Bill C-11

Online Streaming Act

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

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

Online Streaming Act

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for his speech. I had the pleasure of sitting with him during the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11, and we had a lot of fun. It was probably the most entertaining part of the study, I must say.

Having said that, in his speech, he talked about how the legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate content such as user-generated content, which I think is an unfounded statement. I am wondering how many opinions he would have needed to hear to convince him that there is no infringement on freedom of expression or on user-generated content. Clearly, I am talking about opinions that were contrary to the few that were presented by the witnesses invited by the Conservatives. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this. I know he did not attend all the committee meetings, but I think he has a pretty good idea of our work.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of my riding, South Shore—St. Margarets, to speak on Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, the first amendments in 31 years, I believe.

I was disheartened to see how swiftly the government moved to shut down debate on this important bill. The irony is not lost on me, or probably on the House, that the government moved to stifle debate on a bill designed to control what people can see or say on the Internet. The irony continues because the heritage minister recently stated that he does not expect the Senate to rush the bill through in the other place. This raises the question as to why the government was so eager to have the bill moved through the House of Commons committee.

My colleague for Perth—Wellington noted that the minister does not expect the Senate to rubber-stamp it, but for some reason he expects the House and our 338 duly elected members of Parliament to rubber-stamp the bill. The Liberals voted closure on the second reading of the bill, a bill that would let the government prioritize what is most important for us to see on the Internet, and a bill that would put new entrepreneurs under the thumb of government regulation. This is what the witnesses who generate content on the Internet say. This is what, in committee, the head of the CRTC said. Now, I know other members may have their own opinion, but I think it was the expert, the head of the CRTC, who said that the bill would give it the power to regulate the Internet.

The Liberals did not take what they were hearing and did not like what they were hearing in committee. What did they do? They had the House of Commons put closure on the public hearings and the clause-by-clause phase under the anti-democratic Motion No. 16, which stopped what the committee was doing on the bill and forced clause-by-clause without debate. It even stopped the committee members who moved those motions from reading their motions.

Numerous times during clause-by-clause, I asked the chair, when Motion No. 16 was stated, where in that motion it said, when it talked about debate, whether or not a member could actually read their motion so people watching could find out. The Chair went further to say that he was interpreting Motion No. 16 to mean that members could not even read the motion in the debate, which was quite shocking, because the member for Vancouver Centre who chairs the heritage committee, in 2015 on another piece of legislation, said:

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. Everyone has accepted that public consultation should occur. Public consultations went on before [it] was set up.... 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.

That was from the member for Vancouver Centre, who chaired this committee, so it is incredible that the Liberals continued to follow a different path during these discussions. Conservatives have raised the concerns of Canadians time and time again, but sadly the Liberals are too focused on ramming through this legislation. The NDP, of course, were reading from talking points that someone in their coalition had provided them.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby and the NDP House leader is fond of quoting Tommy Douglas, and I will read for him something that Tommy Douglas said: “The greatest way to defend democracy is to make it work.” Before the member joined the government, he used to understand that the House rules are made to ensure that opposition could do its duty in making democracy work by scrutinizing legislation. In hearing from a variety of witnesses on that legislation, and on proposing and discussing amendments to that legislation, since the member for New Westminster—Burnaby joined the Liberal government, he now thinks the opposition's role is to rubber-stamp legislation, as he clearly did during clause-by-clause.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby said, in 2015:

There was concern over a wide variety of community impacts as well. We have a government that brought forward a badly flawed bill last year and forced it through. Initial debates reflected very poorly on the government, so it hid the bill for a year and is now bringing it forward with closure, trying to ram it through the House with no due parliamentary consideration.

He was often a critic of tactics of closure before, but he seems to enjoy using closure now that he is part of the government.

Conservatives would have updated the Broadcasting Act while also respecting digital-first creators and those Canadians who want to excel here at home and around the world with the freedom to create and earn a living without government regulation.

Bill C-11 contains disturbing open-ended online censorship regulatory power for the government. The legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue directly or indirectly in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a). That means virtually all content would still be regulated, including that of independent content creators earning a living on social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Spotify.

What does “indirectly” mean? Everything posted on the Internet has some sort of identifier and code to it, and it is on a page. Everything and everyone in the House is on a page. Opposite that, everything posted on social media has advertising beside it, so everything posted on the Internet indirectly generates revenue. That is why the CRTC chair says it can regulate all user-generated content.

