open the door for online harms.

[Chris Bittle]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Payette.

I'm going to ask my next questions of Mr. Menzies. I think we all agree that the CRTC is bound by legislation and it is then tasked with interpreting that. However, after a big piece of legislation like Bill C-11 is when a policy directive comes in with specific directives to the commission.

Would you agree that a policy directive would be customary in a case like this?

[Chris Bittle, St. Catharines, Lib.]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before we begin, I really want to say a quick “thank you” to all of the employees who are here making this happen. I know Ottawa got hit incredibly hard. There were some negative comments about civil servants last week in our committee, and it's truly incredible that we're here and doing this. Thank you all, from translators to the clerk and everyone else for being here.

I'd like to make a quick point. There are a number of witnesses who have been talking about what the chair of the CRTC said in regard to regulating user-generated content. I guess this is politics—people leave out the second line—but the next line of his statement was:

...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.

I'd like to ask my first question of Monsieur Payette. In your opening remarks, you said that music has had a hard time reaching Canadian audiences. How would Bill C-11 help Canadian music?

[Cathay Wagantall]

Thank you so much for that.

Ms. Fortier, can you briefly—I'm sorry—explain how Bill C-11 will harm digital first creators by playing with discoverability?

[Cathay Wagantall, Yorkton—Melville, CPC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for the testimony you've brought this morning.

I have a question for you, Dr. Geist. You have criticized the Liberal government's defence of Bill C-11 for being “misleading”. Could you expand on that, please?

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Reeb, I'd like to come back to you. You've talked about a level playing field and the importance of passing Bill C-11 without delay. Can you tell us more about how Bill C-11, in your opinion, would set and put in place a level playing field?

[Jérôme Payette]

The problem isn't the algorithms as such, because technology is good. It's the way they're being used because undertakings are allowed to operate based solely on financial considerations. We aren't interested in the details about algorithms.

The fact is that the francophone music sector, which represents 8 million persons, isn't a profitable enough market for the undertakings to cater to it. Consequently, we need acts and regulations. This isn't new; it's always been this way. Our sector has always been a small market, hence the importance of statutes that give the CRTC the power to regulate undertakings.

We need to add the cultural aspect to the factors that should be considered, and I think that's what Bill C‑11 will do.

[Morghan Fortier]

I think part of the issue is that we aren't actually looking at real numbers and real situations. I don't believe there has been a very clear, honest audit of what the digital landscape looks like today. I think there's a lot of conjecture. I think there's a lot of speculation. I will definitely be the first to openly admit that this is not an easy sector of the industry to be working in. Digital distribution, self-distribution, is not for everybody.

I certainly don't have issue with regulation. If I were presented with a piece of legislation that had a clear and concise goal of what it wanted to accomplish, how it would go about it and how it would impact digital content creators, in this example, I would be more than happy to look at it.

The problem is that Bill C-11 is so broad and so contradictory within itself, with no clear definitions and no clear terms, especially when it comes to, as an example, what's commercial and what's non-commercial.

Right now, UGC is lumped together as one big solid whole. It would include small businesses like mine, and it would include my mom, who is uploading videos of our family vacations to the platform. It does not clearly indicate what “commercial” would be. It often doesn't indicate that there's an understanding of the sheer volume of small businesses that run in the sector and the success of content, and it forgets, or misunderstands potentially, that these platforms really only exist based on the success of content creators on these platforms. If people weren't finding success and weren't finding an audience, they would leave those platforms.

As I mentioned before—not to sound like a broken record—the platforms work for us, not the other way around. If people aren't finding an audience or that community to reach out to and to build, it doesn't win for anybody on a global perspective, even on a regional perspective.

[Jérôme Payette]

Thank you, Mr. Champoux. You have a pretty good voice too.

If I may, I'll begin by clarifying what Bill C‑11 says about social media broadcasting activities.

Clause 4 concerns the content uploaded by users, not generated by them. The process of uploading content tells us very little about the nature of that content or the relevance of regulating it. Users may be uploading professional music.

I'd also like to note that undertakings are regulated, not individuals. Those undertakings are regulated for the streaming of commercial content only. Non-commercial content is exempt from Bill C‑11.

Clause 4 isn't the only aspect of the bill that must be examined. We also have to look at the Broadcasting Act as a whole. Many fears have been expressed. Freedom of expression is protected under section 2 of the Broadcasting Act. Sections 5 and 9 provide that the CRTC must take into consideration the impact of creation and production on the Canadian industry and avoid imposing obligations on undertakings that are not conducive to the achievement of the objectives of Canadian broadcasting policy.

There is a risk that amending clause 4 of the act would create a loophole. If the activities of certain undertakings are exempt from the act, the impact will be felt by all undertakings in the sector because they compete with each other. If the act is drafted too specifically, it will limit the flexibility of the CRTC, which needs to adjust to quick changes in the sector.

The act will be in force for years, perhaps decades. If we limit or freeze the CRTC's power, the situation will be rendered obsolete.

To answer your question regarding Ms. Fortier's remarks, I think people occasionally confuse the act with regulations. Today we're talking about the act. If we drain Bill C‑11 of its substance and limit the CRTC's powers, that will allow undertakings to avoid appearing before the CRTC, transmitting information and conducting themselves in a transparent manner. The CRTC must be given the means to do its job. We have far more confidence in our institutions than in the platforms, which operate with a total lack of transparency.

The Broadcasting Act, is an enabling statute. The CRTC must be granted the powers it needs to conduct its study. Then comes the regulatory phase, which must be conducted together with experts based on accurate numbers, not anecdotal evidence. That will all take place in the context of CRTC hearings. In that way, all parties can express their views.

I could say more about that…

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Michael Geist. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I'm a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. I'm appearing in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.

As you're surely aware, I've been quite critical of Bill C-11. I'd like to start by emphasizing that criticism of the bill is not criticism of public support for culture nor of regulation of technology companies. I think that public support for culture is essential and that one of the core problems in this area is that our current CanCon rules don't achieve their stated objectives.

As Peter Grant, a member of the Yale report panel and a long-time advocate for Internet regulation, recently noted, certified CanCon “doesn't have to look Canadian or be about a Canadian story.” I don't think that's how Canadians think about CanCon, and our rules should be changed to become better aligned with our policy objectives. Further, I agree with former Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who recently noted with respect to Internet platforms that there's a need for legislated transparency, accountability and rules on data governance and privacy.

Given my limited time, I'd like to focus on two main issues this morning. These are Bill C-11's regulation of user content and its overbroad regulatory approach, and the need for greater certainty.

First, I'll discuss the regulation of user content. When Minister Rodriguez introduced this bill, he stated, “we listened to the concerns around social media and we fixed it.” With respect, many of the concerns remain intact. While the proposed section 4.1 exception for user content was reinstated, proposed subsection 4.1(2) and proposed section 4.2, which together provide for the prospect of CRTC regulations on user content, were added.

The bottom line is that user content is treated as a program, and the CRTC is empowered to create regulations applicable to programs that are uploaded to social media services. Non-commercial, user-generated content may be out, but user content that generates even indirect revenue is subject to potential inclusion within the regulations. As you just heard, you don't need to take my word for it. As you know, when asked at this committee last week about whether the bill included the potential for regulating user content, the CRTC chair Ian Scott acknowledged, “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required”.

