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.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying that because of this discrepancy that exists between what Mr. Scott testified on May 24, 2022, and what the charter statement says, I am asking that this committee members consider the motion that is before them, which of course would ask for a revised charter statement with regard to Bill C-11, and that it be granted to this committee as soon as possible.

Of course, I am also asking that we hear from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, along with any officials they feel might be necessary.

Now, let me jump into my proof of point here as to why this motion is so important—not the motion itself, but what it's calling for.

The action that the motion is insisting we take is so important because we have two different authoritative sources with two very different interpretations of this legislation and of the impact that it is going to have on Canadians, and Canadians deserve clarity. Those individuals who exist as digital first creators, for example, here in Canada, deserve to know: Are they as individuals generating content captured by this bill or are they in fact exempt? They deserve that clarity. That is what I'm asking for today.

I'll take you to the transcript from committee in May with Mr. Scott. At that committee, I said this:

Bill C-11 does, in fact, leave user-generated content open to being regulated by the CRTC. I recognize that there have been arguments against this. However, Dr. Michael Geist has said, “The indisputable reality is that the net result of those provisions is that user generated content is covered by the bill.”

Jeanette Patell from YouTube Canada has said, per The Canadian Press,“the draft law's wording gives the broadcast regulator”—in other words, you—

—that is, meaning those in the room at the time—

—scope to oversee everyday videos posted for other users to watch.”

Scott Benzie, from Digital First Canada, has said, per the National Post, “while the government says the legislation will not cover digital first creators, 'the bill clearly captures them.'”

Madam Chair, my point was this at that committee: I was raising attention or raising the alarm bells and showing that we had Dr. Michael Geist, Jeanette Patell, and Scott Benzie all saying that the user-generated content of digital first creators would in fact be captured by this bill.

Now, we have since heard from many other witnesses at this committee that this is in fact their understanding of this legislation as well. Mr. Ian Scott believes otherwise—or, sorry, he agrees, actually. Sorry, he does agree. The minister is the one who is trying to argue otherwise.

When I posed that question, then, to Mr. Scott, at that point in time, back in May at this committee, he said:

As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required, but if I could just quickly respond to the general tenor of those comments, that's all true today. We could do any of those things today under the Broadcasting Act.

It's very interesting. He's affirming that user-generated content is in fact captured by this piece of legislation, and that the CRTC can in fact put so-called provisions in place that would apply to those who generate online content as individuals.

After Ian Scott responded, I said the following:

My question for you, then, is this. Isn't the point to modernize it? Why would we keep that so broad by keeping proposed section 4.2 in the current bill? Why wouldn't we remove that?

Mr. Scott responded by saying:

With respect, it's not our place to make recommendations about the definitions in the legislation. What I would answer is that there should be a higher degree of trust in relation to the commission's future actions. It's demonstrated, as I said, by 50 years of broadcast regulation. We have never interfered in individual content.

Madam Chair, what I find interesting about Mr. Scott's statement on that day are a couple of things. One, he is, in fact, affirming that yes, user-generated content is caught within the scope of Bill C-11 and that the CRTC can, in fact, regulate individuals who are posting information online.

In so many words he goes on to say that Canadians just need to trust us. That's the problem; they just need to trust us. We shouldn't worry about putting it in a legislative document. We shouldn't worry about making sure that the provisions are concrete and drafted in legislation. Canadians should just trust us.

My thought and the thought of many of those who I am standing for here today, is why should we just trust them? Isn't this the point of putting legislation in place and going through this process? After all, we are at this committee because we are discussing Bill C-11, and we are currently hearing from witnesses. From there we will go into discussing the piece of legislation clause by clause.

Throughout this journey, it is our responsibility as legislators to understand this bill to the greatest extent possible. It is our responsibility to make sure that it is for the common good and that it will serve Canadians well. When the language is purposely left vague, which is what Mr. Scott is pointing to there, that should be alarming for everyone. No matter what your political colour is, no matter your political stripe, that should be alarming.

Those at this table should wish to have very black and white legislation to the greatest extent possible. It should not be left up to the CRTC to determine to what extent it wants to function within the realm of this legislation, apply it or not apply it. That should be clearly directed by this legislation.

