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.
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
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.
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—
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, every company has to pay their fair share. I look forward to engaging more with NDP members, as I think all members on this side of the aisle do, on that matter to get their thoughts. I know where they stand, but let us collaborate, let us listen and let us work toward a fair playing environment, if I can put it that way, in terms of the digital creators the member is so concerned about.
Here, we are talking about Bill C-11. It is a good bill. I know the NDP supports it, and I appreciate that.
Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to take part in tonight's discussion and hear the different views expressed. I am happy to have what I believe will be the last word tonight on the matter, on Bill C-11.
At the heart of it is culture and questions around culture. That is the way we make sense of ourselves and our place in the world as individuals and also as members of communities on a local level and on a national level as Canadians. In this, storytelling is particularly key. I would add storytelling by artists plays a special role as well. If there is such a thing as Canadian identity, and I believe there is, our artists have helped to shape it. They have played a fundamental role and continue to do so.
If we think about music, can we tell the Canadian story without looking at The Guess Who, for example, or The Tragically Hip? What about television? Murdoch Mysteries comes to mind, for example, and North of 60. We can name a number of other Canadian programs. My father would always talk about The Beachcombers, which I am not too familiar with, but it looks as though the Speaker is. If we think of film, there is Bon Cop Bad Cop. There are other good examples as well, but that one stands out for a number of members.
Talent explains why each of these became a success. The talent of the producers involved, the artists themselves, the musicians, the actors and all those around is at the top of the list for sure. Another factor that is key to their success is the fact we have a system in Canada that promotes Canadian culture and recognizes the importance of it.
As a condition of their licences, Canadian television and radio broadcasting companies have needed to ensure a space for Canadian content. In Canada, we have the CanCon rules, or the Canadian content rules, where 40% of radio content, for example, must include content of Canadians, and 55% of television content must be Canadian. Radio and television companies also need to pay into the Canada Media Fund.
We have had this system in place for decades. This has long been expected of radio and television companies. On top of that, there is also the fact they have had to pay into the Canada Media Fund. That is an important point to recognize as well.
Here is why Bill C-11 matters. What has been expected of Canadian radio and television organizations for decades would now be expected of streaming organizations such as Netflix, YouTube and Spotify, for example. We need to recognize this is 2022. The last time the Broadcasting Act was modernized was in 1991.
I was in Mrs. Bryne's grade 4 class sitting next to my friends Rob DeVries, Sarah Wuerth and Julie Hearn. Members will not know those names, but those I just mentioned, who were part of those classes, will know what that means exactly and how far back we go. That was grade 4. We have not updated our regulations since then, and we need to.
We need to recognize where we are in Canada's trajectory or how we have evolved as a society. Streaming organizations now play a fundamental role, even more important than radio and television, in terms of content creation. When we talk about our storytellers we look to YouTube, Netflix and Spotify. They play a very important role in that regard.
Recognizing this, the bill puts forward measures in an according fashion so we can keep up and continue to support our artists. The alternative, which I know is favoured by my friends in the opposition, is to allow the free market to reign and allow every individual Canadian artist to compete on their own merits, but to put them up against the mammoth that is the American entertainment industry.
I truly believe in this, and this should not even be a debate. In fact, if we go back to The Tragically Hip, which I mentioned before, its members themselves have made the argument that, were it not for CanCon rules, their success would not have been seen. This is because they would have been up against Pearl Jam and Nirvana. They would have been up against Radiohead, and we can name other examples, on their own, but they were given supports to be on the radio and be promoted in that way. I mentioned a few television series before. Those Canadian programs that are a signature of Canadian culture were supported by the CanCon rules.
For all those reasons, we have to look to our past and learn from it, but also modernize and keep up with the times. Bill C-11 does that by ensuring that streaming organizations do their fair share to ensure a level playing field, support Canadian artists and pay into the Canada media fund. These are not unreasonable expectations of organizations such as Netflix, YouTube and so on, which are doing so well. Obviously, if they are benefiting, they can do their part to support Canadian culture and cultural production in Canada.
The House resumed 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.
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to stand in the House once again to represent my constituents of Richmond Hill. As I join you from the national capital region, I respectfully acknowledge that the land on which I am located today is the traditional ancestral unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
The government is committed to implementing its digital and cultural policy agenda, which would serve Canadian interests not only today, but also well into the future. It would support our cultural and artistic ecosystem, including our many talented creative sector workers. This is urgently needed.
Today, I am pleased to speak to important elements of the online streaming act. First, I will have the pleasure of talking about the Canadian independent producers and the important role that 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, and there is a lot at stake.