You may ask why any of this matters. Bill C-11 permits the creation of regulations on the presentation of programs to the public, and since it treats all audiovisual content anywhere in the world as a program, the potential regulatory scope is vast. Those regulations identify but aren't limited to discoverability. Discoverability has rightly attracted attention, since applying it to user content is both unworkable, as we don't have a mechanism to determine what qualifies, and potentially harmful to Canadian creators who may find their works downgraded globally.

The solution is obvious. No other country in the world seeks to regulate user content in this way, and it should be removed from the bill because it doesn't belong in the Broadcasting Act. In the alternative, remove all of the regulatory powers associated with user content, but leave in the potential for contributions by user content platforms.

Second, I have a few comments about the overbreadth and uncertainty with this bill, which, as currently structured, covers any audiovisual content anywhere in the world. As a Canadian Heritage department memo on the issue noted with Bill C-10, that includes video games, news sites, niche streaming services and workout videos. I recognize that this may not be the government's intent, and there is an expectation of a policy direction that creates some limits and the CRTC itself may decide to establish some others. However, I believe there is a clear need for thresholds and limitations in the legislation itself. Without it, services may regard the regulatory uncertainty—which you heard last week could take years to sort out—and block Canada, leading to less choice and higher consumer costs.

If the goal is to target the large streaming services or to exempt video games or niche streamers, say so in the legislation. While we're doing that, borrow from the European Union's approach of distinguishing between curated and non-curated services, and use that as a way of establishing more targeted regulatory requirements or exemptions.

There's certainly more to discuss, including the myriad of concerns about the CRTC: the current lack of transparency, the cloud of bias and the potential for government to overstep on CRTC decisions into program regulation. There are also the outdated CanCon rules that I noted earlier and the actual data on investment in film and television production.

I'll stop there. I look forward to your questions.

[Morghan Fortier]

No, it's okay. That's what happens. It's rare that there is a woman on a panel like this.

Good morning. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Morghan Fortier. I am the co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, Super Simple Songs, with over 1.3 billion lifetime views in Canada alone.

Since founding our company in 2015, we've grown into a studio that employs 35 artists, writers, puppeteers and musicians. During that time, we've built a global audience, and today we share our Canadian-owned and Canadian-created content with more than 30 million families, classrooms, and day cares all around the world every single day, including hundreds of thousands of Canadians.

We accomplished this because of three main factors: the desire to create great content for children, parents and caregivers; our willingness to take risks for the sake of owning and controlling our own IP outright; and the tremendous skill, dedication and creativity of our hard-working Canadian artists. We accomplished it without broadcasters or government intervention.

We are but a single success story among a robust and rapidly growing industry of like-minded entrepreneurs who have started small businesses as digital content creators right here in Canada. We are also an example of the amazing things that can happen when the government takes a soft-touch approach and allows a new industry to flourish.

Bill C-11 is not an ill-intentioned piece of legislation, but it is a bad piece of legislation. It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate, and because of that, they've made it incredibly broad. It mistakes platforms like YouTube, TikTok and Facebook for broadcasters like the CBC, Netflix and Amazon Prime. It doesn't understand how those platforms operate, and it ignores the fundamental importance of global discoverability. Worst of all, proposed section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet use of everyday Canadians and small businesses like mine that are not even associated with broadcasters.

I absolutely appreciate the necessity of updating the Broadcasting Act to include the new band of broadcasters—companies that take pitches, green-light shows and movies, and pay for productions—but regulating user-generated content on platforms like Facebook, TikTok and YouTube is far too overreaching. In the Venn diagram of the entertainment industry, the needs of legacy broadcasters and the enterprise of digital content creators are not interconnected. There is no demonstrable reason that user-generated content needs to be included in this bill.

Minister Rodriguez has insisted that UGC will not be included in Bill C-11, but this is untrue. Last week, the chair of the CRTC, Mr. Scott, confirmed that UGC is in the current draft of the bill. If it truly isn't intended to be in the bill, then it simply needs to be removed; proposed section 4.2 just needs to be taken out. If you don't remove that section, you're asking Canadians to just trust that you won't misuse this far-reaching law and that future governments won't misuse it either. Thousands of Canadian small businesses and digital content creators deserve far more consideration than that.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to taking your questions.

[Jérôme Payette, Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association]

Good morning, everyone.

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee.

I am very pleased to represent the francophone music sector, which at times is overlooked in discussions concerning the Broadcasting Act.

The Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale, or APEM, represents the Quebec and francophone music publishers of Canada. Music publishers, partnering with author-composers, support the creation of musical works and promote and administer them. Music is published wherever there are music, online and concert music services and audiovisual productions.

The music sector needs the continuity that the Canadian broadcasting system affords.

There is much talk of the potential negative effects of the bill and the potentially twisted way in which the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, may interpret it. The CRTC currently has more power than what it would be granted under Bill C‑11, and the work it has done over the past 50 years hasn't troubled a single citizen. CRTC regulations are of critical importance to the francophone music sector.

I will therefore begin by discussing the very real effects of the lack of a regulatory framework that applies to online undertakings. It's quite simple: the further the online transition progresses, the more the Canadian music sector shrinks and strains to reach its audience.

The revenues that the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, has paid to Quebec music publishers have fallen by 24% since 2016. Revenues from conventional sources such as radio and television are declining, and we have been unable to obtain a substantial share of revenues from online undertaking, which are growing.

According to SOCAN, the royalties distributed to Canadian authors and composers from digital distributors are 69% lower than those from traditional broadcasters. Only 10% of royalties from digital media are distributed to SOCAN members compared to 34% for conventional media.

Growth in the online music sector mainly benefits the platforms and a very limited number of international artists. It has not helped local music or niche music artists, minority artists or those who speak languages other than English.

Quebec music struggles to reach its audience online. According to statistics obtained by the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, or ADISQ, our market share in Quebec is only 8% for online music services compared to 50% for record sales. Our francophone music is in even greater trouble as it represents only 6% of total streams. The situation is dire.

In the music business, if no one listens, you don't get paid. If your music doesn't reach an audience, that has a spillover effect that affects concert ticket sales, the uptake of songs by performers, the incorporation of music in audiovisual productions and the entire value chain. Apart from financial aspects, this concerns our culture. Our cultural sovereignty is in question.

Online undertaking have no financial interest in promoting, recommending or supporting a diversity of cultural expression. For them, cultural standardization is less complex and more profitable.

This is nothing new. We have been protecting our diversity of cultural expression with statutes and regulations for decades, and we must continue to do the same. The CRTC's regulation operates in the traditional environment, and it is high time it was adapted to the digital environment.

Bill C‑11 is a good piece of legislation and should be promptly adopted.

The web giants and opponents of the Broadcasting Act are exercising enormous pressure to create flaws in the bill. We must not yield to the platforms' lobbyists, who use misinformation and try to mislead.

