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.

[Sam Norouzi]

I'm here today because of the critical gap in Bill C-11 that could see millions of Canadians lose access to their beloved public interest TV channels over the next few years. We are one of those channels.

For many ethnocultural communities in Quebec, ICI Television is the only source of locally created television programming in their language available at little or no cost.

Our programming is developed by a network of local independent producers who have deep ties to their communities and decades of experience in producing quality television programs.

We cover current events from a local perspective, and connect people in Montreal and throughout Quebec to what is happening around them. We make a difference. However, telling local stories requires resources.

To help keep the lights on, we rely on an order by the CRTC that requires all cable and satellite services to carry our programming as part of their basic TV package and to pay a fixed rate tied to their number of subscribers. ICI is one of a small number of specialty channels that relies on the CRTC in this way.

These channels are known as 9(1)(h) services, a name which comes from the section of the Broadcasting Act allowing the CRTC to issue these orders in support of public interest programming.

You know many of these channels. Let me share a few examples. There's CPAC, which provides Canadians with unfiltered access to Parliament, and committee meetings just like this one. APTN tells the stories of indigenous peoples in Canada in their own voice. AMI-tv and AMI-télé help Canadians living with disabilities access TV programming.

In addition, there is TVA, which has a mandatory distribution order outside Quebec, which supports official language minority communities.

Together with our partner, OMNI Regional, ICI provides Canadians with information and entertainment in their own language, including six daily newscasts in six languages, from a Canadian perspective.

Canada's public interest TV plays a critical role in serving racialized and marginalized communities. We promote tolerance, diversity and inclusion. We help protect our democracy from disinformation.

With more Canadians shifting to online streaming, we need our broadcasting rules to keep up. As Ian Scott told you earlier this week, Bill C-11 doesn't extend the rules for 9(1)(h) services to online streaming. Instead, it leaves our future to good-faith negotiations. However, global web giants like Amazon, Google and Apple know they won't make money off of our content. They have no real incentive to negotiate, and we can't compete with their legal departments.

That is why we are asking you to amend Bill C-11 to help level the playing field and allow the CRTC to set terms and conditions for programming in their online distribution.

Giving the CRTC the power to set the terms of carriage for online public interest programming services would support us and level the playing field for conventional broadcasters competing with online distributors.

We need this change so that we can keep our lights on and serve Canadians in a way that meets their needs—

[Jay Goldberg, Director, Ontario, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you very much.

I'm very grateful to be here today to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of supporters, including tens of thousands of Canadians who have signed our petition calling on the government not to move forward with Bill C-11.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is concerned by this bill for three key reasons.

First, the government's “empower the CRTC now, give guidance later” approach raises major concerns about accountability. There are many Canadians who are asking why the government is trying to give such unprecedented power to an entity like the CRTC without first sharing with Canadians exactly how much power and on exactly what basis it plans to do so. The government has said that instructions and guidance will come later, but that's a backward approach when it comes to accountability.

Second, contrary to the government assertions, the CRTC has determined that user-generated content will be regulated by the CRTC under Bill C-11 through broadcast regulation. As Professor Michael Geist has said, “no other country in the world regulates content in this way”, and to do so is a major threat to individual freedom. Again, many are asking why the government wants to give the CRTC the power to regulate user-generated content while at the same time saying that it's not.

Before I move to my third point, let me note that although the government has insisted that user-generated content won't be regulated, CRTC chair Ian Scott told this committee that “section 4.2 allows the CRTC to prescribe by regulation user-uploaded content subject to very explicit criteria”. In addition, the very fact that user-generated content would be regulated demonstrates that this bill is not, as the minister and others have suggested, solely about Canadian culture.

Third, this could set a very dangerous precedent for the future. Today, this new government regulatory machine that is being built plans to filter content based on what it considers to be Canadian, but this could be repurposed in the future for other means. Not being able to hold the CRTC accountable in determining what is or is not Canadian content may concern some, but not being able to hold it accountable on future issues such as social cohesion, as Minister Mendicino has alluded to in the online harms conversation, is even more concerning.