When Canadians do an Internet search or look at videos on YouTube or TikTok, the Liberal government, in this bill, would require that those platforms prioritize Canadian content to the top of the list of what people see. The CRTC would pick the winners and losers of what Canadians can see. It would determine whether the cat video one wants to see has sufficient Canadian content. Is the cat Canadian? Is the videographer Canadian? Was it filmed in Canada? That is how the CRTC would impact what one can see on the Internet.

It is horse feathers that this bill would not give the government the power to regulate all user-generated content, as the minister claims. The Liberal government rules will drive what one sees on the first page, and not what is most popular. Most people do not go past the first page. This bill forces platforms to develop algorithms to choose what cat video comes first on search pages. This is why this bill is so dangerous, but the NDP-Liberal government thinks if it moves we should regulate it: “Hi, we are here from Ottawa and we are here to intrude on people's lives.”

Liberals say to trust them, yet they refuse to release the directive that is required to give to the CRTC. That is the trust they ask of us. They say that it is not their intention and not to worry. If they want that trust, then they should make the CRTC directive public now, before the bill passes. What is the government hiding?

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 that content regulated. The government says it has no interest in looking at that. If that were true, the government should have made it clear by voting for our amendments in committee. It refused to pass amendments that would remove the government's and the CRTC's ability to regulate user-generated content indirectly. To me, that says it all. By refusing to do that, by defeating the amendments that would prevent the government from regulating indirect revenue and user-generated content when supposedly the government was open to amendments in committee, it admits the bill has that power.

The NDP-Liberal government only wants to see its ideas on the Internet, and no one else's. The bill is another dagger, in my view, to our democracy. I would urge all members to please vote against this at third reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I will withdraw it and answer the second question, which of course is a good one.

The Conservatives have been wild in their disinformation on this issue, and unbelievably so. I thought at first it was because members had not read the bill. Then I realized something. We were giving answers in the House about these things and the minister, of course, was responding, and members of the committee who had read the bill were responding. I realized then that this was not about reading the bill or understanding the bill. It was really about talking to a very narrow base that they want to misinform.

I imagine they were fundraising off of it. I imagine that is why they were being so wildly and deliberately inaccurate. However, I find it sad in a parliamentary context. As members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to get the information and deliver to Canadians information that is accurate. The Conservatives have failed now for months to do that in some areas, particularly most egregiously around Bill C-11, where the disinformation is so unbelievably bad that—

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

Madam Speaker, as a rebuttal to my friend from the Conservative caucus, if Conservatives had wanted the best bill possible, they would not have filibustered in committee for weeks. They would not have blocked witnesses from testifying. They would not have blocked amendments to improve the bill, and they would not have been trying to obstruct at every stage of the bill. When Conservatives say they want the best bill possible and basically engage in systematic vandalism of the bill for weeks and weeks, it undermines their own credibility. There is no doubt of that.

However, that is enough on the Conservatives, at least for a moment, though I will come back a little later on in the 20 minutes accorded to me on Bill C-11 to talk about how the Conservatives basically tried to destroy a bill that would help many Canadians. That is really the essence of Bill C-11 and why this bill was important to bring forward.

Over the course of the last three years, we have seen the collapse of Canadian productions, an average decrease of 12.4% per year. That is a lot of lost jobs. What we saw in digital media was that royalties paid to Canadian creators were three times lower than those for traditional media usage. What that means is that not only are Canadians losing their jobs, but they are being paid far lower than what they should be paid. In 2020, we know that one in four people working in the cultural sector lost their jobs. At the same time, the web giants' revenues, in this case Netflix, increased by over 22% in the same year. What we have seen over the course of that time is musician's revenues falling by 79%, a reduction in production and the loss of jobs as well.

A special guest has just arrived in the House. I am not supposed to comment on who arrives in the House, but I am very happy to see our special guest with the member for Burnaby South. If the Speaker wants to rule me out of order, it is perfectly appropriate to do so. I am just thrilled to see her here in the House, I think for the first time.

We have a series of calamities that have struck our cultural producers and employees, the creative minds that bring culture to Canadians, over the last few years. We needed to ensure in Bill C-11 that we put in a place a level playing field. We know that the web giants' revenues and profits have skyrocketed over the course of the last few years. At the same time, as I mentioned, we have seen a reduction in income from virtually every sector within the cultural sphere. Our artists, creators, musicians and writers are a real benefit to Canada, and we need to make sure we have a level playing field so that they get the jobs and have the future that we all want to see. This is really important.

