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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Good morning, everyone.

This is a business meeting, as we well know, but I suppose the same things apply. Remember that, pursuant to the House order of November 25, we are in a hybrid meeting. There are some people remote and some people on the floor. As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during the proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments. We adjourned the last meeting, so this is a business meeting, and, as you can see, the order of notice on the business meeting is to continue on Bill C-11 and to go to clause-by-clause.

The first thing we do is—

I think Mr. Bittle's hand is up.

[Liane Roy, President, Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

We are very pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill C‑13. We have also come here with a sense of accomplishment. For five years, we have committed ourselves to this grand effort to provide Canada with a strong, modern and respected Official Languages Act.

We are now on the threshold of a historic change for Canada's linguistic duality. I can't help but think of all the people, here in Parliament and in our communities, who have helped to advance this major project.

You have received FCFA's brief outlining the final amendments that we consider important to ensure that the modernized act actually changes the situation in the way we all hope. In the few minutes allotted me, I would like to focus mainly on the underlying reasons for those amendments.

The purpose of the first amendment is to clarify the role of the Treasury Board as the central agency charged with coordinating implementation of the Official Languages Act as a whole. Under our proposed amendment, Canadian Heritage would be stripped of its coordinating role, which clashes with that of the Treasury Board, while retaining its policy role and authority to design and administer programs. We would also eliminate the provision enabling the Treasury Board to delegate its coordination responsibilities to other federal institutions. This would preclude future governments from deciding that every institution is individually in a better position to manage the application of the act internally, a situation that would result in the lack of consistency and central coordination that we currently condemn.

The second amendment would provide for strong language clauses to be included in the agreements under which funding is transferred to the provinces and territories. As you are aware, failure to include such clauses has frequently deprived francophones of services in their language. It is the reason why British Columbia francophones have been fighting their employment assistance services case in the courts for more than a decade. The purpose of our amendment is to put an end to this problem, specifically by authorizing the federal government to deal directly with our communities if a province or territory resists the idea of language clauses.

The third amendment would clarify the objective of the francophone immigration policy the federal government will have to adopt. That objective must be to restore the demographic weight of our communities clearly and unambiguously. This is important because immigration is already by far the main, if not the only, source of demographic growth in our communities.

Fourth, since the concept of "positive measures" included in part VII of the act has been challenged in the courts, it should be clarified once and for all so that federal institutions are more aware of what they are required to do. The wording of the bill should refer to "necessary measures" instead of measures that federal institutions consider appropriate.

In addition, since Bill C‑11, the purpose of which is to modernize the Broadcasting Act, includes highly detailed provisions on consultations, the FCFA requests that those provisions also be included in Bill C‑13.

The fifth amendment concerns the scope of the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We applaud the fact that Bill C‑13 grants the Commissioner, for the first time, the power to make orders and impose penalties. However, one wonders why that power is limited to certain parts of the act. The Commissioner should at least be able to make orders respecting federal institutions' obligations under part VII.

Lastly, the FCFA is very pleased that Bill C‑13 acknowledges that French is not on an equal footing with English and that it must be protected and promoted across the country, including in Quebec. However, the FCFA recommends that the definition of the term "francophone minorities" be revised to ensure it is clearly interpreted when applied to francophone communities outside Quebec.

Members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, this may be the last time the FCFA appears before you to discuss the modernization of the Official Languages Act. Whatever else may happen, let us hope this process can be completed in the next few weeks. If we are successful, let it go down in history that we dreamed big dreams for the French language, for linguistic duality and for Canada. Our children and grandchildren will thank us for it.

Thank you for your attention.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can appreciate Mr. Julian's suggestion that this committee address Bill C-11 first and then move on to this issue with Hockey Canada. I can maybe appreciate it in the sense of its just trying to get one thing done and then going on to the next, but I do believe that in this case there is definitely a responsibility that we have as members of Parliament to first address these very serious allegations with Hockey Canada.

It is not only because it's possibly Government of Canada funding that may have been used as part of what looks like a cover-up of sexual assault on an individual by hockey players, but also because I would never want Canadians to think that somehow we put off possibly looking into a situation where maybe professional athletes are given the benefit of the doubt or being passed by for scrutiny because we figured we had more important things to do. This is of utmost importance.

I know that Mrs. Thomas went through some of the details, and after hearing those details, I would suggest that in no way would I feel comfortable in saying that we do not look into this immediately. I think that would be most important.

I do believe that there was no timeline set for Bill C-11 to go back to the House. We do have time, so I believe that as a matter of urgency for our committee, and also just respecting the will of the House of Commons, which unanimously.... This is something that does not happen often, where we have a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to address a situation. I believe that our colleagues, members of Parliament from all sides of the House, are looking to us to address this. I don't think it would be responsible for us to go back to them and say, “Yes, but we had other things we were planning on doing.” This is something that has been handed to us as a committee, and we definitely do have a responsibility to address it, I would say, immediately.