Turning an idea into a cultural product is no simple task. From coast to coast to coast, our creatives have undeniable talent and unparalleled work ethics. 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 a broadcaster or a distributor. In other words, independent producers make movies, TV shows and documentaries that are not subject to creative controls 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. 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. In 2019-20, Canadian independent film and television accounted for $2.9 billion in production volume and more than 81,000 jobs. Many of these independent production companies are undercapitalized and often face difficulty obtaining project financing. In Canada, once a finished project is in hand, all the rights for its creative elements are clear. The producers can then make money, but it is risky business with a lot of upfront costs.
While we may recognize some Canadian landmarks in the background of some American productions, these companies 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, who are valuable without a doubt.
However, Canadian productions, and specifically independent Canadian productions, are important for ensuring that the cultural industry investments touch down and take root in the places where our stories come from. For example, just one season of Heartland 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. Diversity is one of Canadians' greatest strength. Without independent producers taking risks, we would never have films such as Water in Hindi or Edge of the Knife in the endangered Haida language.
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, such as, for example, collaboration between 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 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 well. As we see more of ourselves reflected in these popular media, it creates a sense of pride and a sense of unity, precisely when we need them during 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 the traditional broadcasters. Our independent productions, and especially Canadian music, deserve to be discovered and supported. However, in the current context, it is challenging for independent producers to remain visible in the marketplace.
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.
Without prominence, Canadian stories and songs will not be discovered, heard or remunerated. The intent behind showcasing Canadian stories and music is not to limit consumer choice, but to help raise the profile of Canadian artists. Regulation would not prevent Canadians from accessing programs from around the world. It would give us greater opportunity to discover local ones. The CRTC would work directly with platforms to determine how they can best showcase more Canadian content.
Discoverability is a tool to help audiences find Canadian works. It would ultimately be up to the commission, as the expert, independent regulator, to craft discoverability requirements that are appropriate for different types of online streaming services. The commission's scope is limited in the bill and would be further guided by the government's policy direction, as is common practice.
In closing, whether we are individual fans and consumers, career showrunners and artists, or industry players, the truth is that we are all invested in the vibrancy of Canadian stories and music. We need Canadian stories and songs to be available and accessible to Canadians. With the online streaming act, we will not just hope but plan for meaningful and sustainable change for our broadcasting and audiovisual sectors, and the production and distribution ecosystem that supports them.
This bill would provide Canadian creators and independent producers the opportunity to own, control and monetize their work, and gives Canadian stories and music a fighting chance to reach the Canadian audience that wants to hear or see them. I urge all members of the House to support the online streaming act. It is time for us to work together to ensue that our cultural sector remains strong, resilient, competitive and representative of our beautiful country.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, the comparison to George Orwell is so unbelievably wacky that I cannot even address that.
I would like to stick to the facts. The facts are that we had the equivalent of five weeks of hearings. The facts are that the vast majority of witnesses who came before committee were in favour of the bill and wanted some improvements. The NDP worked very hard to achieve those improvements, but the vast majority of witnesses supported the legislation because they have seen how the cultural sector has been eroded by the dominance of the web giants.
Fact: The Conservatives blocked additional witnesses by filibustering even some of the witnesses who came, such as the chair of the CRTC and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Fact: The Conservatives did not submit their amendments after all the other parties had submitted their amendments, leading to further delays.
Fact: The Conservatives did not want consideration at clause-by-clause.
Fact: The NDP pushed through important amendments that I mentioned earlier tonight that actually improved the bill to make Bill C-11 better than ever.
Final fact: This is important, and not a single Conservative addressed this. The fact is that right now there is indiscriminate collection of people's private data by the web giants. The Facebook papers revealed this, yet not a single Conservative has spoken to decry the indiscriminate collection of private data that is taking place right now by web giants.
How does the member respond to all of these facts?
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at Bill C-11, we hear a great deal of exaggeration coming from the Conservative Party, such as to try to give the impression that a child uploading a video from school would be impacted by Bill C-11. It is just wrong to try to imply that.
The member talked about a rush. However, this is not something that has just been in the oven for the last couple of weeks. We have seen this issue being dealt with now for two years in a very tangible way, not to mention the consultations that have taken place between the minister and the industry even before the legislation was presented.
If it was up to the Conservative Party of Canada, this bill would never see the light of day. That is apparent, and it is one of the reasons the Conservative Party does not have the support to prevent the bill from ultimately passing. Would the member not agree?