The context of Bill C-11 is the massive profits of the web giants, which really do not contribute anywhere near their fair share to the production of Canadian content to make sure we have in place that vital and dynamic Canadian cultural sphere. On the one hand, there are massive profits; on the other hand, there are shrinking incomes and a shrinking number of jobs in the sector. The intent of Bill C-11 was to put in place a level playing field and ensure that the web giants actually paid their fair share and made their contribution so that we can have more jobs and more vibrant cultural industries and Canadian creative talent can be set loose.

As we know, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who also believes in having a level playing field, went before committee to testify on what it would mean just financially. The numbers talk and make a big difference. I will talk about what he said in his testimony, when he was finally able to testify. It is important to note that the Conservatives, who said they wanted to question him on the bill, also refused to let him in the room so they could question him on the bill. How do we square that circle? This is where the issue of Conservatives undermining Canadians' trust in them is so apparent. They were saying they have to question the minister and then refused to let him into the room so they could question the minister. It was the same way they treated the chair of the CRTC. They wanted to question him on the bill, but refused to let him into the room to answer questions about the bill.

How do we square that circle with Conservatives who have been running amok ever since they basically torpedoed their former leader? They have broken into factions that are fighting each other. That they would not allow the CRTC chair to come in and be questioned, that they would not allow the Minister of Canadian Heritage to come in and be questioned on Bill C-11, does not make any sense at all to any reasonable Canadian.

Our job is to question, to get answers, to push and to prod. The Conservatives just wanted to talk to themselves, make big grandiose speeches and pontificate, but they did not want us to ask the questions that demanded the answers that Canadians needed to see around Bill C-11. However, we finally managed to get the minister into the room, no thanks to Conservatives who were disruptive, vandalizing and trying every possible way to disrupt the proceedings.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage came in and gave us the figure to the question we were asking: What is the estimated net benefit to the Canadian cultural sector, the net transfer from the web giants who have made these massive profits over the last few years to Canadian cultural industries, in terms of employment, higher incomes and making sure that there is prosperity in Canada? The figure is $1 billion, which is how much Bill C-11 would transfer from the web giants, which largely take it out of the country. There is some production that is done in Canada, but not nearly as much as there would be with a level playing field.

Instead of that money leaving the country, it would stay here in Canada and create Canadian jobs. It would create jobs in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby and our leader's riding of Burnaby South, which is Hollywood north, as members know. It is really the heart and soul of the Canadian production sector. This will mean more jobs for Canadians in our ridings and in ridings right across the country.

It means a future for our young people, even the young people who are here on their first visit to the House of Commons, to actually get engaged as future film editors, as film producers or in a whole myriad of other cultural sectors. It really would guarantee the future. If we think of $1 billion a year over the next 20 years, then we are talking about $20 billion for those children who were born this year. In 20 years when they are out in the job market, there will be jobs for them. This is the kind of investment that pays off over the next couple of decades and that, of course, is also vitally important.

What happened to the bill in committee? What did the NDP do? What was our approach? As members know, our leader, the member for Burnaby South, said that we are here to do work and to improve the lives of Canadians, and that is what the confidence and supply agreement is all about. It is pushing for dental care, which we have never had in this country and which so many Canadian families desperately need. It is pushing for affordable housing at a time of massive crises in affordable housing, after decades of Liberal and Conservative governments doing absolutely nothing about affordable housing. Finally, we have the kinds of investments that will actually make a difference in Canadians' lives.

As well, we have talked about and pushed for Canadian pharmacare to be adopted next year. Under the confidence and supply agreement, this is a vital component. Members will recall that just 15 months ago the Liberals and Conservatives combined in that cruel coalition to vote down the Canada pharmacare act that would have 10 million Canadian families actually get the medication that their doctors prescribed. The Liberals and Conservatives got together and said, “We're going to say no to pharmacare.” However, under the confidence and supply agreement, with the member for Burnaby South and the NDP caucus, we now have an obligation by the Liberal government to adopt the Canada pharmacare act next year.

On a just transition, we have seen the impacts of climate change. We know what that will mean for young people who, in 20 years, will become adults. If we do not put in place a just transition, if we do not fight back against climate change, it will have a profound impact on their lives.