The portions of Bill C‑11 concerning social media broadcasting activities should not be amended further. As you know, the text of Bill C‑10 was adopted by the House of Commons, but contained no social media exception in clause 4. The criticisms were heard and Bill C‑11 featured the return of that exception, but in a way that remains acceptable to us.

Any further change to the text of clause 4 could create a loophole for social media that will be felt by all broadcasting undertakings. It must be understood that TikTok competes with YouTube, which competes with Spotify, which competes with radio. The act must apply fairly to all undertakings or else it may be obsolete as soon as it is passed.

Some say the text lacks clarity, but the bill's opponents are focusing their attention on a single pixel to distract us from the big picture. The text of the bill is not limited to clause 4. The Broadcasting Act sets forth clear objectives and provides many guardrails. Any attempt to revise too many elements in the bill would stiffen the Canadian broadcasting system and rob it of the flexibility it needs to adapt to the rapid changes in our sector. The CRTC must be given the means to exercise adequate regulation over the web giants' broadcasting activities.

However, we are in favour of moderate amendments to Bill C‑11. We support the amendments proposed by the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, particularly so that the use of Canadian talent is equivalent for Canadian and foreign undertakings solely under paragraph 3(1)(f) and so that the CRTC's orders are subject to appeal to the Governor in Council.

We are also in favour of a public hearings process for the making of orders so that the CRTC is required to demonstrate that Canadian broadcasting policy objectives have been achieved. The maximum amount of potential penalties must be increased in the administration of administrative monetary sanctions in the event the act is contravened. It would also be desirable that the CRTC demonstrate transparency as a general rule.

Bill C‑11 should be quickly passed. The process has been dragging a very long time.

I will be pleased to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[Brad Danks, Chief Executive Officer, OUTtv Network Inc.]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for letting me appear today.

My name is Brad Danks. I'm CEO of OUTtv Network, which is both a regulated linear TV channel in Canada and an online streaming platform in Canada and around the world. By way of background, I worked in the entertainment industry in Canada for more than 25 years, first as an entertainment lawyer and later as a broadcasting executive. As an executive, I've negotiated many online streaming deals in Canada and around the world, including with Amazon, Apple and Roku.

To begin, let's be clear about what's happening in the television industry. Over the past decade, the industry has been steadily moving from delivery by Canadian-owned cable and satellite to delivery by foreign-owned online streaming platforms. The movement has accelerated over the past two and a half years, with the launch of studio platforms such as Disney+ and channel aggregators such as Amazon and Apple TV+.

It appears inevitable that over the next decade, or sooner, the foreign online streaming platforms will deliver 100% of Canadian media services. This is both a threat and an opportunity for the Canadian industry. The threat is obvious. For the first time in our history, our media services will be distributed in Canada by foreign-owned companies, which may not always have our national interests at heart. These online distributors also create an opportunity for Canadian media services to compete directly in international online markets. Global content markets are huge and can support a wide variety of media offerings of different scale and type. OUTtv and many Canadian services are taking up this challenge.

However, to meet these challenges, it is critical that Canadian services gain access to the online streaming platforms in Canada. This is why we need Bill C-11. We need to ensure that the Broadcasting Act requires online platforms to grant access to Canadian media services. Once given access, Canadian services must be able to compete for audience share on these platforms on an equitable basis and receive fair compensation.

The core concept is that Canadian services must always be able to access our domestic market. The CRTC must have the authority to make sure that this happens. Experience has taught us that distribution platforms—and this includes our own large Canadian distribution platforms—cannot be counted on to deliver and support a wide range of Canadian-owned services and diverse programming without effective regulatory oversight and rules. Over the past decade, we've learned the hard way in Canadian broadcasting about the difficulties and inequities that can happen when distributors show preference to their own content on their platforms. The CRTC is aware and well equipped to regulate these platforms, but only if it has the tools and the power it needs.

We have suggested critical amendments to ensure that Bill C-11 gives the CRTC the authority it will need in the years ahead in dealing with online distributors. First, the CRTC must have the ability to set terms and conditions for the distribution of Canadian services on online distribution platforms. This is a critical backstop power that any domestic regulator must retain to ensure that dominant global platforms serve domestic markets. Second, the CRTC must be able to create rules that will govern distribution so that it can regulate in a flexible way that adapts to how distribution platforms develop in the future. Third, the CRTC must have the ability to resolve disputes and issue orders regarding online distribution of media services. Otherwise, its authority as a regulator will be illusory. The CRTC is developing increasingly effective tools to resolve disputes and will be able to apply these tools to the online world.

Regarding the form of these amendments, OUTtv supports the IBG submission to the committee.

It is important that this legislation happen now. Global markets are in a period of transition, and the rules are being written now across the world. Competition is currently fuelling opportunity, but the market is maturing quickly. There is a real fear that much of our industry will miss the transition window. It is therefore critical that Bill C-11 be passed as soon as possible.

Thank you for letting me appear today. I'm always available for questions.

[Troy Reeb, Executive Vice-President, Broadcast Networks, Corus Entertainment Inc.]

Thank you, Dr. Fry, and good morning, committee members.

My name is Troy Reeb, and I am with Corus Entertainment. On behalf of our more than 3,000 employees across Canada, I want to thank you for inviting us to discuss Bill C-11, which we urge Parliament to pass without delay.

Corus is proud to be Canada's leading independent media and content company. We have subsidiaries such as the renowned animation studio Nelvana, our children's book publisher Kids Can Press, and Corus Studios, which is a leading producer of lifestyle and documentary programs.

Toon Boom, our Montreal division, creates software for international studios.

All told, our Canadian content is exported to 160 countries worldwide, but our bread and butter remains broadcasting in Canada. We operate 15 local Global Television stations, 39 radio stations and 33 speciality channels, such as Treehouse, Séries Plus and Food Network Canada. We're the proud home of Global News, one of Canada's largest journalism organizations, which supports communities across Canada. To emphasize, Corus is a pure-play media business. We have no cable and no telecom assets to subsidize us.

Canadian broadcasting policy is primarily cultural policy. It uses regulations and licences to promote cultural objectives such as representation, creative expression, national identity and connectedness. Canadians care a lot about these issues and hold a wide range of views on them, but I hope there's one thing we can all agree on: Successful Canadian broadcasting policy depends on successful Canadian broadcasters. One simply cannot exist without the other.

Corus and other Canadian broadcasters continue to embrace our responsibilities in the system, but we can no longer support the onerous regulatory framework of the past entirely on our own, with no similar obligations on foreign players that don't just operate in our marketplace but now threaten to dominate it. The status quo is unsustainable.

For example, Corus is extremely proud to be a local news provider. We're uniquely able to provide this vital cultural contribution through local stations that foreign streamers cannot and will never replicate. However, local news is a challenging business. Traditionally, we've offset our losses in local news through more profitable entertainment programming, but our ability to do this is fading fast. To be clear, news is Canadian content and journalists are Canadian creators who actually live in Canadian communities; they don't just visit for the duration of a production cycle.

Corus has received international awards for innovation for developing new models to sustain local journalism long into the future, but even the best people and ideas cannot overcome badly outdated regulation. Today, broadcasting regulations dictate how much we must spend on certain kinds of shows, when our shows can air, the types of songs we have to play on our radio stations and the number of commercials we can broadcast per hour. Our mandatory spending levels on Canadian content have hardly changed, despite decades passing since the World Wide Web first became a thing.