Innovation takes place most readily in environments where regulatory schemes are known, where investors and creatives can have confidence in legislators and in the process followed. By leaving Bill C-11 grey in this area and by allowing the words of Mr. Scott, which are contrary to the words of the minister, Mr. Rodriguez, to just hang there, we are then, in fact, reinforcing this lack of safety and security that investors and creatives are so looking for.

It's not just about them; it is also about every single Canadian who ever posts something on YouTube, TikTok, Twitter or any other platform of their choice. Canadians deserve to know. Will their individual content be captured by this bill or will it not be? Right now, the minister says no, but Mr. Scott says yes. At the end of the day, Mr. Scott is going to be the one put in charge of making sure that Bill C-11 is put into practice. My interpretation is that certainly those individual creators—again, I would say any Canadian—who has posted or plans to post online has great cause for concern with regard to this legislation and the way that it could impact them. As we heard from Mr. Scott, they are, in fact, captured by Bill C-11.

However, I would like an opportunity to hear from the justice minister with regard to his thoughts on Bill C-11 and whether it captures user-generated content. The way we would pursue that is by seeking out a charter statement. That charter statement would then be put together. It is an official document that would outline whether Bill C-11 is in fact compliant with the charter and whether it does in fact capture user-generated content, which is, in other words, the material that individual Canadians post online.

It would allow us, as a committee, to move forward in the direction that we need to. In other words, either we accept the bill as it is or we propose amendments that would help to strengthen it and allow for certainty among individual Canadians and especially among digital-first creators.

Again, I would present to this committee that this is a reasonable request, based on a few things.

First, it's similar to a request that was put forward after changes were made last spring to Bill C-10, the predecessor to this bill.

Second, it is always in the best interest of legislators to have the greatest degree of clarity as possible, so that they are making good decisions on behalf of Canadians.

Third, we have heard from many witnesses at this committee since Ian Scott spoke and they, too, have raised this concern that user-generated content is in fact captured.

I'm not just talking about individuals with opinions, I'm talking about individuals with legal backgrounds. I'm talking about people like Peter Menzies, who is a former CRTC commissioner. I'm talking about Dr. Michael Geist, who is an expert in this subject area and a professor and a lawyer. I'm talking about individuals from the Internet Society, who have decades of experience with this material and who have far more letters behind their names than I do.

Having that testimony on the record and having this discrepancy between what is in the charter statement and what Mr. Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, has said, does require clarity. The best way to get that is by asking for that.

Some people might be saying that they didn't see the charter statement. That's okay. It's no problem. I'll familiarize you with it.

We do have access to it. It is online. This was tabled in the House of Commons on April 1, 2022. I would encourage my fellow colleagues at this table to read it. The purpose of the charter statement is as follows:

Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to prepare a Charter Statement for every government bill to help inform public and Parliamentary debate on government bills. One of the Minister of Justice’s most important responsibilities is to examine legislation for inconsistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“the Charter”].

The point of this statement is to look for any inconsistencies or incongruence. It is, in fact, the Minister of Justice's responsibility to make sure that has been done.

I would argue it's his responsibility to make sure that has been done, not just when the original legislation is tabled, but if any changes are made to that legislation through the process or if any authoritative voices would challenge that charter statement, particularly in this case, when you have the chair of the CRTC, who will be implementing Bill C-11. If he is unclear or misunderstanding the intent—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I was saying, I've moved this motion asking for a new charter statement. You will see that it's a really reasonable motion. I'm saying that this be done as soon as possible. I'm saying that we're going ask the justice minister to do that, and that we invite the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, accompanied by relevant departmental officials. We're going to have them appear before this committee, again, as soon as possible, in order to discuss that revised charter statement. All of those things seem appropriate and in order.

What I was saying before Mr. Julian interrupted me was that the point of this motion is that we have a charter statement in front of us that says that user-generated content is not captured by Bill C-11, but we have the chair of the CRTC, who, on May 18, 2022, said that it is captured by this piece of legislation, so the two are not congruent. In order to clarify that in a legal framework, we do require a new charter statement.