These are all the things that are in the confidence and supply agreement. These are the things that we pushed for, because we believe in working hard to make Canadians' lives better.

How does that philosophy translate to Bill C-11?

We went to committee with the idea of improving Bill C-11. The vast majority of witnesses who came forward said this is a good bill and is a needed bill, but there are areas of improvement.

The NDP is the effective opposition and no one doubts that. We are the ones who get things done. We are the worker bees of Parliament. We are not like the Conservatives. If we were like the Conservatives, we would be going around in circles and pontificating. What we do is get things done. I understand some of the Conservatives are sensitive to that, but that is okay. They can watch and learn from us so they can be more effective in their roles.

As an effective opposition, we came forward with five areas where we wanted to improve the bill. Madam Speaker, as your eyes indicate, you are interested in hearing more, so let me tell you about those five areas.

First, we know that in broadcasting there are barriers for marginalized Canadians. What we sought, fought for, pushed for and succeeded in doing was changing Bill C-11 so that it now reflects that broadcasters have an obligation to open doors and make sure there is a place for Black and racialized Canadians and their stories. For indigenous people, indigenous cultures and indigenous languages, that is now also an obligation. We are opening those doors to Canadians who have not been heard from. When we look at those accomplishments, they are major improvements to the bill.

As to Canadians with disabilities, members know full well that Canadians with disabilities are the most marginalized Canadians. Half of the people who have to go to food banks to put food on the table are Canadians with disabilities. They are half of those who are homeless in this country, and there is a growing number of homeless. That is why we pushed so hard for affordable housing investments on the scale that is needed to ensure that Canadians have a roof over their heads at night. Half of those people have disabilities.

For Canadians with disabilities to tell their stories, broadcasters and online companies will now need to open that place up. These Canadians have been marginalized for so long, and it is a major achievement in improving Bill C-11. It is a major improvement that we will see in the coming years. That $1 billion in investments can now go to Black and racialized Canadians, indigenous people, indigenous voices, indigenous culture and indigenous languages. Canadians with disabilities will be able to tell their stories and make their own productions. That was a major component of the amendments the NDP brought forward.

The second is community broadcasting. We are seeing a disturbing growth of hate. We have seen this with more racism, misogyny, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia and transphobia. All of these toxic forms of hate are being amplified often by social media sources and algorithms that remain in a black box unbeknownst to us and not transparent at all. These companies are not accountable.

We are seeing more and more of that hate and division. We have seen that in the United States with the Republicans. We saw this in Canada with the so-called “freedom convoy”. I appreciate many Conservative MPs and feel their work is important, but some Conservative MPs, to my immense chagrin and sadness, embraced the so-called “freedom convoy”, even though we saw symbols of hate manifest throughout, such as Nazi flags, flags of vile and violent slavery and slogans that were Islamophobic and anti-Semitic. The convoy wanted to overthrow the government. That was their announced aim. These are things that should not be embraced by any elected official. We should all push back against hate.

However, as we are seeing, part of the antidote to that hate is more enhanced community broadcasting. The second group of amendments that the NDP brought forward and succeeded in passing were amendments that enhance our community broadcasting capabilities, including our radio, TV and online broadcasting, so that people in communities can talk to each other and communities can talk among themselves to build solidarity and build an antidote to the hate and division we are seeing manifest in so many quarters.

This is a fundamentally important series of amendments as well. What they do is turn things back on the community, where we love our neighbours and work with our neighbours, unlike the fear and intolerance we are seeing now with the American Republicans and their wacky campaigns of hate, which unfortunately and disturbingly we see sometimes here in Canada as well. We should never forget that we have seen the most despicable, racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic violence in this country, and we need to constantly stand against that. The second series of amendments is the antidote to that hate by putting the emphasis on community broadcasting, which has been eroded so much over the past couple of decades.

The third and fourth series of amendments touched on the issue of ensuring freedom of expression at all times and making sure that was in the bill, and ensuring at the same time that there is enhanced accountability for the CRTC, because we believe that is important. Those amendments go together in a very real sense. Freedom of expression, as reinforced, will be the direction to the CRTC, as freedom of expression is paramount. At the same time, the CRTC has an obligation, with more accountability mechanisms as well. Those are the third and fourth components of what the NDP brought forward.