Most of the rules we operate under were designed for an industry that simply no longer exists, one where radio and TV stations enjoyed privileged access to Canadian audiences. Today, among the largest TV networks in Canada are foreign digital companies with no cultural policy obligations, and the largest sellers of local advertising in Canada are, again, foreign digital players that have no requirements for local programming.

I repeat: the status quo is unsustainable.

We support Bill C-11 because it gets the biggest thing right: It would finally bring the foreign digital broadcasters that operate in Canada into the regulatory framework. We can achieve no other meaningful broadcasting policy reforms until this gets done. After more than a decade of unregulated foreign competition and six years of rolling consultations, it is long past time to update this 30-year-old law.

To be sure, Bill C-11 is not perfect, and we will recommend a few amendments in our written brief. For example, there's no reason Canadian media companies should have to pay millions in part II licence fees when foreign competitors will not, and there's no reason that Canadian media companies should be left with higher obligations than our foreign competitors. All we ask for is a level playing field with modern regulations for all.

Some will argue here today that this bill is unnecessary. They claim that all is well with Canadian broadcasting, that foreign digital media companies operate in a different market because they live online. Believe me, I wish that were true, but it simply is not. Here is our reality: Facebook and Google compete with us for advertising; Netflix and Amazon compete with us for audiences; and the same U.S. studios that used to license us content for Canadian televisions now take it directly to Canadians themselves, causing programming costs to skyrocket.

[Peter Menzies, As an Individual]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear from here in Treaty 4 territory.

I'd like to state for the record that I am not employed by nor am I on contract to any company or person asking me to advance the perspective I will share with you today.

I spent almost 10 years as a CRTC commissioner, initially as a part-timer, then as regional commissioner for Alberta and the Northwest Territories and finally, for four years, as vice-chair of telecommunications. I served on dozens of public panels and was involved in thousands of decisions. I met with and heard the views of people involved in Canada's creative sector and became familiar with their structures, their needs and the world that the CRTC created for them.

The Canadian film and television industry has just enjoyed a decade of remarkable prosperity. According to the Canadian Media Producers Association, it was a $5.8-billion industry in 2012. That was a year in which many groups within the industry were lobbying for the CRTC to take action for fear of the negative impact that they were convinced Netflix would have. This was similar to the arguments made in previous years: essentially, that the development of streaming on the Internet would devastate Canada's creative sector and that change was bad.

However, that is not what happened. By the last pre-COVID year, 2019, also according to the CMPA, the industry grew to become a $9.5-billion industry. That's 80% growth, and it didn't happen because of something the CRTC did. It happened because the CRTC paid attention to the evidence, and the evidence indicated that the creative film and television industry was prospering like it never had before. More people than ever were finding work in that sector.

There was little evidence to suggest that the industry would be better off if the CRTC tried to imprison the 21st century within a 20th century structure called the Broadcasting Act. In fact, some of us felt it was important that we make it clear that unless there was evidence of economic decline, we had no intention of intervening. The objectives of the Broadcasting Act were being met, and it was clear that at a time of dynamic and significant disruption innovation would be required. Any hint of initiating a lengthy regulatory process with uncertain outcomes was only going to create uncertainty, and uncertainty suppresses investment. When investment is suppressed, innovation stops, and Canada's creative sector suffers.

These are the likely unintended consequences of Bill C-11, which has left far too many definitions and determinations up to a CRTC that is not designed to make them. It is unfortunate that the government hasn't taken the opportunity suggested by the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel to create an entirely new Canadian communications act.

If that had been done and the CRTC had been replaced with a new governing body built around the Internet and the issues of primary interest to Canadians—access, affordability and the freedom to watch what they want, when they want it, and how they want it—Canada would have been much better prepared to flourish creatively in the 21st century, but there's nothing to be done about that now, so I'm here today to focus on one suggestion, made recently in a Globe and Mail op-ed co-authored by me and former CRTC chair Konrad von Finckenstein.

A lot of risk to investment and innovation can be mitigated and a lot of uncertainty can be avoided if you were to just make it clear in the legislation that it applies only to streaming companies with annual Canadian revenues of $150 million or more. The CRTC could then debate with them whether they are reinvesting in Canada and its cultural and industrial goals in an appropriate fashion. In other words, if the government's goal is to, as was initially described, “get money from web giants”, then go get the money from web giants and make it clear that everything else will be left alone to continue the innovation and investment that have defined Canada's creative sector in the past decade.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 23 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I want to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 12, 2022, the committee is meeting on the study of Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I want to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon at the bottom of your screen, or wherever it may be on your screen, and you can actually get English or French. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I have a comment for the clerk. I am unable to see all the members of the committee and the witnesses on this format that we now have. I see a big empty room and then just six people in one corner of my screen. It would be difficult for me to see people's hands going up if I don't get to see everyone on the screen. I just wanted to point that out.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly understand Mr. Nater's concern, but we do have these spots available. We do have interpretation lined up. We've heard from I think all four parties that there are witnesses who are eager to come forward, so I don't think that time frame is unrealistic.

I will have to adjust my constituency week accordingly, and I probably will have people in my caucus replacing me from time to time, but it seems to me that if we don't start with the blocks that are already available to us, given what we've seen over the course of the last few weeks, particularly on Mondays and Wednesdays, that's just delaying the legislation until the fall.

It seems to me, as people pointed out, that we need to jump on this, hear from the witnesses and make decisions around Bill C-11. It would seem to me that the best way to do this is to take two time slots that are already available to us. In my case, if I absolutely can't change local events, I'm going to make sure I have a good replacement who's well briefed and available to ask the questions of the witnesses.

The witnesses have been waiting for some time to come forward. I think we should accommodate them. We have these spaces, so let's start next week when we have that availability so we can get a jump on this and finally respond to the witnesses' needs.

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

Our party has already submitted its list of witnesses.

As far as witnesses are concerned, I think we had an initial conversation on Monday. It seems to me that 20 hours of witnesses is a good start. I don't think anyone would object to that. My suggestion is that we have four meetings of five hours each. I would suggest we use the break week, because of course with translation it is a lot easier during a break week to find that space. That's what I wanted to put back on the table. Generally, 20 hours of witnesses seemed to be a compromise folks were okay with, so I think that would get us started certainly in terms of witnesses and in terms of Bill C-11.

[Kevin Waugh]

That's good.

Thank you. All the best to you. We will probably see you for Bill C-11 too.

[Kevin Waugh]

Thoughts on four months left...? I mean, we're hitting you with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 and Rogers/Shaw, and you have one foot out the door.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My question is for Mr. Scott or Mr. Hutton.

Part II is one of the concerns of broadcasters in general, in that we are talking about regulating digital businesses and traditional broadcasters feel that they have very heavy obligations. Licence fees are obviously part of that.

If, in Bill C‑11, an amendment were proposed to abolish part II fees, how would that be handled? How could this shortfall be offset? Would the new funds that would be generated by the contribution of online businesses be sufficient?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

If I understand correctly, Bill C‑11 must be implemented urgently, since the industry has been waiting and struggling for a very long time.