I know there is going to be a little bit of time that will be needed to decide which witnesses we want to bring forward, and there are going to be legal issues here. There are sensitivities in a number of different ways that we would have to address, with some things possibly being in camera, so there are a number of things we have to consider.

I think it would be absolutely important that we move on to this new study, study the issue, do it properly and do what I would say is our job, to address these types of issues and to give Canadians confidence that we have taken this very seriously.

Once that is completed, we'll get back to Bill C-11. Bill C-11 is not going anywhere. This is something that...are changes to the Internet. There are different views on it, and we would continue to study that and continue to hear from witnesses, which is also, of course, part of our job.

I think it is of utmost importance that we do address this, especially considering that we don't have an actual timeline for either. I will say that even the House of Commons' unanimous motion that was provided to this committee did not have a timeline, but, considering the nature of those issues, I think it would be most important.

Even if you asked the Minister of Sport, I believe she also would agree that it is absolutely important that we look into the situation. It is very serious, and I would not want to face my constituents, letting them know that we put it off to address something else, and then all of a sudden the House adjourns or something for the summer, and we end up not looking into it. I think it is very important that we do look into this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the sense or the desire of the subamendment to try to balance the need to achieve both focuses, but I believe the committee mandates, or the references from the minister of both the legislation and of this particular sorry and sad situation, don't have a date for reporting back. Unless I'm mistaken, it is the choice of the committee as to which is a priority and what the intent back was. I understand that, even in the original motion on the number of witnesses, there was no reporting back date, although the chair in the last meeting hinted at some sort of desire to do that.

This is a serious issue that is urgent, because we're seeing and have seen cover-ups in junior hockey and sexual abuse. We all know about the Sheldon Kennedy case and those issues that we thought had led to change, but have apparently not changed the attitude of a lot of—or some elements or number of—junior players.

I played hockey at competitive levels all my life and understand the locker room sort of mentality that seems to develop, but it doesn't excuse anything that has gone on. Eight players, shockingly some of whom are in the NHL now, were involved in this alleged incident. There must obviously be a little more to it, or $3.55 million of Hockey Canada dollars wouldn't have been used to try to keep this from going public, I assume, especially when NDAs are signed. The primary purpose we see of NDAs is apparently to keep these types of things from going public.

There's a lot of work that needs to be done that the minister has asked for on this important issue. I don't think the committee should be restricting its time frame, or the likelihood is.... Maybe it's not the parliamentary secretary's power to adjourn this committee early, but it certainly is when the House adjourns, and there's a lot of time that will be required, obviously, for clause-by-clause of C-11, which I don't believe really has a time limit on when it has to be done. It is not a time-sensitive bill. The committee can take as much time as it needs to continue the committee's study and the amendments, while this issue obviously is one that is very current and should be considered sensitively and with some transparency.

When these kinds of things happen, we've seen NDAs used in some very famous cases in the United States to try to keep criminal behaviour quiet, whether it was Bill Cosby or perhaps even some of the NDAs that former president Trump has used to keep his antics quiet.

While we don't know whether the audit has started, there is accountability for a governance organization that oversees all of our peak levels of amateur hockey to come before Parliament.... After all, it does receive public funds in some way and thus should be held accountable as to why, when we thought that some of these issues had been dealt with from a governance and an overall education and management perspective as a result of the Sheldon Kennedy case, this kind of incident apparently still happens.

I would ask the committee to consider that there is some urgency to this. Reject the subamendment to the motion so that we can consider this fairly urgent request and unanimous consent motion from the House to look into this quickly. We can't let the exposure or the chance that this will happen again.... It shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Certainly, there's some urgency to this. If the committee were not able to complete this study or to even look at this issue before the summer because the House chooses to rise, or to rise early, I think that would leave a lot of young Canadians very exposed to future situations that may or may not occur. It's too far to go—till perhaps next October—if the House were to rise before the minister's request on this gets dealt with.

It's a challenging situation, and I would urge the committee to reject this amendment and to get back to Ms. Thomas's amendment so that the minister's request to study this difficult situation gets treated with some urgency and sensitivity.

Thank you.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

For context, I want us to understand what we're talking about here, because I believe there may be members here at the committee, and certainly those who are observing, who may not be familiar with what I am talking about. It actually might be worth taking a step back, and providing a bit of context for the unanimous consent motion that was passed in the House of Commons, and why I believe it is so important to make sure we get to that sooner rather than later.

