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.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

I hope this one will see support.

Thank you.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

(On clause 3)

The Chair:

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

Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

I hope everyone will support this.

Thanks.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

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

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