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.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I think we are outside the scope of the discussion. The interventions should be about having a side meeting, outside of the normal hours of the committee, where Hockey Canada representatives could be called in. The committee would continue its work on Bill C‑11 at the same time next week. It is possible to do both. Right now, however, there is a lot of nonsense going on, which may well prevent things from happening. Yet Canadians are watching and waiting for us to act.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Lots has been said here today dealing with Bill C-11 and with Hockey Canada. I spoke quite a bit on Monday on Hockey Canada and have received a lot of feedback since the Monday motion that was put forward.

I've looked into the organization and who is still there and who has left.

What's up for Hockey Canada? We have the Memorial Cup coming around the corner. For those watching, the Memorial Cup pits the best hockey teams in Canada. You would have the Quebec junior hockey league champions and the Ontario Hockey League champions. You would have the host team, and you would have the Western Hockey League champions. The four best teams in the country meet, and it's interesting, because the Memorial Cup is emblematic of the best hockey players meeting for the tier one hockey championship, if you wish, in the country.

That's how Team Canada usually gets formed. In the case of the Edmonton Oil Kings, a number of their players were, in fact, selected for the Canadian junior hockey championship. That was to be held in Red Deer and Edmonton, but because of COVID and the financial restraints of the organization, they lost a lot of money in the year before when they started the tournament. Then COVID came. The Russian hockey club and other European hockey clubs in Red Deer contracted COVID through a wedding, and the tournament had to be cancelled.

It wasn't an ideal situation in Edmonton and Red Deer, because they limited the number of seats that could be sold, and they lost a lot of money. This year, if you recall, in Edmonton and Red Deer they just at the last moment decided to cancel it and reschedule it, I might add, for August, which is not ideal because the property—

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

I have to agree that there isn't a lot of good faith at the table. We heard a filibuster through the CRTC. We heard a filibuster through the minister. This is, I believe, our seventh or eighth filibuster. We could have been through clause-by-clause at this point.

Mr. Julian proposes a reasonable motion to bring in Hockey Canada, and we just hear more of the same, more filibuster. We agree with Mr. Julian in terms of moving this forward, but we can do it at the same time. This committee has done it before, going between studies, hearing different witnesses, pausing one study and picking up another. It's something that we can do. It's something that we've done. Let's get going on this. There is a unanimous consent motion, but there is also a motion from the House that we continue and proceed with Bill C-11.

I don't need to remind the members that legislation typically takes priority in parliamentary committees. The opposition is right that this is an important issue. Let's do this simultaneously. The Liberals are ready to get to work. The Liberals are ready to do this. I know the NDP are, and the Bloc are ready to get to work. It's just the Conservatives who want to filibuster, and that's really disappointing. It really just shows that sexual assault is just being used as a filibuster tactic, which is truly shocking.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

On the subamendment that was brought forward by Mr. Julian, what I am stating is that there is not a lot of good faith left around this table because, as you noted, in the original motion with regard to Bill C-11 and hearing from witnesses, there was no maximum and no minimum discussed, which then leaves an opportunity for us as members around this table to bring forward another motion or amendment to a motion that would call for more witnesses.

Madam Chair, there have been several attempts to do that. Unfortunately, those have been turned down, or there's no willingness to even consider them. What I'm saying is that this starts to chip away, then, at any sort of good faith that might exist here, when we're not able to have those conversations or pursue things that may be beneficial to the process in front of us.

When the motion is moved to ask for a study of Bill C-11 at the same time as the study concerning Hockey Canada, it doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth or give me any confidence that we are in fact going to do those two studies simultaneously and give the Hockey Canada study the attention that it requires in order to do it justice.

All that is to say that I raise that as a red flag and wish to communicate my concerns and my dissent.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

For previous motions moved at this committee, I've seen that, even when dates, hours or allotted time are listed, they somehow seem to be optional. For example, the last motion moved at this committee stated that we would hear from witnesses with regard to Bill C-11 and that we would hear from them for four meetings of five hours each. That's not what happened. We were told there would be a minimum of 20 hours of committee testimony. When there was a proposal put on the table about hearing from more witnesses, it was given no attention.

I don't have any good faith remaining with regard to Mr. Julian and his motion, or to the members around this table. I don't trust that Bill C-11 and the Hockey Canada study would simultaneously—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. I appreciate that.