In other words, push the pause button on Bill C-11, take care of this, and then we can resume clause-by-clause, rather than Mr. Julian's motion, which is to say that we'll eventually get to this unanimous consent motion.

For the sake of context, there is an article that was written on June 3, 2022 for Complex Canada. It says:

A 24-year-old woman who says she was sexually assaulted by eight Canadian Hockey League players, including some who played on the championship 2017-18 World Junior team and who went on to secure NHL contracts, has dropped a lawsuit against the individuals, Hockey Canada, and the CHL after reaching a settlement.

The incident has only recently come to light after TSN reported on documents filed in Ontario Superior Court in London, Ontario this spring that detail accusations laid by a female plaintiff referred to only as 'E.M.' who alleges she was repeatedly sexually assaulted in a hotel room while intoxicated after a Hockey Canada Foundation gala and golf event that took place in the Ontario city in June 2018.

It goes on to explain:

The woman’s London-based lawyer told TSN that a settlement was reached and that none of the eight accused individuals—who are not named in the filings and referred to as John Doe 1-8—were ultimately charged. Allegations were also leveled against Hockey Canada for apparently being aware of the alleged incident and choosing not to investigate or punish players.

It is unclear if a non-disclosure agreement was part of the deal, but a statement from Hockey Canada spokeswoman Esther Madziya to TSN states that the faction contacted police immediately upon learning about the alleged incident in 2018.

Details of the night in question are disturbing and difficult to read, outlining how the plaintiff was allegedly given drinks by the accused and separated from her friends at a London bar and restaurant before returning to a hotel room...

The article goes on to explain what happened in that hotel room, and states:

'At times the plaintiff was crying and attempted to leave the room but was directed, manipulated and intimidated into remaining, after which she was subjected to further sexual assaults,' the lawsuit reads. 'Hockey Canada is deeply troubled by the very serious allegations of sexual assault regarding members of the 2017-18 National Junior Hockey Team,' the statement reads. 'As soon as Hockey Canada became aware of this matter in 2018, we contacted local police authorities to inform them. The same day, we also retained Henein Hutchison LLP, a firm with extensive experience in this area, to undertake a thorough independent internal investigation and make recommendations on areas for improvement which we have been implementing and will continue to pursue.'

'The person bringing the allegations forward chose not to speak with either police or with Hockey Canada’s independent investigator and also chose not to identify the players involved. This was her right, and we fully respect her wishes. We have settled this matter and as part of that settlement, we will not be commenting further.'

The article goes on to say:

But questions remain regarding how the alleged gang rape was dealt with by the national governing body Hockey Canada, both from a public funding perspective and as multiple of the alleged assailants have gone on to play for NHL teams. “I am shocked and angry to read about the allegations made against the players of the Canadian Junior Hockey Team,” Canada's Minister of Sport Pascale St-Onge told the press in Ottawa. “All Canadians want to know and me too, is whether any public funds were used to cover up this story of gang rape,” she said, adding that an audit of federal funding is on the way. The NHL responded by promising an investigation of its own: “We will endeavour to determine the underlying facts and, to the extent this may involve players who are now in the NHL, we will determine what action, if any, would be appropriate.

Mr. Chair, although I left out some of the details because I didn't feel that they would be necessarily appropriate to read into the mike today, I do believe that this article outlines the important nature of the study that I am requesting to move forward with. As stated previously, I do believe that time is of the essence. I believe it would be inappropriate for this subamendment to be passed because it would be to take this victim lightly. It would be saying that this can be pushed into the future to some unknown date and instead we would rush through clause-by-clause on C-11.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm a little bit surprised that this subamendment has been brought forward, because essentially it says that we're going to move forward with Bill C-11 first, and then, eventually, we will get to this motion that was unanimously passed in the House of Commons to look at Hockey Canada; but there is no time frame. If this committee spends the next few weeks looking at C-11, and then the parliamentary secretary makes the decision that actually we're not going to move...we're not going to have this committee anymore, and it just breaks for the summer, and then—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I was in the middle of explaining why the amendment to the motion is important. It does ask us to push the pause button on Bill C-11 and complete a study with regards to Hockey Canada and the alleged involvement in sexual assaults that were committed in 2018. The reason that is important is that it is in accordance with a motion that was passed in the House of Commons with unanimous consent on Thursday, June 2, 2022. That motion reads as follows, and, by unanimous consent, it was resolved:

That the House call Hockey Canada before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to shed light on its involvement in a case of alleged sexual assaults committed in 2018.

Given that motion was passed then and that we are the committee responsible for acting on that motion, it seems incumbent upon us to do so. Again, I would highlight that it was passed unanimously, which means that all parties voted yes to it—not just all parties, but all members voted yes to it. It is a very important matter. It is a very time-sensitive matter.