The committee will recall that we came to a similar predicament with Bill C-10. We were debating that piece of legislation in the spring of 2021. This is, of course, the former Bill C-11, the predecessor to the current bills. We were debating that piece of legislation in the spring of 2021. What happened was that the members of the Liberal Party who were on this committee at the time made amendments to that bill, and they took out a section that protected individuals who use online platforms to post their content. Having taken out that clause, it significantly changed the piece of legislation, and because it significantly changed the piece of legislation, a new charter statement was then required.

There was a motion moved at that time that is very similar to the motion I've presented today. The committee members at that time were very reasonable and agreed to it, so a new charter statement was, in fact, drafted and considered by the committee.

Similarly, we find ourselves in a situation where information is not fully aligning, so we need clarification. Now I—

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

Madam Chair, we have the CRTC coming. I think this may well be an important motion to discuss, but to not give an opportunity for clarification to the chair of the CRTC strikes me as weird, quite frankly, and unprofessional. What Mr. Scott said at the meeting held on May 18 was as follows: “As constructed, there is a provision that would allow us to do it as required”.

I would like to quickly respond to the general tenor of those comments, and to Mrs. Thomas. That's all true today. We could do any of the things Mrs. Thomas spoke about today under the Broadcasting Act. In other words, those provisions currently exist, putting aside Bill C-11. It seems to me that clarifying those comments is valid. It seems to me that the motion, of course, is in order, as you've mentioned, Madam Chair, but to cut off the CRTC from testifying is bizarre. It's simply inappropriate.

I would ask Mrs. Thomas, through you, Madam Chair, to simply table consideration of the motion, which she has the right to do, until after we've heard from the CRTC and enabled the chair to clarify his comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think the text is referring to Bill C-11, so it's on topic.

We would like to know if this motion should be debated and dealt with now or we should continue with the witnesses who are waiting here and came specifically to speak to this issue.

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

If you had your crystal ball and you looked 10 years in the future, if Bill C-11 were not adopted—if we just set it aside—what do you see as the impact of continued unregulated foreign companies basically doing whatever they want in Canada, and that very uneven playing field that so many witnesses have spoken to?

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

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I'm going to turn to the room now briefly and to Mr. Desjardins.

You talked a little bit about part II licence fees and, effectively, their amounting to a tax on traditional broadcasters, on members of, obviously, your association.

Leaving aside Bill C-11 for a second and looking at those class II licence fees and the impact they have, obviously you would support eliminating those fees, as has been suggested in the past. What type of financial impact would it have on your membership if we were simply to take those off members of your association?

[Wyatt Sharpe, Host, The Wyatt Sharpe Show]

Thank you for having me here today.

My name is Wyatt Sharpe. I'm a 13-year-old non-partisan journalist and host of the Wyatt Sharpe Show.

I've previously had the opportunity to speak to many people including the Prime Minister here in Canada, the leader of Canada's NDP, the leader of the official opposition, Canadian premiers, the former prime minister of Finland, Ukrainian MPs and several other people.

Again thank you very much for the invitation to join you here today. I greatly appreciate it.

To start off, I'll just say that as a journalist, I believe it's my role to not provide opinions. I'm here in my capacity as a non-partisan journalist.

Just to get this out of the way quickly before accepting the opportunity to appear today, I spoke with other non-partisan journalists and they provided their advice.

I've grown my show via YouTube. I've interviewed numerous people. I've had columns published in my local newspaper and here in my small town and community. I've written articles for the Toronto Star and looniepolitics.ca .

Obviously, Bill C‑11 will affect YouTube and various other social media channels.

I look forward to providing a non-partisan aspect of this legislation today. I look forward to speaking with you all and answering any questions that you might have.

[Kevin Desjardins, President, Canadian Association of Broadcasters]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about this important bill.

The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, or CAB, is the national voice of Canada's private broadcasters, representing more than 800 members around the country, including the vast majority of private radio and television stations and specialty services.

The Broadcasting Act is fundamental to the way that broadcasters are regulated in Canada, and as you've certainly heard, it's well out of date.

I know you’ve heard from many parties on this bill and its predecessors, and you know the essentials: That technological change has vastly transformed the way that Canadians receive and consume audio and visual content, and Canadian broadcasting policy has failed to keep pace with this change.