Michelle Ferreri Conservative Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to represent the constituents of Peterborough—Kawartha.
Today, I am speaking to one of the most important bills that will come before this Parliament: Bill C-11, also known as the online streaming act. Bill C-11 would impact anyone who uses the Internet. Bill C-11, or the online streaming act, is a significant piece of legislation. It is long and convoluted in how it is written, but in a nutshell it would mean that the CRTC would have significant governing powers over content creators and what is uploaded to the Internet.
For those who do not know, the CRTC is the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. According to its website, it is an administrative tribunal that operates at arm's length from the federal government. This bill appears to make it even closer to the government, meaning more government overreach. As we have all experienced, more bureaucracy never equals more efficiency or equity.
In this speech, I am going to outline three key reasons why Canadians should be deeply disappointed and concerned with this bill. Number one is the lack of transparency. Number two is logistics and the fallout from not foreseeing the consequences of this poorly written bill. Number three is unnecessary urgency.
If someone Google searches Bill C-11, they will read the following: “The online streaming act does not apply to individual Canadians, whether they are users, creators, digital influencers or workers.” Just for the record, in case people at home do not know, an online content creator could perhaps be a child who has uploaded their performance at their talent show, Justin Bieber, perhaps one's favourite cook, an athlete or a musician. All of these people are considered to be online content creators. This is the biggest area of mistrust and lack of transparency when we go back and read that “the online streaming act does not apply to individual Canadians, whether they are users, creators, digital influencers or workers.”
We have heard multiple times from the heritage minister that this bill would not target content creators, but rather the platforms, which means Facebook, TikTok, Netflix, etc. However, Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, the entity that would be responsible for doing the regulation on the government's behalf, says that user-generated content would be fair game. Who are we to believe?
That is fairly inconsistent information and, as such, Canadians are very skeptical of the “just trust us” approach. I do not know of any contract with any reputable organization where the customer is asked to sign now and learn the details later. This approach lacks transparency and, in the absence of information, we can expect people to fill it in with misinformation. The Liberal government continues to leave out information, which leads to mistrust. Why is the government asking Canadians to just trust it? What premise has it set to deserve such blind faith?
I want to move on to my second major concern: the logistics of this bill. As I have mentioned, there are very few clear details on how this bill would impact content creators and users. What I do know is that there are thousands of videos uploaded every day, and probably even millions. How will the government plan to manage this? What is the plan? I have seen time and again the government fail to plan and constantly react instead of prepare. We have the highest wait times at passport offices that we have ever seen, because the government was not prepared. How is it going to manage the volume of content creators fairly? I would like to know these details before we pass this bill.
Rules and guidelines are extremely important when generating content. I worked in both mainstream media and as an online content creator, and it is extremely important to have guidelines that equal the playing field, but this bill would not do that. Here is a quote from Dr. Irene Berkowitz. Irene said:
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....
Second, new media is a feature, not a bug.... 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.
Here is another quote. It is from Darcy Michael, a comedian and digital content creator:
Bill C-11 will directly affect my ability to earn an income.
He went on:
The sheer logistics of the CRTC trying to approve Canadian content for every video uploaded to social media is impossible. Across the country, there are thousands of videos uploaded every day. There is simply no way to approve this. You are creating a logistical nightmare, with all due respect to the members, without properly understanding the industry that we're in.
He continued:
I don't want to be paying 30% to do something I don't benefit from as a digital creator. I think it's a second tax. I think that by the end of the day I'll be paying 80% tax on my income. That isn't fair.
To my third point, why the rush? This is a significant piece of legislation that needs a lot of attention and detail, so why would anyone who truly cares about democracy want this rushed? Bill C-11 would be the first major update to the Broadcasting Act in 31 years, and this government is ramming it through. Why?
Dozens of interested witnesses have yet to be heard by the heritage committee. The government has an obligation to listen to those who are directly impacted by the bill. By imposing an arbitrary deadline to return the bill to the House, the government is not allowing members to carefully consider each clause or amendment, and this will inevitably result in a flawed and incoherent Broadcasting Act, which comes back to the second point I made earlier: There is no way to work out the logistics in such a rushed approach.
I am somebody who likes things done quickly. I am always about speed and efficiency, but this is being rushed. I would ask Canadians if they would want someone regulating every book they read and every song they hear. Do they want censorship at that level? Bill C-11 would create winners and losers based on the CRTC's rule book, which is unknown at this time and will be decided on with zero transparency to Canadians.