[Ian Scott]

On Bill C‑11, I mentioned earlier that it would take about two years to implement.

With Bill C‑18, it's harder to say.

There's the development of regulations as a statutory instrument and the timing of that is not in our control because it has to go through justice. I can't easily estimate how long it will take to do the regulations that we need to do to establish the framework. Bill C-18 is very new and we're just getting our heads around it.

[Ian Scott]

As I said with regard to Bill C-11, the necessity is that we need modern tools. The entire broadcasting ecosystem, if you will, has changed. The traditional model, if you wish, is a walled garden. You can come into the garden and here are the rules for you to participate. That's no longer the case because there are a whole bunch of platforms. They are wonderful and are offering Canadians a plethora of content, which they're consuming with vigour, but we've now created these asymmetries. We don't have the tools to address that in the changing marketplace.

On remuneration, it is a question that news is the most costly element of broadcasters' productions. It is a challenge, as you all know, for the print press. Their advertising revenues have largely gone to those platforms. The government clearly is seeking a way of ensuring that they receive remuneration for it. Our role will be to establish the regulatory framework to allow that to happen, hopefully, through commercial negotiations.

[Lisa Hepfner]

I believe I understood from your opening statement that you feel, from your experience, that bills C-11 and C-18 are necessary in Canada. Can you go into that a little bit more?

[Rachael Thomas]

Mr. Scott, I'm just going to continue here.

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—“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.’”

All these individuals are individual users generating content. It would appear that the bill does or could, in fact, capture them. Is that correct?

[Rachael Thomas]

Are you comfortable with the amount of discretionary power that would be put in your hands with regard to Bill C-11 and regulating programming?

[Rachael Thomas]

Okay, so you would take the definition that exists in the current Broadcasting Act and apply it to Bill C-11.

[Rachael Thomas, Lethbridge, CPC]

Thank you.

On the topic of Bill C-11, I see that part of what's in front of us with regard to these estimates is an increase in spending allowance of 5.5% in order to bring amendments into play with regard to the Broadcasting Act.

Do you find it odd that the terms “program” and “programming”, which give the CRTC the ability to regulate of course, are not clearly defined in Bill C-11?

[Ian Scott]

Financially, the government gave us two years of funding to implement Bill C-10, now BillC-11, to do the preparatory work. We've had the first year's funding and will receive the second year's funding shortly, I anticipate, and that is adequate to do the preparatory work. Thereafter, there will need to be a review of the precise budgetary requirements, but it will largely get collected from the fee-payers. That's why I described the regime.

So, yes, we have the necessary funding to do the work we must do right now. I don't know if I've answered your question well.

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

We'll hold you to it.

In financial terms—because we are talking about the estimates—what does this mean for the CRTC, from what you have looked at so far? As part of that question, you mentioned launching public consultations on Bill C-11. What would that mean in terms of the CRTC's reaching out to Canadians?

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

Thank you.

We're talking about Bill C-11. In terms of the timelines, you have referred to it potentially taking a couple of years.

[Scott Hutton]

We also need to ensure verification.

Certainly the companies are very focused on data. Is that data going to be passed on? Naturally, one of our big requests is to ensure that Bill C‑11 gives us the tools to go and get this data. In cases where there is a compliance issue, we must have a mechanism that allows us to impose administrative penalties.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

Mr. Scott, I will continue in the same vein as my colleague Mr. Housefather.

You were saying that the CRTC could be regulating digital media right now, but that it doesn't.

Does Bill C‑11, as presented today, give you more powers or does it limit the powers you would have to regulate the internet?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much.

Let me come to you on Bill C-11 for a second, which was previously Bill C-10. There have been a number of people commenting in various places that somehow this bill and then the CRTC would choose to regulate social media posts of non-commercial, individual users.

Could you clarify whether the CRTC has that nefarious intention?

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

Thank you for that.

You mentioned policy direction from the government. In advance of Bill C-10—well, I guess Bill C-10 never did pass, but in advance of the committee's discussions of it, there was a policy directive issued. I just want to confirm that you have not yet received a policy directive from the minister in relation to Bill C-11.

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

I think someone promised that in the last election. I can't remember who.

Moving on, the CRTC's 2022-23 departmental plan gave some foresight into the work that it would be undertaking in preparation for Bill C-11. Again, you've noted some of that, such as preparing for public consultations. Where some of our concerns lie is that CBC licence renewal is at 17 months, for example. It's been over 500 days now since the three-digit suicide-prevention line was unanimously adopted in parliament.

I'm concerned about where the CRTC is in terms of its staffing, its capability, its competency, to implement Bill C-11 first, and then Bill C-18. I'm curious as to what timeline you see from the time that Bill C‑11 is passed and receives royal assent to when it is fully implemented. What's the best case scenario from the CRTC to have that fully implemented?

[Ian Scott]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That work will be in addition to the proceedings currently planned for 2022-23. With the benefit of the allocation identified in the main estimates and budget 2022, the CRTC will be well positioned to achieve Bill C-11 ’s goal of developing a new regulatory framework for online broadcasters, as well as Bill C-18's goal for a fair and sustainable Canadian digital news marketplace.

I trust that very broad overview is useful to members, and my colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[Ian Scott, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for inviting us to appear before you.

You have already introduced my colleagues. I would like to say that we do, indeed, welcome the chance to appear here as part of your study of the main estimates for 2022-23 as they relate to the CRTC and to Bill C-11.

Before we address the specific element of the main estimates, I thought it might be helpful to provide a little context for my remarks. In particular, I want to offer a quick overview of how the CRTC is funded and how the monies assigned to implement our new responsibilities under Bill C-11 would be used.

The commission has access to two sources of funding: appropriation and revenues. On top of that, there is some statutory funding that is allocated to the commission to cover certain employee benefit plans.

The first category, appropriation, is earmarked for expenses related to Canada's anti-spam legislation and the voter contact registry activities. In addition, the CRTC was granted temporary appropriation funding for expenses related to Bill C-11's implementation, on a preliminary basis. Appropriations, however, represent only about 13% of the CRTC's overall funding.

The bulk of that funding, 87%, comes from fees paid directly by the companies it regulates. I am sure they feel a great joy in paying for their regulation. The commission collects fees under the authority of the Telecommunications Act, the telecommunications fees regulations and the unsolicited telecommunications fees regulations, as well as under the Broadcasting Act, as set out under the broadcasting regulations. The Treasury Board authorizes the CRTC to use revenues from these fees to offset operating expenses incurred in the same fiscal year.

I should note and clarify that broadcasting part I licence fees, telecommunications fees and unsolicited telecom fees are used to cover expenses related to our regulatory activities. However, part II broadcasting licence fees accrue to the government's consolidated revenue fund. They do not come to the commission. They do not fund our regulatory costs for broadcasting-related activities or support the commission's activities in any other way.

The committee, I am sure, will have an opportunity to conduct a study of Bill C-11 in the near future. We very much look forward to appearing before you again to speak at a greater length about the legislation. For now, I'd simply like to say that we, as a commission, certainly welcome the tabling of the bill, given the pressing need to modernize the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC's powers, and to clarify the commission's jurisdiction regarding online broadcasters.