Unregulated foreign players have had a decade to enter the Canadian marketplace without any hindrance or oversight, and Canadian broadcasters compete directly with them for subscribers, the rights to content, advertisers and audiences. Moreover, Canadian broadcasters must pay hundreds of millions of dollars in part II fees annually, which do nothing to sustain or develop the Canadian broadcasting system, while foreign players pay none.

Canadian broadcasters deal with a substantial regulatory burden. Simply put, Canadian broadcasters play by the old rules and unregulated foreign platforms play by their own rules.

This is why this legislation is so important. Canadian broadcasting companies must plan several years ahead to determine how to invest in Canadian content and talent. Faced with long production cycles and increasing costs, modern media businesses cannot afford to make split-second decisions. That is why Canadian broadcasters are desperate for regulatory clarity and certainty. They need to know the rules they and their foreign competitors will be operating under to plan their businesses, and they need to know that the rules will be fair and equitable.

This is why we welcome the introduction of Bill C-11.

Bill C-11 was introduced to level the playing field. It acknowledges the presence of foreign digital platforms and would require them to contribute to Canada’s broadcasting policy objectives. For Canadian broadcasters who are asked to carry the entire burden of supporting the audiovisual creative sectors, it’s well past time for a system that is fair, equitable and flexible.

Canadian broadcasters are willing to compete, but they cannot do so in a system that allows increasingly dominant players to take as much as they want and only give back as much as they like.

We have often heard that this legislation was introduced to ensure we continue to tell Canadian stories, and for most Canadians, the most important stories they see and hear every day come from our newsrooms. Maintaining vital, independent and professional newsrooms in communities across the country is a fundamental commitment of Canada’s broadcasters. However, to be clear, this is a commitment that has seen them lose tens of millions of dollars over the past decade. It is unsustainable without urgent policy reforms.

In an era of misinformation, it is critical that we continue to support newsrooms that reflect Canadian communities. We know that digital streamers don’t have the interest or the wherewithal to do this.

It has always been the case that the entertainment programming that draws the largest audiences in Canada helps to sustain the news and information programming. Allowing foreign streamers to continue to skim all of the financial benefit from access to the Canadian market without giving anything back will ultimately reduce the number of Canadian voices being heard—fewer Canadian artists, and critically, fewer Canadian journalists.

While we fully support the passage of Bill C-11, we have three very focused amendments that we feel are essential to ensuring the bill does not entrench an inequitable, two-tiered system between regulated broadcasters and currently unregulated streaming platforms.

This includes amendments to clause 3, where we have asked for foreign streamers to contribute to a production fund where their spending can be monitored; to clause 5, where we are seeking to ensure that there is not a two-tiered system of regulatory obligations, but a fair and equitable approach to Canadian entities and their larger foreign competitors; and to clause 11, to resolve the inequity of part II fees.

It is vital that we get this legislation right. It is vital that we pass it, so we can move forward as an industry and usher in a broadcasting system that reflects today’s realities.

Thank you. I look forward to any questions you may have.

[Carol Ann Pilon, Executive Director, Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the process leading to the necessary passage of Bill C‑11.

My name is Carol Ann Pilon. I am the executive director of the Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada, or APFC, an organization that brings together independent French-speaking producers in Canada's official language minority communities.

For more than 20 years, the APFC has been working to help the French-language screen industry thrive and gain exposure in Canada and abroad. Our mission is to showcase the outstanding content our members produce, and advocate for its cultural and economic significance by engaging with policy-makers to ensure the expression of diverse francophone voices across the country.

On February 2, the APFC welcomed the historic scope of Bill C‑11 and its impact on Canada's audiovisual ecosystem. The APFC was especially pleased to see the return of the requirement to formally consider official language minority communities, which will apply to the entire broadcasting system going forward.

The pressure on the audiovisual sector is growing, as is the inequity. Foreign production is on the rise, more and more people are unsubscribing from traditional services, online consumption has skyrocketed since the pandemic, and the companies benefiting from that growth still don't have to make a significant contribution to Canadian expression or the objectives of Canada's broadcasting policy.

If the goal is to establish a system that is truly inclusive, fair and diverse, the government must move swiftly to regulate any company carrying out broadcasting activities, in whole or in part, in Canada. That includes social media and telecommunications companies.