Here are some powerful words from Oorbee Roy, a digital content creator, who said:
Not only does the bill not help me. It also hurts me and actively undermines my needs as an artist. There is 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 round. 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 is a powerful quote from Oorbee Roy, a digital content creator.
I will wrap up my speech by saying that George Orwell warned us of the dangers of having the thought police, and I think that Bill C-11 is a potentially dangerous bill that needs a lot more attention before we can get it right. I urge everyone in this House to vote against it and take the time it needs to make sure we get it done right.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am saddened by the member's speech. I have had conversations with him in the past and always found him to be very level-headed. It is obvious that he has not read the bill. He does not understand the bill at all, which is fine, as members can stand in the House and speak even if they have not read the material.
However, what he does talk about is disturbing because it does apply, but it applies to the web giants. We have seen with the Facebook papers the indiscriminate collection and use of people's private data, and it is indiscriminate by the web giants. There is not a single Conservative who has risen in the House to say that is wrong, so I want to ask the member about that.
What he says about Bill C-11 is simply not true. It has no relationship to the bill, as I am sure he is aware. He is a very intelligent man. However, the indiscriminate collection of data is taking place, and it is taking place by private companies. As the Facebook papers have revealed, it is something we should be concerned about. Why is he not concerned about private corporations collecting that data and tracking Canadians? Why is he not concerned about that?
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough—Kawartha.
Over the last two years of the NDP-Liberal government, we have seen a very uniquely ballooning government interfering in virtually all aspects of Canadians' lives. It has truly been a pattern of an expanding, intrusive and increasingly controlling and restrictive federal government, with its ill-advised discriminatory and vindictive vaccine mandates, damaging and traumatizing restrictions, demeaning and exclusionary QR codes, and of course the now infamous vaccine passports, which is probably one of the worst and most divisive public policy measures to ever be introduced in this country. It is why provinces only kept them in place for a few months before realizing the colossal mistake it was to divide, segregate and pit Canadians against one another based on health status. I am not sure how anyone ever thought segregating and discriminating against a group of Canadians would be good public policy.
However, in reality, this is simple. The Liberal government, with its NDP collaborators, has exploited the pandemic to drive its big, intrusive and overreaching government agenda. This also includes other areas of the lives of Canadians, with perhaps the upcoming digital ID, which has already been emphatically rejected by civil liberty groups, the Province of Saskatchewan and the former Ontario privacy commissioner.
The NDP-Liberal government is not just happy with the COVID intrusion. It is now expanding its surveillance of Canadians to the digital realm with respect to Canadians' Internet activities, including YouTube and social media accounts. No matter how the Liberals attempt to spin it, that is exactly what they are doing and they know it. It is similar to their political games and mistruths on the carbon tax, a tax that was supposed to be revenue-neutral but clearly is not, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They are now trying to convince Canadians that Bill C-11 is not a censorship and surveillance bill, but nobody is buying it.
Just like Canadians and stakeholders rejected the precursor to Bill C-11, which was Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament, the same thing is happening again. Let us remind Canadians that true to form, the Liberals passed Bill C-10 in the last Parliament without allowing a full debate at the heritage committee. Many outstanding concerns from experts and parliamentarians over how this legislation would affect the rights and freedoms of Canadians when they are on the Internet went unaddressed because of the government's unwillingness to allow a full debate. In the new Parliament it is much the same. It does not seem like anyone supports Bill C-11, except the NDP-Liberal government, a government that seems relentlessly bent on restricting and controlling many aspects of Canadians' lives.
To be frank, I do not understand the government's obsession with wanting so much control over Canadians. Leave Canadians alone. They know what they are doing and they just want their lives back. They want their lives free of constant government discipline, surveillance and control.
Let me remind Canadians of what the Liberals did during COVID. They tracked Canadian movements, including trips to the liquor store and the pharmacy. Canadians were closely tracked by this NDP-Liberal government via cellphones without people's knowledge during the COVID‑19 pandemic. This information was made public by a report sent to the parliamentary ethics committee. The report revealed that the Public Health Agency of Canada was able to view detailed snapshots of people's behaviour, including visits to the grocery store, gatherings with family and friends, time spent at home and trips to other towns and provinces.
It is encouraging that my colleagues on the ethics committee expressed surprise at how much detail the report contained, even as all identifying information was stripped out. The phone locations allowed the Public Health Agency to get a picture of gatherings occurring in people's houses, such as over Labour Day weekend. The report included a graph recording hours spent away from home in each province between Christmas Day 2020 and the week of September 19, 2021. Government officials had access to detailed information about people's movements after scooping up data from 33 million mobile devices across Canada.