There are also deep concerns about the process of this legislation, the lack of debate and the government failing to genuinely listen to Canadians. Our right to free speech and free expression must be sacred, and we should not be in a situation in which a bill like this is being pushed through Parliament in this way, with such limited debate and opportunity.

Thank you for having me here. I look forward to your questions.

[Andrew Cash]

—will not be passed on to Canadian-owned independent labels or artists and that those contributions are not tied to what content is or is not in the bill.

The music business has always been complicated, and is even more so now. We want to ensure that creators who are impacted by Bill C-11 are consulted and that our voices are heard when this bill gets to the CRTC.

I would like to also underline CIMA's support for CDEC's amendments, as well as for the Racial Equity Media Collective's submission and suggested amendments, which would ensure the government's stated objective to see greater equity and inclusion in the broadcasting system is achieved.

We look forward to building stronger partnerships between artists, Canadian-owned labels, platforms and the cultural policy objectives of the Government of Canada.

Thank you so much.

[Andrew Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Independent Music Association]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm the president and CEO of CIMA, the Canadian Independent Music Association.

Our membership includes Canadian-owned music companies, artist entrepreneurs, managers, publishers, promoters, consultants and many other solo self-employed entrepreneurs.

CIMA supports the principles behind Bill C-11. Every entity doing business in Canada operates under some form of federal or provincial regulatory requirements. Online streaming and social media companies should too. These platforms should contribute back into the cultural ecosystem they profit from in the form of, among other ways, financial contributions that can be invested in the sector's industrial infrastructure and artists. We think these things are fair and reasonable and, frankly, a very long time coming.

For over 25 years I was a singer/songwriter, producer/performer and I have to tell you that rarely a day passed when I didn't think: How can I build an audience outside of Canada? That's because the music I was making often didn't fit into the narrow confines of Canadian radio formats at the time. Sometimes it did, but usually it didn't. It was pretty clear that in order to survive, make a living, raise a family, in other words have a middle-class income and life, I had to find a global audience for my songs, which, by the way, I never quite found.

But today, because of a number of factors, including the opportunities created by streaming and social media platforms, more and more of our artists and labels are building that global audience, whereas in the past they would have had no commercial avenue. I think that may be why 75% of all Juno nominees this year were from the Canadian-owned independent sector, and many are finding audiences in markets all over the world.

This growth is also made possible by important public investments in the industrial infrastructure of the Canadian-owned sector through FACTOR and Musicaction. This is a huge success story and a reminder of the importance and potential impact of additional funding from new digital platform partners to the system.

You know that too often when we talk about creators, we tend to hold up the exception as the rule, the über-successful influencer on Instagram, the number of streams Drake has amassed this month or the hit bands that underpin the CanCon structure of terrestrial radio. But they don't tell the true story or the whole story. It has always been, and continues to be, a precarious feast-or-famine life for 95% of those who work in the creative arts, both on and offline—including, alas, Juno nominees. But we do have an incredible opportunity here now to begin to lay a new foundation to build and grow a more stable middle-class arts and culture sector in Canada. So we must really understand the sector we are attempting to legislate and regulate, the opportunities for our artists and Canadian-owned labels if we get it right and the serious ramifications if we get it wrong.

CanCon was put in place to build a domestic industry for a domestic market. Today, we need to invest in the success of Canadian companies and artists for a global market. For CIMA members the best way for Canadian artists to be discovered is to have incredible artists supported by excellent, smart, well-resourced and highly competitive companies that can succeed in the global marketplace, with IP ownership remaining in Canada. We applaud anything in this bill that successfully facilitates these goals. An outcome that results in Canadian artists locked into Canadian-only playlists and a Canadian-only digital ecosystem would be unacceptable.

How music is promoted and shared by music fans on social media platforms has become key to the growth of Canadian-owned independent music, and so we agree with and support the comments by the minister and the chair of the CRTC, who have both said that so-called user-generated content would not be regulated.