The fifth is ensuring Canadian jobs and ensuring the protection and promotion of Canadian intellectual property. We need to make sure that Canadian cultural creators, the creators we are all very impressed with, whether they are musicians, actors, actresses or filmmakers, remain in every sphere of the cultural industries we have. We must have in place provisions to ensure Canadian employment and the protection of Canadian intellectual property. That was the fifth and last series of amendments we brought forward to make sure this bill was stronger.

We supported the principle of the bill; there is no doubt about that, but we believed in enhancing it. That is why we worked hard to build those amendments in the five categories I mentioned to ensure that we had the best possible Bill C-11.

I will come back for a moment to talk a bit about how the Conservatives handled this whole process, because it saddens me.

Our responsibility in the House of Commons is to come forward and, yes, at times oppose legislation. There is no doubt. I remember speaking in the House for 14 hours in a filibuster to block the mean-spirited, ugly, destructive Harper budget of 2012. I stood in the House for 14 hours to stop that budget because of what it would do to destroy the environment and really the livelihoods of people. There was this transfer of wealth to the banks and the very wealthy. All of the provisions of these Harper budgets provided for overseas tax havens that today, as members well know, amount to $25 billion a year of tax money that could be supporting families, seniors, students and people with disabilities and ensuring affordable housing, all of those elements. Yes, we could say the Liberal government had not done much until the confidence and supply agreement and that now things are going to start moving, which is great, but the Harper government was deplorable in all of these areas. There was no accountability at all.

For Bill C-11, if the Conservatives had chosen to say they were going to block the transfer to a level playing field, they could have. Instead, they were very destructive and very unhelpful, filibustering, blocking witnesses and doing everything that I think most Canadians would say parliamentarians should not be doing when their work is to scrutinize and make sure that legislation is better when it comes out of the House than when it came in.

I am pleased to say that the NDP did do that. I am pleased to say that we stuck to our principle of improving the bill. At third reading, it is undoubtedly much improved from second reading for all the reasons I just mentioned. We are proud of that work. As an effective opposition, our job is to block legislation when it is bad, but when it is good and when Canadians agree, we must make sure legislation is better coming out than when it was coming in.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's question was actually just posed to my hon. colleague. I am not sure if my colleague heard, but my hon. colleague from Lakeland just answered this very question.

If we are going to get into a battle of duelling experts, then we can certainly do that because Professor Michael Geist, a professor of law, somebody whose life revolves around this, has been highly critical of the bill. I am mindful of the fact that reasonable people can disagree on these points. We are never going to have uniformity in what people think, but for instance Professor Geist said:

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage heard from a total of 48 witnesses as individuals or representing organizations during its study of Bill C-11 (excluding the CRTC and government officials). Of those 48, at least 16 either raised concerns about the regulation of user content in the bill or disputed government claims about its effect.

I could go on, but I will wrap up on this. There is certainly not academic unanimity as to the consequence of Bill C-11.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf on the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Before I begin, I want to take care of a couple of things. First, there were three people in my riding who were tragically killed over the weekend, including a four-week-old infant. Last I heard, there was a young person as well who remained in critical condition after this tragic motor vehicle accident. I want to assure the family and loved ones who suffered through this that they are in my thoughts and prayers. I just want to take a moment of silence, given the passing of these three people.

On a bit of a happier note, I want to wish my dad a happy Father's Day. I did get to see him yesterday.

The last thing, I promise, before getting into Bill C-11, is that I have two friends getting married this weekend, and I want to give a shout-out on the House of Commons floor to Lucky Sharma and Aimée Marshall on their upcoming wedding. I wish them a life of happiness.

Now let us get on to why we are all here, Bill C-11, and why we are all here sitting late, with Motion No. 11.

I remember when the Liberals, as a third-place party, in 2015, touted themselves as the party of transparency. We were told, “Sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways,” and that they would not use omnibus bills. Those are for undemocratic groups like the Conservatives to use. They would not shut down debate. No, that would not ever happen.

Then we had the NDP, the party of the underdog, fighting for each and every person, being the voice for people who did not have a voice themselves, the voice for the voiceless, the party fighting vigorously for democracy above all else, supporting things like Motion No. 11, not only to curtail debate, and I cannot count how many times that has happened recently and in respect to this bill directly, but also to shut down debate.

That, to me, does not sound like either is a party of transparency. I may have expected this from the Liberals. I frankly did not expect it from the NDP. Let us face it, if the Conservatives had done this when we had a majority, it would have been called high-handed. Instead, the rhetoric is, “We just want to get this done.” This is coming from a party that took months to recall Parliament after an unnecessary pandemic election.