The APFC is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, whose representatives the committee heard from last week. We agree with the measures the coalition is recommending to make Bill C‑11 a better piece of legislation.

One of those recommendations is to bring back the terminology used in Bill C‑10. In particular, the expression “official language minority communities” should be reinstated in Bill C‑11, which instead refers to “English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada”.

There is absolutely no denying the minority context of French in North America, but in recognizing that fact in Bill C‑11, the government has created ambiguity about the meaning of the expression “French linguistic minority communities”. It could be interpreted to include francophones in Quebec, who obviously make up the majority in that province, and the provisions in question would then apply accordingly.

Keep in mind that Canada's broadcasting system is based on two language markets, English and French. The possibility of francophones in Quebec being considered a linguistic minority community could undermine the recognition and legitimacy of the two language markets.

Not only would that be unacceptable, but it would also represent a detrimental step backward for the rights of minority francophone communities and Canada's entire francophone population.

The way to avoid all ambiguity is simple. Bring back the term “official language minority communities”, and add a definition making it clear that the term refers to English-speaking communities in Quebec and French-speaking communities outside Quebec.

Similarly, we want the term used in Bill C‑10 “original programs in French” to replace the term currently used in Bill C‑11 “original French language programs”. This change would ensure that original content dubbed into French or containing French subtitles was not confused with original content that was originally produced in French.

The APFC also supports the amendments proposed by the Association québécoise de la production médiatique and the Canadian Media Producers Association. The amendments are aimed at ensuring that Canada's independent producers are able to negotiate fair and equitable commercial agreements for the content they develop and produce. Most of the independent producers the APFC represents are small and medium-sized businesses. If left to their own devices, they would have no leverage in dealing with the major broadcasting groups and foreign online companies, the broadcasting gatekeepers that make billions of dollars in profits every year. It is paramount that the CRTC step in to offset and regulate such a glaring imbalance to give Canadian companies the ability to own their own content and grow over the long term.

The modernization of the Broadcasting Act has been a long time coming, and the bill can still be passed at third reading before the House of Commons rises. Let's make sure the bill is grounded in reality.

Thank you.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you have.

[Justin Tomchuk, Producer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Justin Tomchuk. I'm a filmmaker, musician and entrepreneur based in Montreal. Along with my fiancée, I run two YouTube channels with sizable followings.

We produce what is known as user-generated content. Since our productions derive revenue “directly and indirectly”, as described in proposed paragraph 4.2(2)(a) of Bill C-11, it's clear that we would fall under the umbrella of the proposed regulations.

The first YouTube channel we operate covers how Canadian products are manufactured. The first company that we featured was a new business in Montreal that makes handmade candy. All videos that we made with them have gone viral, with their most popular one achieving 30 million views. From that, their company has made a ton of international sales and became well known online to the point that American tourists were crossing the border just so they could visit their shop in person.

We’ve since featured a guitar maker in Montreal whose video is approaching 10 million views; a cutting board company in Nova Scotia that reported a huge spike in online sales; and a maple syrup farm near Ottawa that received a wholesale order from as far as Kuwait. Some of our videos were shot entirely in French and still received millions of views from a mostly American audience.

All these videos were shot out of our own pocket, qualifying for no available arts funding, and despite that, they accomplished all of this economic activity. We never received any government funding whatsoever, because we don’t qualify for it. Either our productions are deemed too small and we’d lose the intellectual property of our content, such as with the NFB, or we disqualify from arts funding because our productions are commercial in nature. In fact, because our business pays tax, we contribute funding to these programs that exclude us.

The second YouTube channel that we operate is a series of animated shows, and the majority of revenue is derived from merchandise sales such as clothing, posters, toys, vinyl records, etc., products that I source myself, some of which are from Canadian manufacturing companies. These products are exports and bring revenue into Canada and into manufacturing jobs.

Our channels have highlighted Canadian products for the world to see and purchase. Unfortunately, Bill C-11 would make that more difficult and potentially destroy our visibility internationally.

Bill C-11 implies vague changes to these platforms to prioritize Canadian content to Canadians, but it would in turn deprioritize Canadian content to an international audience. The social media platforms cannot allow Canadian content to enjoy heightened exposure to Canadians without detracting exposure internationally, as it creates an uneven playing field on the platform. Less Canadian content would be shown globally as a result.