I have some concerns about this subamendment because, in the last meeting, we discussed the importance of the motion with regard to Hockey Canada and having them come forward, along with other witnesses. Ultimately, at the end of the day, our objective within this committee is to stay true to the unanimous consent motion passed in the House of Commons, which called for a study on the sexual assault allegations put forward by an unnamed woman. Then, of course, the Minister of Sport responded by saying that a financial audit was needed of any federal funding that may or may not have been used to cover up the story of gang rape.

It was determined, by unanimous consent in the House, that this study is very important to get to the bottom of. All MPs have agreed with this, and the sport minister has agreed on the importance behind it, so it is incumbent upon this committee to give it its full attention.

My concern is that, if we try to simultaneously carry out responsibility on clause-by-clause for Bill C-11, the governing party would ensure that limited or finite resources, which already exist within the House of Commons, be put toward Bill C-11, because that is a government piece of legislation. Meanwhile, attention on the Hockey Canada study would only be granted if resources happen to be available. It would not be given the priority it deserves. That is—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe I was able to capture most of the subamendment. However, I may have missed a few points.

I believe the bottom line is that Mr. Julian is proposing that we simultaneously study Bill C-11 in clause-by-clause, while also taking on the study with regard to Hockey Canada. Is that correct?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I think the allegations surrounding Hockey Canada are serious. I think we all share that view, and it is something that we need to respond to and can do as early as next week. I think we all agree that has to be a priority. I think we all agree as well, or most of us agree, that Bill C-11 has to be a priority also.

For the last couple of weeks, we've had some legitimate filibusters around important issues and some that I do not feel have been useful expenditures of the committee's time. Most parties have already filed their amendments with the clerk and are waiting for the improvements that we want to bring to Bill C-11.

We've held far more than the 20 hours of the original hearings, although some of those were disrupted by the filibusters, I would admit. Now is the time for us to actually look at the bill and improve it, and we can do that at the same time as we look into Hockey Canada.

What I'm endeavouring to do is to have Hockey Canada hearings and have the deadline for amendments. As I say, three of the four parties have already submitted, so there's only one party that would need to submit its amendments. Even then, Madam Chair, as we know from the legislative clerk, amendments can be submitted up until the time we actually have consideration of clause-by-clause, and even then it's not a hard stop. However, I think the principle of having all parties submit their amendments so that they can be produced and translated and circulated is important for preparation.

This would allow us to do both important things at the same time, to move them forward at the same time, and I hope that my Conservative colleagues will agree that, given that we're responding as well to an important issue they've raised, we can do both and we should proceed that way.

We've had a couple of weeks in which I don't think our time has served as well as it could have, so now next week let's get to work and fully use the time we have available to us to look into Bill C-11 in terms of clause-by-clause and improvements to the bill and to look at these allegations that surround Hockey Canada, which are disturbing and which I think we would all agree need to be investigated as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Furthermore, it continues, “that the committee hold hearings into the allegations around Hockey Canada on Monday, June 13, and Wednesday, June 15; and that remaining amendments to Bill C-11 be tabled by 12 noon, Friday, June 10.”

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

I believe the amendment would read as follows: “That the committee commence its clause-by-clause study of the Online Streaming Act at the same time as it undertakes the committee's study”. Mr. Nater has the rest of the wording on the study that was mandated by the House on June 2. I would then add “that the committee hold hearings into the allegations around Hockey Canada on Monday, June 13, and Wednesday, June 15; and that remaining amendments for Bill C-11 be tabled by 12 noon, Friday, June 10.”

I'm very flexible in terms of wording and friendly amendments.

[Liane Roy]

Yes, they should be clarified. Our proposal on that is that the wording of Bill C‑11 should be added to Bill C‑13, as I said in my opening remarks about the Broadcasting Act. We did that because all the political parties had already approved it.

As you know, we want to move forward on this quickly, and it had already been agreed to by all the parties. That's why we are proposing that what Bill C‑11 says about everything pertaining to consultations should be reproduced in Bill C‑13.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the committee for having me.

I thank all the parliamentarians here who supported the motion I tabled in the House last week.