Wait, Madam Speaker, there is more. We have over 100 amendments that were moved in committee without any sort of scrutiny. To me, that is undemocratic.

If I could sum up one of the issues I have with this bill, it comes down to a question that I asked the hon. parliamentary secretary. I asked him about TV shows that he had referenced and his saying, if I understood his argument correctly, that we may not have these TV shows if it were not for Canadian content. I challenged him in a question, asking, “Where in Bill C-11 do we preserve the existence of these television shows?”

Somewhat predictably, he did not point to anything in particular. He said that it depends on the content of the shows. That is the interesting part. Here is the problem: this is the classic “the Liberal government knows best”. It is for the government to decide what the appropriate content is.

People ask, “Well, what is the problem with this?” This is the government essentially preferring some media over others, but not only is it preferring some media over others; it goes beyond that, because we do not know exactly how the government is going to go about preferring some media over others. We really do have a compound problem there.

One, why are we preferring? It is ostensibly for the reasons that have been outlined by the government, but then we have this vacuum in which we ask ourselves, well, how are we going to go about that? Rather than flesh that out and rather than spend the time at committee to do this, the government rammed through over 100 amendments. To me, that does not sound like a government that is bent on getting this right, as we have heard so often, because this needs to happen on an act that has not been updated since 1991.

Make no mistake: I am not advocating for the status quo, but I am opposing what we have seen here.

Frequently from the government we have heard, “Why do Conservatives not just get on board with the changing times?” That completely misses the point. The Conservatives are prepared to get on board with the changing times. Just because we are not prepared to get on board with it being done in this way does not mean we do not recognize the necessity for change.

Rather, we have a bill that has been rammed through. If this bill was truly good for the country, why is the government trying to get it done so quickly? It is obviously a near copy of the deeply flawed Bill C-10, which had a number of concerns raised by experts.

I do not deny that we live in an increasingly digital world. We need laws and policies that reflect the world we live in today. I am in my 40s, yet I find myself increasingly telling my family members and my mother that I need a text message rather than a phone call, because we are going back and forth constantly, living in a busy world that is increasingly dependent on electronics.

I am sure I am not the only one who feels as though, while we used to fall asleep reading a book 20 or 30 years ago, we probably now fall asleep doing different things and watching different things.

All that is to say that yes, the law needs to be updated. The question then becomes how Parliament appropriately intervenes, and just because Conservatives are opposed to the intervention itself, the unique intervention that has been put forward, does not mean that an intervention is unnecessary.

Canada's Conservatives support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and content creators, but what we have here would be giving the power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet. In my view, that is not the appropriate way to go about this. This, to me, is an exhortation for more government involvement and more power in what we do. It feels like it never ends when we see the government slowly but surely encroaching into what people will watch, but it is not even clear as to how the government would do that, and that is a really substantial concern.

This bill, in my view, targets user-generated content. That has been discussed at length, and I will not go into it much more. Despite the government's assurances, companies like YouTube still identify areas of the bill that would identify user-generated content. Despite the exemption for user-generated content, this legislation would allow the CRTC to regulate any content that generates revenue, directly or indirectly. That is rather broad.

When we are talking about indirect generation of revenue, where does that line end? Does it end at one person removed, one job removed or one dollar removed? How do we actually judge that? These are unanswered questions that would have been wonderful to answer at committee, and there were many witnesses who would have been prepared to answer these questions.

According to the CRTC chairperson, Mr. Scott, the CRTC issues approximately 250 decisions annually. For an administrative board, that is relatively small. That is fewer than five per week, so I ask myself how we can expect the CRTC to have this capacity. Again, this is consistent with what I am saying. We are just going to grow the CRTC even bigger. That is the answer. That is the response to this. It is to make more government with more policies with more workers, which is going to cost more taxes for ultimately questionable ends.

I am only four pages into a 10-page outline. I have a lot more to say, but I know my time is coming to an end. As much as others here might like to hear it, I know we are under time constraints, so I will answer any questions from my colleagues with that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, in fact, we have said repeatedly that we think that big foreign streamers should be on an even playing field with smaller Canadian broadcasters. What is very bizarre, I find, about this debate is that the member has raised a legitimate challenge, one I think that we are all aware of and that probably merits debate. However, its remedy is not in Bill C-11. He is talking about a taxation issue.