Budget 2022 proposed to provide the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, with $8.5 million over two years. This amount is necessary to establish a new regime to ensure that Canadian news outlets are fairly compensated by digital platforms.

Madam Chair, Bill C‑18 proposes a mechanism to ensure that Canadian news outlets receive fair compensation from the digital platforms that share and distribute their work.

The legislation would require platforms that generate revenues from the publication of news content on their sites to negotiate with news businesses and reach fair commercial deals.

Bill C‑18 proposes to entrust the CRTC with five main functions in overseeing this activity.

First, the CRTC is asked to play an administrative role, registering news businesses that meet the legislation's eligibility criteria and assessing whether digital platforms meet the act's exemption criteria.

Second, it is asked to oversee negotiation and mediation and maintain a public list of external arbitrators agreed upon by both the platforms and publishers.

Third, it is asked to deal with complaints of undue preference or unjust discrimination filed by news businesses against platforms.

Fourth, it is asked to contract an independent auditor to publish an annual report on the total value of commercial agreements and other key information.

Fifth, it is asked to establish regulations to collect fees, similar to those paid by broadcasters and telecommunications service providers.

The commission requires additional funds to prepare for these new responsibilities, so that we are ready to implement the legislation in an expedient manner should Bill C‑11 and Bill C‑18 receive royal assent.

Further, should either bill receive royal assent, we will move quickly to launch public consultations to gather views and evidence from Canadians and stakeholders. CRTC staff will need to develop consultation documents and tools, analyze the public record and develop a regulatory framework.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted by the indignation of the Liberal side on this debate. The member speaks about dysfunction in the House. It is their House, as government, to manage, and it is obvious that they are so dysfunctional in managing the House that they cannot get legislation through.

Last night, the Liberals adjourned the House two and a half hours early, after cancelling committees so that we could have interpretation services available and other House services that were required. They sent those people home early and sent the whole House home two and a half hours early after they had scheduled it to sit until midnight last night.

We have to really question what is behind this determination to serve time allocation notice on the bill before us. What is coming behind it? We have seen previous legislation, such as Bill C-10 now Bill C-11, which will be coming through for debate. Is this an effort to get things out of the way so that they can push that forward through time allocation as well?

I hear NDP members rail against the procedural tools that we have to hold this government accountable. For years, in Parliament after Parliament, they railed against time allocation votes. Here they are, after this marriage of the NDP-Liberal government, now joining in with the Liberals in supporting time allocation votes. I question what really is behind all of this rush to get legislation through and to silence the opposition that we are here to provide, having been elected by the people that we represent.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

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

Madam Speaker, I obviously really enjoyed my colleague's answer.

I am pleased to be discussing this issue. I will start by making a connection with Bill C-14. The connection may be a little hard to understand at first, but my colleagues will see where I am going with this.

I am deeply outraged right now. Usually, when I am outraged, I tend to get excited and raise my voice in the House. I will try to remain calm while discussing a fundamental matter, something that happened this weekend.

I have been a member of the House for two years now, and I have heard many of our Liberal friends tell us that they are aware of the decline of the French language in Quebec and that its survival is a priority for them. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the minister of official languages in the last Parliament, tried to win us over here in the House by saying that French was in danger, that her government was aware of that, and that it was going to do something about it and table a bill with teeth.

Suddenly, the Liberals called an election and everything stopped, even though they had told us that it was a very important issue for them. They called an election, and it cost $600 million to go back to square one.

Now here we are. We have a new Minister of Official Languages who also spoke about how important the issue is and said that her government was aware of that. The Prime Minister and all of the members across the aisle said the same thing. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the vast majority of members in the House even voted to recognize Quebec as a nation whose sole official language is French.

That was a few months before the election. Obviously, they were going after seats in Quebec, in particular those held by the Bloc Québécois. They had to make a show of being interested.

For two years, the government buddied up to us, saying that it understood that French was in decline in Quebec and across Canada, and that it was going to introduce legislation to fix that. However, the federal government is not the only government that can pass legislation on French. Right now, Quebec is preparing to pass legislation on French. Quebec is trying to give teeth to Bill 101, to make French the language of instruction. Bill 101 has been undercut 200 times by the Supreme Court of Canada based on a charter that Quebec never signed.

This weekend, we saw seven Liberal members of the federal government protest in Montreal against Bill 96. By chance, although there is no such thing as chance, the members protesting in Montreal on the weekend were among the nine Liberal members who had abstained from the vote to recognize Quebec as a nation. Most of them represent Montreal ridings.

The hon. member for Vimy even posted the following on Twitter: “Today I stood with my colleagues for the Bill 96 protest.”

That is something. We are working to improve the fate of French, and the government says that it is aware of the problem, but then government members go to Quebec to protest against legislation that would put some teeth back into Bill 101, teeth that it lost because of the charter.

What the member said next is particularly interesting. She said, and I quote, “Students, regardless of their background, should have access to an education in the language of their choice.”

Bill 101 is likely the most important piece of legislation that has ever been voted on in the history of Quebec. The great Camille Laurin, René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau and all of the MNAs and ministers that made up the first Lévesque government led one of the first reforms to Bill 101, because even René Lévesque had a problem with that. I will explain why. Before Bill 101, 90% of immigrants who came to Quebec went to school in English. People settled here and chose to learn English. We were losing the battle, and so legislation was needed.

Earlier, I mentioned René Lévesque. It was humiliating for him to have to legislate on an issue that is taken for granted everywhere else on earth. If someone goes to Germany, they do not ask whether they need to learn German. If someone goes to Spain, they do not ask whether they need to learn Spanish. If someone goes to Poland, they do not ask whether they need to learn Polish. In Quebec, however, the language issue was a problem, so legislation had to be passed. That is what we did.

Our Liberal friends, those who do not recognize the Quebec nation, those who have a problem with the fact that there is a common language in Quebec, are attacking one of the core principles of Bill 101, after 50 years of struggle of strife.

There are children of Bill 101 everywhere. There have been television shows on the subject. People come from around the world and learn French. Our Liberal friends want to tear that down. Personally, I think it is shameful. I am outraged. The Liberals are talking out both sides of their mouth.

Does the Minister of Official Languages agree? Does she take responsibility for members of her own government going to protest in Montreal against one of the most important laws ever passed by Quebec? I am eager to hear what the hon. Minister of Official Languages has to say.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister gave speeches with his hand on his heart. He visited my riding, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, three times. He really wanted the Liberals to win the riding. I took them on, and I am the one proudly representing the riding of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

When the Prime Minister came to my riding, he spoke of language and culture. He said that these were two subjects that were important to the Liberals. He said that they were going to protect the language and culture. However, on the weekend, we witnessed an absolutely appalling spectacle. I am totally outraged, but I must contain myself. I am eager to hear what the Minister of Official Languages and the Prime Minister have to say about this.

This brings me to Bill C-14. In fact, the two are connected. What does the bill say? It talks about “minoritizing” Quebec. In fact, Bill C‑14 institutionalizes the minoritization of Quebec.