Like you, I was shocked by this news. We have a duty to shed light on the actions of Hockey Canada following the victim's revelations. Hockey Canada's involvement in this matter is unjustifiable and we must ensure that not one penny of taxpayers' money was used to cover up this story. I also include in that the salaries of the executives who may have committed acts to cover up the allegations.

We need to know what actions Hockey Canada took as a result of these allegations, which occurred four years ago, I remind you. This is 2022, and Hockey Canada needs to answer our questions.

The amendment that Mr. Nater sent to us earlier is an interesting one, in my view. What he suggests could be added to the motion proposed by Mr. Bittle.

For my part, I propose to add this, in relation to the study to be undertaken by the committee:

[...] that, to do so, the committee meet outside its usual time slots to begin this study [...]

I also add the following idea, which I like:

[...] that the committee invite the Minister of Sport to appear for at least one hour; and that the committee invite representatives from Hockey Canada to appear for at least two hours.

Committees determine their priorities. I, for one, am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, and I can tell you that every week for the past two weeks, one of our meetings has been cancelled.

I think we are able to chew gum and walk at the same time. If we could arrange another meeting, for three hours, to have the Minister of Sport as well as representatives from Hockey Canada, I think that would address one of the concerns we have. It would respond to the will of Canadians who are outraged by what happened at Hockey Canada, who are listening to us and who want answers as quickly as possible. There is a way to do this without interfering with the work to pass Bill C‑11, which is also an emergency.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the heritage committee for having me sit in here today. It's nice to see everyone.

Definitely two topics that connect for me personally are Bill C-11—very important, as a former journalist and online content creator—and obviously the investigation into Hockey Canada. I was able to take part last week. My colleague Kevin Waugh made some very impactful statements. I want to touch on that, as I also sit on another committee, FEWO, which is status of women. Right now we're tabling a study on intimate partner violence.

As I lean into this role as a member of Parliament, what we do here first, or what our priorities are, speaks to Canadians deeply. Absolutely, I think every member at this committee and also in the House, quite frankly, knows that Bill C-11 is important, but I also think we all know how important it is to change the toxic culture of all institutions, whether it's the Canadian Forces, sports, politics or whatever it may be.

I want to give a bit of a trigger warning. I was thinking about this when I was here on Wednesday, about some of the content that is coming out. I am very aware of how delicate this conversation is for people who may be watching.

Support is available for anyone who has been sexually assaulted. You can access crisis lines and local support services through the Government of Canada website or the Ending Violence Association of Canada's database. If you're in immediate danger or fear for your safety or that of others around you, please call 911.

I actually pulled that trigger warning from an article that was released by CBC on June 5, 2022, where the headline reads, “Former Hedley frontman Jacob Hoggard found guilty of sexually assaulting Ottawa woman”. In a time where we have headline after headline that are really revictimizing victims, I can't stress enough how important it is to prioritize this study into Hockey Canada. I think it really sets a precedent of what we're doing and where we're sitting.

The Supreme Court ruling of extreme intoxication as an excuse for sexual assault crimes is.... I've had countless messages, and people personally in my life who have been revictimized by this. I think there's an opportunity for us here to set the tone of what the priorities are, and because this is imminent, I think it's really important. On what you guys are going to do, I think there is a consensus of what needs to be done here.

I want to talk a little bit about what the Minister of Sport, Madam St-Onge, said in a scrum with reporters before Thursday's question period in Ottawa. She said she wants a forensic audit of the settlement to ensure that Hockey Canada didn't use taxpayer dollars to settle the case. She said, “What I want to know and what I think all Canadians want to know is, was there any public funds used to cover up that horrible story of collective rape?”

This is just so much bigger than this Hockey Canada.... If we're the leaders of this country, what are we saying to victims if we're not prioritizing this? I think there's an opportunity for all parties to work together, because I think everybody wants to solve this. I think every member wants this to end.

I look at things like Indian Horse. I don't know if anyone's familiar with that movie. It was shot in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha. It's a book that many kids have to read. It's a terrible story of sexual assault and abuse of power.

When you talk to people who work in shelters or who work with victims, they really go in thinking they're going to solve and fix it because they think, “Why is this even still happening? How does this even happen?”