Second, the recommendation algorithms consider whether a viewer stays to watch the content and for how long. Forcing Canadians to watch CanCon content through recommendations will result in lower audience retention, as the recommendations would no longer be based on their interests. This further deranks a video’s standing and damages its visibility. Thus, this bill would hurt the exact content it is trying to promote.

Ninety-seven per cent of our viewers are international. Bill C-11 would make Canadian content a mirror instead of a window. It would stifle independent productions, result in more piracy, breed resentment among consumers and make it more difficult to attract an international audience to purchase Canadian products.

Proposed subparagraph 4.2(2)(a) needs to be removed from Bill C-11. Bill C-11 needs to make the distinction between paywalled premium distributors such as Netflix and user-generated social media platforms such as YouTube. The bill should be scrapped entirely, as it makes any online undertaking available in Canada, regardless of size, burdened with the obligations of the CRTC, which would reduce access of international content to Canadians. If this bill comes to pass, other countries may see it as precedent to adopt similar regressive laws, resulting in less Canadian content being shown internationally, effectively destroying any homegrown media and making it harder for even legacy media, not just digital creators like myself, to have access to emerging, premium, international distributors.

A solution to the problem Bill C-11 is trying to fix is to make streaming platforms give consumers the ability to filter content by region so that Canadian content can be shown when it’s sought and not by force. If we are concerned with how these social media companies are impacting us as Canadians, we should legislate transparency into how the algorithms recommend content before we enforce changes to them and damage an entire thriving online industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon.

Welcome to meeting number 27 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 reference on 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. Members are attending in person and on Zoom.

As per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy, those who are in the room must wear a mask. I would like to add that you may speak with a mask on—the clerk does so all the time.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those on Zoom, if you look at the bottom of your screen, you can see the microphone icon. Click on it to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. You have a choice at the bottom of your screen for interpretation. There is a little globe, and if you press it you can get interpretation in the language of your choice. For those in the room, you know that you can use the earpiece on the desired channel.

Do not take any photographs of this meeting, please.

Everything you do must be directed through the chair.

I want to welcome the witnesses. Thank you very much for taking the time to come to this meeting today.

We have Justin Tomchuk, a producer who is appearing as an individual. We have Carol Ann Pilon, executive director of Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada; Kevin Desjardins, president, Canadian Association of Broadcasters; and Wyatt Sharpe, host of The Wyatt Sharpe Show.

Just for the sake of the witnesses, each organization has five minutes to present. I will give you a 30-second sign so that you know you should be wrapping up. You will have time during the question and answer session to finish your thoughts, if you didn't get to finish them in the five minutes.

We will begin with Justin Tomchuk for five minutes, please.

Canadian Heritage

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim that user-generated content will be exempt from regulation under Bill C-11.

However, the bill states in black and white that the CRTC will have the power to regulate all content that directly or indirectly generates revenues. This means that almost all content will be regulated. Experts are against the idea.

Can the minister categorically assure us that all user-generated content will be exempt, yes or no?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we are standing up for them, as we are standing up for other cultural workers, for producers, for actors, and for our technicians, which is something the Conservatives cannot do. They cannot say they are going to support Bill C-11 because it is important to tell their stories, because it is important for music, or because it is important for television. They never said that, and they never will.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about representation. Yesterday, we heard a troubling revelation at committee. An organization dedicated to opposing Bill C-11 admitted that it was paid by YouTube and TikTok, but they claimed to represent exactly that, digital creators, saying they were grassroots. That is called astroturfing. Of course, this was never revealed before, and it raises serious questions. Did the Conservatives know this when they invited that organization?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives care about Canadian creators, but the Liberals continue to ignore the negative impacts of Bill C-11. This morning, digital creator and 47-year-old skateboarding mom Oorbee Roy told this to the committee: “not only does this bill not help me; it hurts me and actively undermines my needs.... I literally have never gotten a seat at the table, except now. As a digital creator, I'm getting a seat at the table. Representation matters.... Please don't suppress my voice.”

Will the government do the right thing and fully exempt user-generated content and remove proposed section 4.2 from Bill C-11?