I am certain my hon. colleague is better at math than I am, since he is an economist, but this equation is easy. Quebec has 78 out of 338 members; with this bill, it would have 78 out of 343. We would have less weight, which means that Quebec would have less clout to defend its language.

The logical corollary is that we should have more members from Quebec. It is obvious that there must be more Bloc Québécois members in the House to stand up for language and culture.

Last week we discussed Bill C-11. We heard our Conservative friends quote one single academic—St. Michael Geist, pray for us—saying that Canada was going to become a dictatorship where freedom of speech would be abolished. That is what they said. Heaven help me. I was so sick of hearing it that I was nearly ready to sign something so that they would stop repeating it. I was very close to saying yes, that is right, I agree.

It is chilling to realize that we have to fight constantly to protect culture in Quebec.

When we spoke about Bill C‑11, we mentioned how Quebec artists are at a disadvantage on the major platforms. Two years ago, at the ADISQ gala, Pierre Lapointe said he had launched a successful song on social media. It was streamed one million times, but he was paid only $500. That is outrageous.

Quebec is home to artists who are known the world over. We have filmmakers, musicians, actors and directors, including Robert Lepage, yet all this culture is wasting away because the web giants are taking up all the space.

In conclusion, Bill C‑14 aims to minoritize Quebec. In its current version, it is difficult to accept. We will see how we are going to fight it.

Online News Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his speech.

As an MP, one of my priorities is to tackle the increase in heinous crimes attributable to social media. That is not included in Bill C-11 or in Bill C-18, but the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and other organizations have reported that there is a significant increase in crimes motivated by hate, racism and other unacceptable things.

I hope that my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue also has some ideas about how to reduce this threat to our society and our culture or how to put an end to it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at Bill C-18, we see it is very similar to Bill C-11. We know that these are very important pieces of legislation that need to be implemented into law as expeditiously as possible in order to protect, with respect to Bill C-11, Canadian culture and, with respect to Bill C-18, smaller organizations and news outlets.

I am curious if the member can comment on the importance of that and making sure it gets done, and perhaps on the amendment that the Conservatives brought forward. They brought forward an amendment that would basically strip out this entire bill and send the issue to committee. Is that not what we are doing right now? Are we not debating this at second reading to send it to committee anyway?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see more members in the House and I will continue my speech.

In such vast territories, it is hard to cover local news properly. Imagine how much time it takes journalists to travel around, especially when they are alone.

The reality is that local media are not covering all of the news anymore. The media can no longer rely on ad sales, which are plummeting. The share of ad revenue that traditionally went to news organizations is dwindling year after year, and the big print and broadcast ad contracts are no longer going to news organizations, but rather to companies like Google and Facebook. News organizations are losing out on revenue streams, and many have been forced to close.

What is most alarming is that the lack of local news and feedback will hurt society as a whole. Knowing what is going on in the community is a fundamental part of democracy.

I can provide the figures for how advertising money is allocated these days. I will also give some arguments in support of taking a strong stance against giants like GAFAM.

The government has failed to impose regulations for far too long. If it thought that web giants like GAFAM would regulate themselves and be sensitive to our small communities, it was wrong. No matter what the web giants may say or do, their actions are motivated by greed, a bit like the oil companies, who care only about making a profit for their shareholders.

It takes courage to act. We saw what happened in Australia and the consequences of that. These companies have known our perspective on this for a long time, and they are well aware of the path they need to take. They no longer have a choice. There has been a lot of pressure for a long time. If we pass this bill quickly, they will no longer really have a choice. Either they get on board, or the government will get involved.

Why should ordinary people care about the passage of this bill? They should care because it affects them. We first need to realize that journalists make an invaluable contribution. Day after day, they do a tremendous job even though they do not always have proper funding. Their future is uncertain and, for them, every day counts.

Local media is increasingly important to our regional and rural communities. Local media and newspapers are the heart of the regional media ecosystem. Reporting on the stories of local people, or issues that affect them, requires journalists who are present in those communities, who live the community's experiences.

From sports and arts stories to investigative reports and the fight against corruption, local media issues are a particularly important part of the lives of people in these communities. Simply put, if web giants like GAFAM share news on their platforms, it is because they are getting something out of it. They are profiting handsomely, and unfairly, off all the people who write the news. They are shamelessly exploiting the news.

We need to take matters into our own hands, because playtime is over. Web giants do not have the same journalistic rigour. To maintain a healthy environment with a variety of opinions and the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, we must allow professional journalists to continue to do their work, and give media companies a chance to regularly show us the product of that diligent work. That needs to happen everywhere, not just in major cities.

Facebook and Google are not going to send a reporter to cover a Russell Cup win by the Ville-Marie Pirates or the Temiscaming Titans. They leave that to CKVM, TV Témis, RNC Média and TVA Abitibi-Témiscamingue.

Facebook and Google are not going to send a reporter to ask Rouyn-Noranda municipal authorities about construction delays for the aquatic facility. They leave that to the Rouyn-Noranda paper, Le Citoyen.

Facebook and Google are not going to cover all the Amos festivals. They leave that to MédiAT, CHUN FM, TV Témis and Abitibi-Ouest community television with Gaby Lacasse.

In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Radio-Canada is the one that gets the local MP on air for an interview to keep him accountable and let people know what he is doing.

The media crisis hit print media in Abitibi-Témiscamingue hard. As recently as 2017, our paper, Le Citoyen, still had 15 or so reporters covering our territory. Now the local weekly has just five of them left, and the content has been affected too.

The 60-page papers that used to be on every doorstep have thinned to 20. The Témiscamingue paper, Le Reflet, stopped printing paper editions because of the drop in ad revenue. Even the Énergie radio station cut two positions; its newsroom now has just two reporters covering Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Take the RCM of Abitibi-Ouest, for example. A few years ago, there were two reporters permanently based there. Now there is just one. That might not seem like a big deal, but it means that a lot of what goes on in the 3,415 square kilometres and 21 municipalities that make up the RCM just does not get covered for want of time and staff.

Losing one reporter position might not seem like a big deal, but it is a monumental loss for small communities in Quebec. One less member of the media means articles and investigative reports do not get written. Events do not get covered. Voices are not heard. This affects the vitality of our communities.

That is why Bill C-18 is important. It is time for GAFAM to share revenues with local media. This money is important to boosting our regional media. It could help local media keep and perhaps even hire journalists, who can then ask us questions and report on the work we do here in the House of Commons. This is called accountability for all politicians.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has provided an opt-in mechanism for GAFAM. Either they take a forward-looking approach and immediately begin reaching agreements with the various news companies, or the government will say that it will take care of them. It is up to GAFAM to decide.

I also welcome the fact that, with Bill C‑18, the government wants to leave room for independence and transparency in the agreements. Once this is done, GAFAM will have to file the various agreements with the CRTC. The CRTC will be responsible for confirming that the following conditions are met: the agreements include fair compensation; part of that compensation is used to produce local, regional and national news content; the agreements guarantee freedom of expression; they contribute to the vitality of the Canadian news marketplace; they support independent local news; and they reflect Canadian diversity and hopefully Quebec's cultural and linguistic diversity.