Other members have talked about pay rates or about competitiveness issues against other jurisdictions on all kinds of different arts and cultural productions. Those are all issues that we should be talking about. Perhaps there are public policy or legislative solutions to those issues, but what is very confusing about this is that Bill C-11 does not deal with any of that.

Bill C-11 gives unprecedented powers to a regulatory body to negatively impact the free expression rights of all Canadians in all online streaming media, and that is why Conservatives oppose this bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the issue with Bill C-11 is that MPs here are prepared to vote on legislation that grants unprecedented and sweeping powers to a powerful regulatory body without knowing the details, the impacts and the scope. The minister himself has even said that there is going to be some sort of policy directive provided to the regulatory body that we do not know about right now, that MPs have no details about whatsoever.

In the context of this debate, in Bill C-11, I think that it is dangerous and irresponsible of members of Parliament to support pushing through legislation in that context, in that reality. I think that given the learned, expert and diverse cautions about the negative impacts of this bill on the free expression of all Canadians, that is the core principle that members of Parliament must defend. That is why we must oppose Bill C-11.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech from the member opposite, although I cannot help but disagree. Someone else who would disagree is the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. This is what they said about Bill C-11:

Canadian creators need support to continue to develop Canadian music in the world of streaming, and Canada must be a place for emerging music creators, where songwriters and composers can create, grow and thrive.... The tabling of the Online Streaming Act on February 2, 2022, is an important first step to make it easier for Canadian audiences to find and engage with Canadian creators, giving our music a place in the world of streaming.

This is a respected organization that is completely behind the aims of Bill C-11. What does the member think about this stakeholder's comments?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Bill C-11 is yet another attempt by the Liberals to regulate what Canadians can say and see on the Internet by granting unprecedented powers to the CRTC with, importantly, no clear guidelines or limits on how that power would be used.

The minister has made many claims about Bill C-11. He says that it would protect Canadian identity and culture, that it would help promote diversity and marginalized groups in Canada, and that it would tell Canada's story to the world. These objectives are commendable, but the big problem is that Bill C-11 would actually accomplish none of them. Instead, it would threaten the viability of Canadian digital content creators, stifle innovation and grant unprecedented new powers to the CRTC to dictate what Canadians can read, what they can listen to, and what they can say and see on the Internet.

Like its predecessor, Bill C-10, Bill C-11 is not about promoting Canadian content. It is really about censoring views and ideas that the Liberal government does not like, all under the auspices of strengthening Canadian culture. The bill's so-called discoverability provisions would essentially push content in front of Canadians, if that content is considered Canadian enough, whether people want to see it or not. If it fails to pass the government's definition of “Canadian”, it would be pushed down in the queue where it cannot be found. The CRTC would essentially decide which content creators succeed, what content Canadians see and what content Canadians do not see. The minister has recently declared that he alone would develop rules on what content is defined as Canadian. That is a pretty shocking revelation, that he considers himself the single arbiter of national identity.

This is especially disconcerting since the NDP-Liberal government is also currently developing an online harms bill, which has been so shrouded in secrecy that only recently an access to information request uncovered thousands of pages of negative comments by stakeholders. Critics warned that the original Liberal government plan would amount to censorship. I understand that a new proposal is now being put forward, given all the criticism. It would apparently place the onus on digital platforms to deal with harmful content. Based on the Liberals' track record, no one should believe that this proposal would pose less of a threat to individual liberties than their other ideas. I am not sure how they would tackle real online harms, such as non-consensual or child sexual abuse material, which is often not enforced through platforms right now.

On Bill C-11, thousands of Canadian artists, content creators and policy experts have voiced extreme opposition. They point out that pushing content to viewers who are not interested in it would actually harm Canadian creators, because the algorithms will penalize content that viewers do not interact with.

Justin Tomchuk, a Canadian producer who operates two very successful YouTube channels, noted, “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.”

Dr. Irene Berkowitz, a senior policy fellow at the Toronto Metropolitan University’s Audience Lab, also testified at committee, and Matt Hatfield said that it's “very risky for a small country like Canada to encourage this kind of model of prioritizing our own content. The benefits are pretty meagre if we make it work for our local content. The risk, if a larger country like France were to do the same thing, is enormous to us.”

Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, 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. 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.