As a parent, you think of this when you're raising your children. You think about what you are teaching your daughters and sons about consent. How do we even get to a point where we're still having this conversation?

As somebody who was raised as a Catholic, the whole Catholic church and Indian Horse coincides with reconciliation and abuse of power. To have this Hockey Canada scandal exposed.... We're not done. We're not done with setting a tone of what we accept. We're not done holding people to account. When you have the #MeToo movement.... What is still happening here that we're still having this conversation? I think it is critical that we have an opportunity and that this is the number one priority that needs to be served and paid attention to imminently.

I also want to talk a little bit about C-11 and the importance of it as well because I have had literally thousands of messages on this bill, both from my social media and the parliamentary email. Here's one email of thousands:

“Dear MP Ferreri, I'm writing to you to express my concerns about Bill C-11, the online streaming act that is currently under review in Canadian Parliament. As it's currently written, Bill C-11 gives the CRTC the authority to regulate user-generated content on open platforms, as it does for television and radio. In its current form, Bill C-11 means Canadians will no longer be in control of their viewing experience and puts creators' livelihoods at risk. The government has repeatedly said it doesn't intend to target user-generated content. If that's the case, why won't they fix Bill C-11 with specific language that excludes user-generated content from CRTC regulation?

“Open platforms remove traditional media gatekeepers, which allows for the democratization of content and provides an opportunity for creators and users from diverse communities, walks of life and passions to express themselves, share their talent and build a business. As one of your constituents, I am counting on you to make my voice heard. Please help protect the digital creators and viewers in your community and tell Minister Rodriguez to remove section 4.2 from C-11 to ensure that the bill does not apply to online content that is uploaded by any individual user.”

I won't share the name because I don't have the permission to do that.

It is absolutely imperative that this committee continue its work on C-11. It is a huge issue across the board, as somebody who worked in traditional media, went on to work in private media and who built a business off of social media as an online creator.

To circle back, when we look at what online content creation is, it is also fascinating when we look at abuse or sexual assault culture. For anybody who's a parent or caregiver, you know that what your kids are consuming has changed the culture of who we were. I was born in 1979 and I'm just so glad I wasn't born in the time of social media. I wouldn't want half of that out in the public; that's for sure.

It's also changed how boys see themselves, how girls see themselves and how people identify in their gender. It does come back to what my colleague Kevin Waugh said. It was extremely powerful and emotional to hear it. When you know something is wrong and you don't do anything.... If not you, then who?

If we are the leaders of the country, if we are the federal body that governs what is accepted, we should be prioritizing this and making a statement that says, “Hey, we've got you. We are studying this. We want to change culture. We want to investigate this.”

What are we saying to every victim out there? Bringing these conversations up over and over again is so revictimizing for so many people, and it is such a challenge.

One of my favourite sayings is from Mr. Rogers, actually, who said that anything mentionable is manageable. If we don't address this, if we are not mentioning it, if we are not addressing that this is still happening, that there is still rape culture in sports and in this institution, that is saying, “Go ahead.”

I would urge this committee, which has a lot of power and a lot of influence, to say to victims watching everywhere that that we do care, we do want to change the narrative, we do want to stand with you, we will do something about it, and we will get to the bottom of this, because without accountability, there is no change. If we just allow people to abuse power because we're afraid, the cycle will continue. The systemic trauma that is in place as a result of these stories is decades and decades long. It is so impossible.... You will be talking about a mental health crisis and a health care crisis and money spent on trauma counselling since this is so systemic. If you don't deal with it, then the victims go on and have their children and they carry their trauma with them and the only way to break the cycle is to address it. Anything mentionable is manageable.

What I would leave this committee with and urge this committee is that your actions speak louder than your words. What you prioritize tells the world what matters to this federal body of people who are here. I think right now between the Supreme Court ruling and the hurt that so many victims are feeling, we have an opportunity to study this now and to show victims that we have their backs, we're going to investigate this and we're going to make sure that we do everything we can to make sure that this never happens again.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to take the floor and say a few words about the motion before us. I'll offer a few observations off the bat.

First of all, obviously we've been looking at Bill C-11 for a period of time. We've heard from some witnesses. I know that our witness list isn't exhausted yet. We have at least 20 people on our list who haven't had the chance to come here yet. We'll put that aside for a second.

