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.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, all right.

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

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

Okay. I'll speak briefly to this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can I proceed with that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

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

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

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

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

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

(On clause 2)

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call this meeting to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

Canada is home to some of the best talent in the world. Our artists, our actors, our musicians and other creators in our arts, culture and heritage sector continue to develop incredible Canadian content on a daily basis. The development of the sector is alive and well, with young talent consistently emerging across the country. These exceptional artists and creators deserve nothing less than an even playing field and to be supported with all the tools they need to thrive in their industry. They deserve fair compensation and a competitive economic environment that enables them to continue sharing their stories through their medium of choice, whether it be television, film, music, prose, theatre, the concert hall or perhaps the fastest-growing medium, the online content on the Internet.

I can personally relate to this field, as my oldest daughter is making her way through life as an artist, teaching music, singing opera and producing opera, albeit live at this moment, and living a gig-economy lifestyle.

The last time any major changes were made to the Broadcasting Act was in 1991, over 30 years ago. Given the rapid pace at which technology has been advancing in the past decades, it is undeniable that we have seen major technological changes in that time. Unfortunately, the legislation and regulatory framework have not changed with it. The government and, consequently, the CRTC need to adjust the way Canadian arts, culture and media are treated to match these changes. What we see, however, is the government failing in its attempts to bring the Broadcasting Act into the 21st century by adapting existing policy to reflect the digital reality of our times and failing to help future-proof it for future technologies and challenges yet to come.

Let me be clear: Conservatives support a requirement for major streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney to reinvest back into the production of Canadian content in both official languages. These requirements would also incentivize these platforms to partner with independent Canadian media producers. What is crucial, however, is that Canadians who upload content to social media platforms continue to enjoy the freedom of speech and the ability to express themselves freely within the confines of the law.

Sadly, Bill C-11, much like its failed predecessor in the previous Parliament, Bill C-10, would give the CRTC unprecedented powers to monitor online audiovisual content. These powers would include the ability to penalize digital content creators and platforms that do not comply with these regulations. These powers would be used and applied to Canadian content at the discretion of the CRTC, based on three criteria: whether it directly or indirectly generates revenue, whether it has in whole or in part been broadcast on a more traditional broadcasting platform, and whether it has been assigned a unique identifier under any international standard system.

As most digital content generates some kind of revenue, and given that most social media platforms have a system by which to provide a unique ID to their content, the CRTC could regulate almost all online content under this bill, including independent Canadian content creators who earn their living on social media platforms like YouTube and Spotify. This represents a major concern about the freedom of speech and the implications of possible government overreach in this bill, just like Bill C-10, in how it could affect Canadians.

Canada is known as being a world leader in many fields. Contributions by Canadians have revolutionized medicine, communications, agriculture, domestic life, entertainment and much more. Experts have testified that this bill would represent an unprecedented move and that Canada would once again become a world leader, but this time in its heavy-handed practice of regulating user-generated content. Not a single other country in the world has taken this approach. This is not an area Canadians should be proud to pioneer.

Instead, what we are seeing is a large number of Canadians, both content creators and consumers, expressing serious and valid concerns with the approach their government is taking to their livelihoods and entertainment, respectively. This attempt by the Liberal government to regulate the Internet and restrict the free speech of Canadians was unacceptable under Bill C-10, and it is equally unacceptable now.

I want to talk about what this bill would not do. This bill would not reduce the regulatory burden faced by Canadian broadcasters, nor would it reduce the cost to Canadian broadcasters. The part II licensing fees in 2019-20 alone amounted to over $116 million. I would rather see that money go into creating new Canadian programming and content than into CRTC coffers.

In the previous version of the bill, Bill C-10, there was an exclusion for user-generated content, which was then excluded at committee. Now, in Bill C-11, the government has reintroduced an exclusion on user-generated content on social media; however, this is written in the most convoluted and bureaucratic of languages. The exclusion to the exclusion is so broad that the government, through the CRTC, could again regulate a large amount of content uploaded to social media.

What concerns me and my colleagues, and we have certainly been hearing about it from our constituents, is the impact this is going to have on our Canadian digital content creators. It is estimated that there are 28,000 full-time jobs in Canada created by content creators who have enough of an audience to monetize their channels through places like YouTube. This type of digital-first Canadian content creation is something we should be supporting instead of hindering.

We have heard from creators across Canada who are concerned that government-approved Canadian content is going to be put ahead of independent Canadian content. More to this, Canadians also want to see Canadians telling Canadian stories, but what is not clear is how the CRTC is going to adjust the criteria to ensure that real Canadian stories are being told.

Our artists deserve an even playing field between large foreign streaming services and Canadian broadcasters, as technology evolves and carries on into the future and as we move further and further into the digital reality and online spaces. We need them to tell our stories, whether through music, movies, television or online content. Without that, part of our history will be lost.

I think we can all agree that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated to reflect our current technology growth, but the last thing we want is Canada to fall further behind or to pass a law that would detrimentally affect our artists.

We need to support our Canadians artists in all the various forms and mediums they use to tell their stories. Our young talent continues to develop and contribute to our national culture. It is part of our role as elected officials to pave the way for the next generation's success. We should not be passing bills that disrupt the creation of new content. We need to help innovation happen. Innovation happens every day here in Canada through many venues, and we need to enable our creators to benefit from and export our talent around the globe.

Our artists, musicians and creators are deeply invested in the future of the industry and the future of this particular piece of legislation. These creators and artists deserve to be treated fairly and to have the tools they need for success, and they need to be heard at committee; dozens have yet to be heard.

We have been there for Canadian creators, artists and broadcasters by asking the tough questions, both here in this chamber and at committee. We carefully reviewed every aspect of the bill and expected the Liberal government to make the adjustments necessary by adopting amendments that were brought forward to protect Canadians' free speech and the livelihoods of independent content creators.

Proposed section 4.2 and any provision that enables the inclusion of user-generated content need to be removed. There needs to be a clear definition of “discovery”, and there needs to be an update to clearly articulate what Canadian content is. What is the definition of it? Very importantly, the policy directive to the CRTC on how this whole legislation will be implemented needs to be made public.

We have been clear in our position on the bill. We will not be supporting the bill until we are confident that Canadians do not need to be concerned about their rights and freedoms on the Internet. Our concerns have not yet been addressed, and I will not be supporting this motion to ram through Bill C-11 at committee, as the Liberals have done at every stage of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a tough issue for me, as an individual MP, because I do not like a motion that says we are going to fast-track all amendments, close things down and push something through on this basis, as the government is proposing to do on Bill C-11.

I am honestly still trying to decide how I will vote on the Conservative motion. I would rather we stay in this place and do it right, even if it took sitting into July. I do not know about taking until September. That is what I am struggling with right now. I also know in the previous Parliament, with Bill C-10, and in this Parliament, and I do not want to make this personal in any way, shape or form, but the tactics of the Conservative Party cannot be described as anything other than obstruction for the sake of obstruction.

I would like him to try to tell me what he thinks would happen if the government did not push this through. Would we have a chance to improve this bill and then get it passed?