If we look at the eligibility criteria for news businesses, only those designated as qualified Canadian journalism organizations under subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act will be able to receive compensation when their news content is lifted. Non-Canadian businesses that meet criteria similar to qualified Canadian journalism organizations will also be eligible.

The requirement to employ two journalists is another obstacle for some of the more remote communities in Quebec. Think about it. Some hyper-local media outlets rely on just one person to produce all the news. These media outlets would not be eligible for this program as it currently stands. This is an obstacle to the development of our local media outlets, which are capable of being nimble and proactive.

Since I have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑18, I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that regional and community media will not see a difference or any clear improvement in their economic condition. I would like to know if the government is planning for additional measures. I would like to have answers to these questions.

News Media Canada, the voice of Canada's news media industry, has already stated that it would like us to review the eligibility criteria so that daily papers employing only one journalist are entitled to receive their share of the pie as well. This is a more accurate reflection of the reality of the media in remote areas such as Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Let us also look at other provisions of Bill C‑18.

I see that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has included provisions to exempt the parties involved in these negotiations from certain conditions of the Competition Act and to require the parties to negotiate in good faith. The bill prohibits a platform from using such means as reducing or prioritizing access to a platform in retaliation or as a negotiating tactic. It allows news businesses to file complaints against the GAFAM with the CRTC if they notice platforms behaving in such a way. There are penalties and fines for the various entities subject to Bill C‑18.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill.

We had been waiting for Bill C‑18, and the bill to amend the Broadcasting Act, Bill C-11, for several years. When I read Bill C‑18, we still did not know how it would be received by media industry groups. We are continuing our discussions, and we will certainly have ideas about how to improve Bill C‑18.

There are many similarities between the Australian law and the Canadian bill. As in Australia, we expect that web giants like GAFAM will step up their efforts to influence, not to say pressure, parliamentarians and the media. I note that the government has been sensitive to the smaller players by allowing them to band together however they choose in order to negotiate, a provision that has been well received.

In Canada, the CRTC will manage the program. The money will go toward journalism, not the shareholders of a news company. I like that. The Australian law maintains confidential agreements and so does Bill C-18, but the government is giving the CRTC the role of reviewing them and checking whether they meet certain conditions that I mentioned earlier in my speech.

I want to explore some of the arguments I found by doing a little research. Let me begin with the good news. Media companies, at least some of them, are doing well thanks to some business decisions they have made. Some have even been able to hire new journalists and create additional positions. Others have gone ahead and brought in a subscription model, which does bring in some revenue. This is definitely not a cure-all, and it would still take a lot to convince me that media companies are able to keep their heads well above water.

According to a number of reports, roughly 18 Canadian journalism organizations have agreements with Meta that will provide nearly $8 million in revenue over the next three years. However, there is a caveat. Facebook says that it has contributed to Canadian media through its News Innovation Test, and that is true, but all the investments went to major Canadian media organizations. Those funds never made it to the local media in my riding or in many other Quebec ridings. That is another reason this bill is important. Without it, local media will definitely be overlooked by GAFAM. This poses a real danger to our democracy.

I want to come back to the fact that questions are also being raised about the negotiation of agreements between media outlets and web giants like GAFAM. It may be easy for large consortiums to get negotiating power, but it is a whole different story for local media outlets that serve small communities.

That is a concern for François Munger, the founder of MédiAT, who is worried that our local news creators will end up with next to nothing. I would like to remind members that the work of journalists in small communities is essential. I will do so by talking a bit about what makes local news unique and by quoting Mr. Munger, who had the courage to start his media company in 2015 in the midst of a media crisis. He said that he was starting a media company in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue because he believed in it and wanted to keep his community informed.

The local news expresses local colour and culture in the community's language. It addresses issues that get residents thinking and even taking the often necessary action to deal with issues that will affect their quality of life. The local news also reports on accomplishments that deserve to be recognized. Overall, the local news serves as a watchdog for the government and businesses. It also serves as the people's watchdog in their dealings with those entities. The local news provides information about municipal borrowing by-laws and violations and often reports on legal proceedings. We can see how important it is. The local news is who we are.

The government will have to provide immediate financial aid for small media outlets that are struggling to survive right now. The measures in Bill C‑18 will take another few months, and the media will not see one cent for at least a year. One possible solution would be for Ottawa to ensure that its ads are placed in these local media outlets that are struggling to bring in significant revenue.

It makes sense that Facebook needs content for its platform. If all the news content were cut from Facebook, there would be nothing left but viral content and entertainment. Evidently, I am not the biggest fan of influencers. To grow their user base and ad revenues, platforms such as Facebook need news. They have every interest in keeping the journalistic community alive and well.

Facebook needs to offer more engaging content, because the more eyeballs it can attract, the more advertising it can sell and the more revenue it will earn. Almost all of Facebook's revenue comes from advertising. Facebook and Google take in 80% of all online ad spending. That is where the real money is. About $193 million of their Canadian revenue is derived from content that was created by journalists and that does not belong to these companies. That is the kind of money that our news agencies could expect to get back in compensation.

In conclusion, Bill C‑18 is one of three bills from this department on the topic of modernizing our communications, and it is designed to address the dominance of multinationals. It would allow the media industry to get back to its roots and would support the industries that play a fundamental role in our democracy.

Our work is far from over, however, since the government has chosen to take small steps and will continue to do so. My Bloc Québécois colleagues have been keeping a close eye on this, and we are pleased to see that this bill includes the many proposals we made or included in our election platform. I must also say that I made promises to my constituents about these proposals, especially with respect to local and regional news media like TvcTK.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite sure I was up ahead of the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, but I will not argue the point. That is virtual reality, so here we are.

I am focusing less on what Bill C-18 proposes to do. It has taken the approach of saying, as we have heard, that when information, news articles and content appear in what we might call our conventional media, the social media giants and the tech giants pay for that. However, it does not get to this new problem. Neither Bill C-11 nor Bill C-18 gets to what is now being called by our security experts “IMVE”, ideologically motivated violent extremism, which is spread through social media content. I commend to the hon. parliamentary secretary and other members a recent opinion piece by Beverley McLachlin, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Taylor Owen, the director of the Centre for Media, Technology and Democracy at McGill University.

We are not addressing the root problem here. It is a dangerous area. People want to back away from this nexus between free speech and protecting people from violent extremism. The solution I would put to the hon. member is to treat these new tech online sources, or whatever we want to call them, not as platforms but as publishers. That is what they are. They publish. We have a vast amount of common-law jurisprudence on what to do with publishing things that are false.

I put it to the hon. member that Bill C-18 and Bill C-11 do not address the threat to Canadian democracy in online disinformation.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from the hon. member. We need to start levelling the playing field somewhere. This is an excellent start.

This deal is already in place between major media companies in Canada and Facebook and Google. It is time to ensure that there is more transparency. It is time to ensure that smaller entities will be able to get a fair deal as well. This will help level the playing field. The argument that we are making on Bill C-11 is an important argument that we are making on Bill C-18 as well.

We need to get this bill to committee and through the House as quickly as possibly, because, as we said, more media outlets are closing. We are in a crisis. We need to do what we can, and this is a model that works.