I want to talk about the gravity of the situation that is potentially before us, and I do accept Mr. Bittle's comments about certain issues involving the victims. We did have a motion that was passed by this committee earlier this year to look at online harm caused by access, and there was the opportunity there—and that meeting never happened—to hear from organizations that deal with trauma-informed testimony. I think if we go ahead with a study on the events regarding Hockey Canada, it would be important that we have that conversation before we hear from any witnesses.

Obviously, as a committee, we have the opportunity to go in camera for certain testimony, for certain issues, whether it's about identifiable people, whether it's with victims or whether there are issues from a legal perspective. There are always those opportunities.

When it comes to this particular motion at hand, we're talking about a Monday deadline to do this. This is a complex bill, and it will take a significant amount of time to go through clause-by-clause. I'm very concerned that, if we begin clause-by-clause on Monday, June 13 at 3:30, we will not have a chance to take up the House order that was made on June 2 regarding the troubling allegations.

I'd remind the committee that it wasn't a partisan motion to the House. It was a unanimous motion endorsed by all parties and frankly endorsed by the Minister of Sport herself, who made comments about the troubling possibility that public funds may have been used in this case, and I think that should be troubling for anyone and everyone here in Canada.

At the end of the day, we need to be sure that we, as a country, stand up for victims and victims' rights, and I think this is one situation where we need more information. Whether that's done through a committee process.... A forensic audit has been suggested within the organization itself, but there are people who must account for what has happened. There are organizations that must account for the situation that unfolded, so I think that should be the priority of this committee going forward.

That's not to say that Bill C-11 will never pass. I think that Bill C-11 will obviously pass through this committee when the time comes. It will go through clause-by-clause, but I think for now the priority of this committee should be the House order of June 2, 2022.

I would amend the motion by deleting all the words after “act” and inserting, “following the completion of the committee’s study pursuant to House Order made June 2, 2022.”

Just for clarity, the House order of June 2, 2022 is the motion regarding Hockey Canada.

That's the amendment, Madam Chair. I'm happy to reread it if it's needed, but that's my amendment.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

As I was discussing before we were rudely interrupted by Kevin Lamoureux, unintentionally.... We were discussing how we are well into a filibuster. It's clear we really should move forward on this bill. There's another study. We can quickly deal with Bill C-11, have a proper debate on C-11, and then get to Hockey Canada before the House rises.

It worried me a bit last night that members of this committee were using this case to filibuster. I know—there's intent from all sides—that we want to hear from Hockey Canada, but I think people have gone a bit too far in the filibuster. We should use this time, while we study Bill C-11, to think about the legal aspects of the case, because a lot of things were said that were a little troubling to me. They may lead to the disclosure of names—which I don't think anyone wants—or negative statements about the non-disclosure agreement, which may be protecting the plaintiff in the case. As a civil litigator myself, I think the opposition needs to take some time to look at things like solicitor-client privileges and NDAs, so we can get to this as quickly as possible.

In the meantime, I know everyone likes to say that the House gave us the Hockey Canada study, but it also gave us Bill C-11. I think this is fundamental and important, and it's something we need to see through. The Liberals are ready to work. I've spoken to our Bloc colleagues, and I'm sure Mr. Julian is always ready to work, and perhaps we can find.... We're ready to work extra hours to see Bill C-11 through to the end, but we're also ready to hear from Hockey Canada, as well, and get to the bottom of that.

I think, perhaps, the opposition needs to take some time to speak with the lawyers in the caucus or with counsel at the House of Commons, in order to understand where we're going, because some dangerous things may happen, even though they're well intentioned. I don't think any of us want that.

That's all to preface my motion, which has been handed out in both official languages. I move:

That the committee commence its clause-by-clause study of the Online Streaming Act no later than Monday, June 13 at 3:30 p.m. EDT.

It's quite basic. This gives us lots of time to start next week. In speaking with the Bloc...we should have a discussion about setting a deadline for amendments, perhaps this Friday, so that we can really get things moving. I think that's fair and reasonable, but I wanted to put this on the table. We can vote on this quickly and then talk about the study right away, because this will take a minute or two. There are a couple of people on the list. We can get to talking about Hockey Canada right away. I think that's important.

Thank you so much.