Today, music companies have commercial relationships with platforms, therefore, we must ensure the cost of the financial contributions a platform may be required to make—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Hello, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 30 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

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

Pursuant to the order of Thursday, May 12, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-11, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Those attending in the room must be masked for safety reasons.

To those on Zoom, please look at the bottom of your screen. You will see a microphone icon. Please mute yourself until you are ready to speak, and then you can unmute your microphone. There is also a globe icon at the bottom of the screen that helps you go into French or English, depending on your choice. Those in the room know that they can plug into translation at any time.

We're not allowed to take photographs during the meeting.

I want to ask you one more time to remember to speak through the chair.

Witnesses, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone to activate or close it. Thank you very much.

We're going to the first panel. Witnesses, you each have five minutes for your organization. You can decide how to divide up the speaking time within your organization. I'll give you a 30-second call, so that you can wrap up, and then we will go to a question and answer segment. I will tell you how that works then.

The witnesses in this round today, from 3:30 to 4:30, will be as follows. From the Canadian Independent Music Association, we have Andrew Cash, president and chief executive officer; from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Jay Goldberg, Ontario director; from ICI Television, Sam Norouzi, vice-president and general manager; and from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, we have Andrea Kokonis, chief legal officer and general counsel.

To begin, we'll hear from the Canadian Independent Music Association and Mr. Cash for five minutes, please.

Access to Information

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just these documents. That is just one of many actions being taken by the NDP-Liberal coalition government.

Let me give other examples. Ministers can now end democratic debate without notice, just at will. In addition to that, of course, documents are being refused to be granted with regard to the study of the Emergencies Act. In addition to that, the members opposite are now moving Bill C-11, which would shut down our ability to use the Internet with freedom. It would control what we can see, what we can hear and what we can post online.

Why is the government so determined to kill democracy?

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

Madam Chair, when I look at some of the witnesses.... For God's sake, Spotify is on everybody's phone, and we haven't heard from them. That is the new media. We heard from J.J., who talked about the new media today. I come from the traditional media. I went after Bell today. I'd like to talk to APTN. I have other issues with the radio and television industry.

The new media, Madam Chair, as we heard today from J.J. and others, need to be very front and centre, because we're going back 31 years on the Broadcasting Act. I know it needs to be modernized, but look at the legacy this committee will leave once this bill goes through the House. Is it going to be another 31 years, Madam Chair, before we do another? It's properly called the “streaming” act now, because it is going to change.

I think we need to talk about the new media as much as we talk about the traditional. I don't think we've had a chance, around the table, to discuss it. We heard from one guest today who opened a lot of eyes on the freedom of expression and doing it his way. Maybe I don't listen to him as much, but he obviously has a big following. Some of these YouTubers have bigger followings than Bell and Global. That's where this industry is going right now. That's where Bill C-11 needs to go. The act was changed from the Broadcasting Act to the streaming act for a very good reason. It's the 21st century. The Broadcasting Act is archaic. We need to move forward, and streaming is going to be—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We have a hard stop at 7:30. We are back where we started. This is an attempt to never get to this decision. I would very quickly like to remind everybody that, when we passed a motion in good faith—it was unanimously passed by this committee—it read:

That the committee hear witnesses on the topic of C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts for one meeting lasting five hours during the week of May 23, 2022; that the committee continue to hear witnesses for an additional three meetings lasting five hours each during the week of May 30, 2022....

We are in that week right now. Again, this was a clear motion intended to define what we do, and we are now finding that this has all been a.... It was unanimously passed. We have never, at least while I've chaired this committee, had an exhaustive list of witnesses. When we're going to do work, we make a decision that we will let that work last a certain amount of time with a deadline, and that deadline is stuck to. If we didn't get all the witnesses in before that deadline, well, we didn't.

The clerk works very hard to call witnesses. Many witnesses could not come in during the motion that was moved and unanimously passed, so we have finished our witnesses. We have achieved 20 hours. We have achieved 19 hours this week. Twenty hours in total were asked for, and we will have an extra hour. This committee now has 20 hours. It has fulfilled the request unanimously agreed upon in the motion that I just read to you.