This is government surveillance of Canadians, plain and simple. There is no other way to put it, regardless of the what the NDP-Liberals attempt to spin it as. It is definitely unacceptable, but it is unsurprising that the NDP-Liberal government would engage in something like this. I am certain that Canadians do not want Ottawa tracking their movements. Experts like Ontario's former privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian have questioned the government's claim. She said, per True North, “there has yet to be enough assurances that the data could not be reidentified to track individual Canadians.”
In addition to not wanting to be surveilled and tracked, Canadians do not want Ottawa telling them what they should or should not be thinking or posting to their social media accounts or their YouTube channels. At this point, it is important to note that on this side of the House, we support a level playing field between foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters while protecting the individual rights and freedoms of Canadians.
Let us not forget that Canada is home to many world-class writers, actors, composers, musicians, artists and creators. Creators need rules that do not hold back their ability to be Canadian and a global success.
While the government claims that there is now an exemption for user-generated content, Bill C-11 allows the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That means that virtually all content would be regulated, including independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. As such, critics are publicly accusing the government of state-sponsored censorship. It is simple. This bill is an affront to freedom of expression. It allows the government to regulate what Canadian users can post online or how the said content will be promoted.
Michael Geist, the University of Ottawa's Internet and e-commerce law research chair, has been especially vocal on Bill C-11. He has said that the government has misled Canadians on the scope of the bill. The professor's concerns with Bill C-11 include its “virtually limitless jurisdictional, overbroad scope, and harmful discoverability provisions.” He added, “Bill C-11 treats all audio-visual content as programs subject to potential regulation. With exceptions that could easily capture TikTok or YouTube videos, the bill is about far more than just large companies.”
What is most concerning is that the CRTC's chairman, Ian Scott, who was appointed by the Prime Minister to the position in 2021, said that Bill C-11 needs to be open-ended so that the CRTC could have room to manoeuvre. That is a very worrying statement by the chairman of the CRTC. Let us remind the government that two former CRTC officials spoke out against the precursor of Bill C-11. They signed a petition labelling the bill an “authoritarian” move.
In addition, Kent Walker, Google’s president of global affairs and chief legal officer, warned that the incoming Bill C-11, meant to censor the Internet, could drastically change how Canadians interact online. Walker said that while Google is open to new regulations, current proposals border on the extreme. He added, “The closer you get to that extreme, the more concern. Whether that's on bespoke content regulation, or local content requirements, or government mandates for link taxes and other sorts of things—any flavour of one of those could actually really be bad.”
YouTube officials have also warned that if the Prime Minister's Internet censorship bill goes through, it could give the government unprecedented power over everyday content posted online. According to YouTube Canada's head of government affairs, Jeanette Patell, Bill C-11's wording is so broad that it places home videos within the purview of the CRTC. Patell also said that Bill C-11 “provides the CRTC the discretion to regulate user-generated content like a fan doing a cover song or someone making cooking videos in their kitchen or doing how-to-fix-a-bike videos.” That simply means that any video could be subject to CRTC's surveillance, control and regulation.
Twitter has also joined the opposition to the NDP-Liberal government's online censorship efforts. A submission from Twitter compared the Liberals' online hate legislation to censorship regimes in authoritarian countries such as North Korea. This bears repeating. Twitter's opinion of the government's effort to censor the Internet is that it can be compared to the censorship regime in North Korea. That is an incredible statement and the government should take heed. I doubt that Twitter officials were being facetious when they made this statement.
Twitter's manager for public policy had this to say:
The proposal by the government of Canada to allow the Digital Safety Commissioner to block websites is drastic. People around the world have been blocked from accessing Twitter and other services in a similar manner as the one proposed by Canada by multiple authoritarian governments (China, North Korea, and Iran for example) under the false guise of “online safety,” impeding peoples’ rights to access information online.
That is a powerful statement. Once again, the government needs to really understand the damage it would be doing with this bill, perhaps unprecedented and permanent damage.
To add to the long list of critics of Bill C-11, we also have Timothy Denton. Mr. Denton is a former CRTC commissioner. Mr. Denton also likened the proposed Internet regulations by this government to authoritarian regimes. He said:
It is creepily totalitarian, something you might expect out of China or Russia.... They are going to be unworkable and they are going to be, I think, unconstitutional in the old-fashioned sense of outside the powers of the federal government. I think they are almost certain to be taken down on Charter issues of freedom of speech. But they are really very unpleasant pieces of legislation.