Those same points echo around the Canadian arts scene. Scott Benzie, the managing director of Digital First Canada, which advocates for digital content creators, said, “Most concerning about C-11 is that there is still room in the bill for the government to force platforms to put 'approved' Canadian content ahead of independent Canadian content and artificially manipulate the algorithms. Even in the best-case scenario this bill only has downsides for digital-first creators, while the traditional media industry gets their funding doubled.”

The reality is that traditional broadcasters like the CBC would receive more funding under Bill C-11, while independent innovators driving Canadian digital leadership will be left behind. Not only will Bill C-11 not promote Canadian digital content or strengthen Canadian culture, but its discoverability provisions will stifle innovation and impose severe restrictions on what content Canadians can access.

During committee hearings, the campaigns director of advocacy group OpenMedia, Matt Hatfield, said, “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.”

There really is no better definition of “censorship” than what the Liberal government is trying to do in Bill C-11. Censorship is at its very core. The Liberals even used censorship to cut off debate and ram through an unprecedented 150 amendments to the bill with no discussion or explanation. Over the last two weeks, the Liberals have effectively censored their own censorship bill.

Canadians will remember the fiasco of Bill C-10, which the Liberals introduced last year. Under Bill C-10, people's everyday expressions, which could include pictures, audio and video, would have been magically turned into broadcasting programs when transmitted by third parties like social media firms over the Internet, unless the CRTC or a cabinet policy directive said otherwise. Almost any individual-generated content would become subject to regulation. That is why Internet law expert Michael Geist called Bill C-10 an unconscionable attack on the online free expression of Canadians. As the Liberals stifled debate and used tactics like closure on Bill C-10, Conservatives did propose amendments to protect individual users and smaller players in the market by exempting streaming services and social media users with lower revenues, but the Liberals rejected that common-sense compromise.

Now the minister claims that this new bill, Bill C-11, addresses the concerns about Bill C-10 and that Canadians can be assured that regulating user-generated content on the Internet is now off the table, but that is just not true. In fact, when asked at committee hearings about whether Bill C-11 includes 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”.

The Liberals have tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with Bill C-11 by apparently reintroducing some original safeguards, while at the same time introducing a new provision that effectively negates the safeguards. I think we all agree with the goal of updating Canada's Broadcasting Act and bringing it in line with the realities of the 21st century. Conservatives have said repeatedly that we support creating a level playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, but Conservatives believe we can achieve that reform while also protecting individual rights and without turning the CRTC into an all-powerful censure board with almost no limits to its regulatory authority.

Should Canadians entrust the Prime Minister and the government with the power to regulate what Canadians say and see? Let us look at their track record. There have been many examples of this particular Prime Minister cracking down on those with whom he disagrees, from former senior ministers who defended the principle of judicial independence, like the Hon. Jody Wilson-Raybould, to denigrating and demeaning fellow Canadians who want their freedom back and to end federal mandates, and helping perpetuate misinformation and fake news about them, their motives and their actions. The Prime Minister has actually called Canadians who disagree with him un-Canadian. Therefore, is it any wonder that Canadians would be skeptical about his plans for the cabinet appointments who will define Canadian content for regulation?

This penchant for using the unbridled power of the state against the individual Canadians is embodied in Bill C-11 and in coming legislation the Liberals will claim is necessary. However, stakeholder groups that have been involved in consultations so far have called the Liberals' proposals dangerous, with the possibility of expanding the powers of regulators over time and significantly impacting the free expression and privacy rights of Canadians.

My constituents are clear about their views on the Liberal government's heavy-handed attempts to regulate and control what Canadians are allowed to say and see on the Internet. They have told me they do not agree with the Liberal government's censorship measures. No government agency responsible for broadcasting in a free and democratic society should have the kinds of powers and unchecked discretion as are proposed in Bill C-11. Canadians have fought and died to defend rights to freedom of thought and expression. In a society that cherishes these values, Bill C-11 would leave the door open for real abuses of power against the free expression rights of Canadians.

My Conservative colleagues and I will remain steadfast in working to stop the NDP-Liberal government from taking away the free expression and individual rights of Canadians. In its present form, we oppose Bill C-11, given the potential for it to establish a regime of censorship, control and regulation while not achieving the outcomes its proponents purport.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member about the CRTC. We know that Bill C-11 would give sweeping new powers to the CRTC. We have heard that the government is not willing to disclose the policy directive for the CRTC. Is it not concerning to the member that we would give the CRTC these new powers without actually knowing what its mandate is going to be and what the policy directive will be?