In addition to that, I guess I would draw attention to the Minister of Sport and the words that she spoke in a media interview that was released on June 3. In the direct quote here in the article she said, “I am shocked and angry to read about the allegations made against the players of the Canadian junior hockey team.... All Canadians want to know and me too, is whether any public funds were used to cover up this story of gang rape”, and she added that an audit of federal funding was on the way.

Obviously the Minister of Sport has recognized that it's important to know whether or not public funds were, in fact, used to help cover up this occurrence. Then she went on to commit that there would be an audit of federal funding.

This committee has the responsibility of figuring out whether or not those public funds were used, and also to see whether or not that audit has started. If not, why not? If so, are there any findings from it?

We certainly have some good questions on that. Like I said, it is this committee's responsibility to take on this study. I would propose that we do that before continuing to proceed to clause-by-clause with Bill C-11.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes, I am aware of that, Mr. Champoux. You are right to raise it, because it is very important.

You are right that several of these channels play a very important role, including APTN, which gives a strong voice to indigenous people. I'm also thinking of CPAC and others. There are some very serious challenges. At the moment, this exists for Canadian companies. What you are proposing is to impose obligations on foreign online broadcasting companies. Now our American colleagues have made it very clear that this could be a big problem.

So, we are considering different possibilities, including using the money that will be generated by Bill C‑11 to help these companies. Indeed, we estimate that this legislation will generate close to $1 billion a year. I think we need to be creative and find solutions outside of the bill to give them a hand.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Perfect.

For my second question, I want to deal with a topic you have touched on as well today—social media. We know it's an incredible tool. It has changed our society over the past couple of decades. We've heard witnesses talk about how they are using social media to connect with international audiences. They're not just staying in Canada anymore. This is really important as well. They are sharing Canadian stories with the rest of the world.

We've also heard over and over again that these creators will not face any obligations as a result of Bill C-11. The opposition chooses to focus on Bill C-11 and the potential impact on social media, continuing to speculate wildly about what this bill will mean for Canadians' experience on these platforms.

Minister, you and your officials have repeated that social media is not the focus; that it's not what you're here to do. Bill C-11 will not have any impact on what Canadians say or do on social media. You said it here today again. There are a number of clauses in the bill that clearly state that fact. That being said, some social media platforms may be subject to obligations under Bill C-11, so I'm hoping that you can clarify this for the benefit of my colleagues. Why include social media at all?

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and Mr. Ripley, for being with us today with your testimony. We really appreciate your time in answering these questions.

You touched on this point a little bit already through your testimony, but I think it bears elaboration. I'd like to talk about what happens after the passage of Bill C-11. Throughout this study, we've heard lots of speculation about what regulation might look like, including members of this committee telling digital first creators that they will be taxed. We know that's not true.

We had a few witnesses mention that a public open process will be conducted. I think that all the members of this committee would benefit from a thorough explanation of this process. There still seems to be confusion.

I'm wondering, Minister, if you could tell us what exactly will happen after royal assent of Bill C-11.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

—because it's not in Bill C-11. There's no revenue threshold given. What's the monetary amount?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

How much time do I have?

What I am a little concerned about, Mr. Julian, is the level of misinformation that there has been from members of the Conservative Party around the bill. I wouldn't say it was all Conservative members, but certainly some. They are making things up and creating a parallel debate on elements that do not exist in the bill. That is what is worrying.

For example, at a committee meeting I was appearing at, Ms. Thomas sent this tweet on Twitter:

“#killbillc11.... The bill needs to die a thousand deaths.”

How can we have a constructive debate to improve the bill when all along she has been saying that we should torpedo the bill?

Bill C‑11 , like any bill, deserves an informed and responsible debate, and we need to have it.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, welcome to our committee.

You have probably been listening to the speeches in the House on Bill C‑11. I was surprised to hear a member of the Conservative Party say that this bill would allow the government to track people on their mobile phones.

What are the most outlandish things you've heard about Bill C‑11? There have been speeches that were really far from the substance of this bill.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On May 24, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion that reinforced Quebec's position and support for Bill C‑11. The members of the assembly went quite far in saying that social media should also be regulated and that contact and formal consultation with the Quebec government should be maintained before making decisions that would have an impact on Quebec culture.

Do you have a good relationship with the Quebec government? Do you have discussions to look at ways to link your policies?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That's exactly right.

Neither we, through the law, nor the CRTC directly will ever interfere with how things are done. The CRTC will not have the right to dictate the types of algorithms. In any case, this is prohibited by law. There are also several sections of the law that talk about respecting freedom of expression, among other things. So I think the necessary elements are included in Bill C‑11.

The only reason the CRTC may be interested in content is to know what portion of it is commercial and must be treated as if it were on another platform.