To conclude my speech today, I would like to reiterate that Bill C-11 is another unacceptable attempt by the NDP-Liberal government to censor the Internet and, once again, restrict free speech. The restrictive, divisive and controlling NDP-Liberal government needs to finally realize that Canadians just want to be left alone.
It is time that the NDP-Liberals began paying attention to what Canadians want rather than pushing their partisan agenda of dividing, wedging and stigmatizing Canadians based on anything and everything they can conjure up.
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am always supportive of levelling the playing field. I was very specific in my speech to make the point of ensuring the tech giants, as the member referenced, pay their fair share. Bill C-11 goes a long way in establishing that. I think it was just last year some of those tech giants started to pay GST and HST for the subscribers who utilize their services, so we have come a long way over the last couple of years. We are going to continue to make progress on this issue, including introducing taxation, fees and levies over the next couple of years.
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, we heard consistently in the House and at committee about levelling the playing field. This is about trying to assist cultural organizations and disadvantaged groups, as the member prior to me referenced throughout his entire speech. It is about making investments in cultural organizations, arts organizations, musicians and individual artists who have struggled through the pandemic.
Almost every speech tonight referenced 1991 as where the legislation sits. The member and his former government had an opportunity for almost a decade to make changes to the legislation. It decided not to do that. We are doing that with Bill C-11 here tonight, and I would encourage all members of the House to support it.
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening in support of Bill C-11.
For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and radios. This is no accident. We choose to be different from the cultural juggernaut of the United States. We care about our cultural sovereignty. We believe our diversity should be celebrated. Our culture is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, our present and 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, and that is why we have all the Canadian content we love. We can see Schitt's Creek, Kim's Convenience and Corner Gas, or hear Charlotte Cardin, Joni Mitchell, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, Great Big Sea, and the list goes on, including the Arkells from my home town of Hamilton. If members are in Hamilton this Friday, they could catch the Arkells at Woodlands Park. I invite everyone in the House and anyone who is watching this evening to join us for that concert.
Here is the problem: Canadians are not using cable anymore. Now online streaming is everywhere. People can stream content through their phone, their car or their TV. We all enjoy this, but streaming platforms like Amazon Prime and YouTube broadcast to Canadians without the same requirements that helped build Canada's culture. They invest in our economy in other ways, but they do not have to produce content that reflects our Canadian stories and shared identity, until now.
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. It ensures that Canadians could easily find that content on their platforms.
Based on the quality of debate we have heard from the official opposition today and over the past week, I think all members of this House could benefit from a refresher of what this bill does not do. This bill does not impose regulations on content everyday Canadians post on social media. This bill does not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. This bill does not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms. This bill does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.
Bill C-11 also takes into account the reality that music is largely broadcast online, most notably on platforms like YouTube. In fact, a study conducted by Media Technology Monitor in 2020 found that about two-thirds of Canadian adults use YouTube to listen to music, which outpaces dedicated music services, such as Apple Music and Spotify. That is why this bill includes very important updates that would focus only on commercial content, such as music videos uploaded by labels on YouTube or livestreams of professional sports matches.
This bill explicitly excludes all user-generated content on social media platforms and streaming services. Proposed subsection 2(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, this means that users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters. They will never face any obligations under the bill. 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 all platforms.
Just to be clear, clause 12 of the online streaming act explicitly states that any regulations the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. It states specifically:
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.
In conclusion, now that we have been able to resolve these unfounded claims, and we have heard many of them today and many of them at committee, and I tuned in a couple of times to listen to them, let us go back to why we are here in the first place.
Just as they did with Bill C-10, the Conservatives have used every tactic in the tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. At committee, all members agreed to study the bill for 20 hours of witness testimony. However, the Conservatives did not allow the committee to get to clause-by-clause by filibustering for seven hours. They went as far as to filibuster their own study motion at one point. It is deeply disappointing we cannot move forward on our study of this important bill, especially since our arts and cultural community has been telling us how vital and urgent this legislation would be for them.
Marla Boltman, from Friends, 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. 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 could not agree more. On this side of the House, we have made our position clear. Bill C-11 is about fairness and good middle-class jobs in the cultural sector. It is about having the power to shape our culture and making sure everyone can see themselves in our culture. It is about being proud of who we are. It is about being proud of being Canadian, so let us keep moving on this important legislation.
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that these different groups have been excluded in the past, and in Bill C-11 we are going to see the CRTC would be mandated to include them and to focus on those minorities. That is exactly what we shall do with this bill.