We now need to move forward, in the tradition of committees. There was no minimum attached to those 20 hours, I may add, so we are now moving to the next phase, which is to set a deadline for amendments. We have a hard stop, as I said, at 7:30, so we have a few more minutes for this motion on the floor, in keeping with our tradition and with what we said. I would like to ask us not to go over a motion already duly passed—unanimously passed by this committee.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This has kind of caught me off guard, because, when I look at the witness list of the Liberals, us, the Bloc and the NDP, I find that 33 groups that requested to come from the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals haven't been heard from yet.

When I look at that, I say they can't be happy. These are people who took time to write. They want to come and express their feelings on Bill C-11, and many are from the government side. I know the minister is coming tomorrow. The departmental officials have generously said that they will come tomorrow afternoon. Also, as you know, we've extended tomorrow's time from 3:30 until 6:30, and we only have four witnesses coming in the first hour tomorrow.

We have many people who have expressed a major concern. Some are supportive of this bill, and some are not supportive of this bill. There are some important groups. I look at APTN, and we haven't heard from them. They're an NDP witness. APTN is one of the reasons the CRTC.... I don't have to tell you, Madam Chair, that CBC, the public broadcaster, wasn't doing their job in representing the people of this country, and that's why APTN got started in Winnipeg and has spread. I give the CRTC credit that it is a mandatory station coast to coast now. I think we need to hear from them, because there are some issues with Bill C-11.

I just pick them out because it is Mr. Julian's wish to get everything together by four o'clock, eastern time, on Friday, and I'm surprised that he wouldn't want to hear from APTN. They're one of the major forces in this country. We don't have a lot of ethnic organizations that we've heard from. We've heard from one today, and that was quite shocking. They're not being recognized by Canadian television, whether it's Bell, Global or even the public broadcaster. They've been shut out.

We have lots to consider here, and I think APTN is one of the...and we're talking a traditional broadcaster here. That's where I come from. I really want to hear from them. I'd like to hear from National Community and Campus Radio. They're another organization, Madam Chair, that has been recommended here by the NDP. Obviously they don't seem to care if they come to committee or not—

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I have just done that, but will do it again.

I move that the deadline for submitting amendments for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑11 be 4 p.m. this coming Friday.

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

I move that the deadline for submitting amendments for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑11 be 4 p.m. this coming Friday.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Madam Chair, it's okay. I appreciate your jumping in.

Mr. McCullough, I do believe this bill is about bilingualism. I believe this bill is about ensuring that English-language minority content in Quebec and French-language minority content in the rest of the country is treated with respect and that we give the opportunity for people in both languages to express themselves across this country and develop their own original programs.

In the last Parliament, Mr. McCullough, this committee adopted many amendments to this bill that dealt with this very issue. We've had many witnesses come to talk to us about how important this is.

My question again to you, sir, about this bill is this. Do you believe that it is fair in Bill C-11—an important part of Bill C-11—that the federal government is protecting French content and French original creation of content across Canada in all forms?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me. I'm sorry, sir, but the committee knows exactly what its topic is. It's Bill C-11.

Thank you. Please answer the question.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I have also found the article you wrote that says that bilingualism is a threat to Canadian democracy.

Part of Bill C-11, as a national government, is protecting the French fact across Canada. I am asking this question to you in English and not in French because I am not trying to score political points on it.

Can you tell me why you believe that bilingualism is a threat to Canadian democracy and whether or not you believe the federal government should have a role to play in protecting French culture across Canada?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

J.J., what you're talking about is the desire under Bill C-11 that the government has to protect Canadian culture. Ultimately what it means is that CanCon, anything that fits that definition, which is an antiquated definition to begin with, will be bumped up in the queue in terms of discoverability online, and other material that doesn't meet that antiquated definition will actually get bumped down, maybe even be on page 553 of the Internet, where it will never be discovered in its lifetime.

What impact will this have on digital first creators?