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.

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

There have been some incorrect interpretations of Bill C-11—this isn't directed at you, but to some other opponents, many across the way—related to user-generated content. Some go so far as to say that cat videos will be taxed. Many have focused on proposed section 4.2 to overstate the scope of the bill. There are 12 different places in the act that exclude social media users.

Can you speak to those sections of the bill?

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

Thank you.

Patrick, you talked about a number of Canadian artists who have great success online. How are Canadians finding them? What are they doing? How are they finding them? Right now, without Bill C-11, how are we getting these millions of views? I think you mentioned somebody with billions of views. How is that happening?

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will rephrase my question. I was giving a passionate speech, and I did not know whether I had 60 seconds to ask my question.

We obviously want to have a solution.

The solution is what is proposed in Bill C‑18, which incorporates certain aspects of bills C‑10 and C‑11. The groundwork has been laid, and this should be acknowledged.

My questions are as follows: What is going on? What can we tell our constituents?

As it stands, we have had only two hours of discussion and debate on such an important bill. I expect to hear an answer from my colleague across the aisle, because this is not the first time this has happened, and my hunch is that it will not be the last. I would like an explanation.

[David Fares]

Thank you very much for the question, MP Uppal.

I think, or I hope, I demonstrated in my opening remarks that we already are investing heavily in Canada and we hope to be able to invest more in Canada. We're investing in Canada because it's a great market to invest in, whether it is production or whether it is producing our own facilities or infrastructure in the marketplace with the virtual production stage that ILM is producing in Vancouver.

It's a good market today. What we are hoping is that Bill C-11 will preserve a level of flexibility such that we can continue to invest in the best way we can to the Canadian ecosystem based on the nature of our services. It's really a flexible regime that we're seeking, because we all do great things but we do things differently. We would just like to be able to maximize our investments by allowing us to do what we do best in the marketplace.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Starting with Disney, just hearing from you about the Canadian content or Canadian stories that you have produced, I would think it would be a dream scenario, for someone who wants to have any story told, to have Disney tell it. There's also the job creation in Canada. I know that, like other provinces, Alberta, my home province, is working really hard to get major productions to come to the province and to create those jobs.

That's all being done without Bill C-11. What would bring a major international brand to Canada, not only to create jobs but also to create Canadian stories?

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

Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for a few years now. I have sat on that side for many years, and I know how important the work of the opposition is. However, at that time, as with other members, we respected the House and Canadians.

I think that there is a way to work together respectfully, and I want to commend my official opposition critic who does exactly that. We may disagree on a lot of things, but he is very respectful. He respects the work of committees and the House, and he respects the bill too. I would love the Conservatives to be a little more respectful of the whole process, and we have seen what they have done on Bill C-11 and others.

Now it is time to work for democracy, not against it. A strong, free and independent press reinforces democracy, and that is exactly what Bill C-18 is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I would tell my colleague that the bill she is referring to is the former Bill C‑10, which is now Bill C‑11.

Today we are talking about a different bill, Bill C‑18, on which we are generally working quite well with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, and in particular the member for Drummond, who is the Bloc Québécois's heritage critic and who works very hard and very diligently on everything that he does, including as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

I thank the Bloc Québécois for highlighting the freedom of the press and for emphasizing that the media must be independent and that print media must be strong and autonomous. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C‑18, which would enable the media to not only survive but also succeed. The bill would also ensure that the media is strong not only in major cities, but also in the regions. We are talking about media in all forms, big, small, print, radio or television.

Together, all these forms of media help strengthen our democracy. Journalists representing these media outlets ask us tough questions here, questions that we sometimes do not want to answer, but it is our job to do so. That is why we need to ensure that these media outlets survive and grow even stronger in the future.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses. I appreciate their time and their being here.

I would like to continue the conversation with Mr. Rogers, but I first want a chance to talk to the independent broadcasters group, specifically Mr. Fortune.

There have been some voices claiming that the online streaming act would somehow give some sort of unprecedented control over what content we see online. Right now these companies are....

Could you comment further on the power platforms currently have as gatekeepers for access to programming and services, and how, as the system exists now, they can already exercise those preferences or even discrimination?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, let us put things in context.

If we look at what has been actually happening in our country, we see that over 450 news outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 in the last two years. Does that have an impact? It has a huge impact on our democracy. Our democracy is not becoming stronger; it is becoming weaker because of that. Things are changing. Things are evolving extremely quickly, and what professional news media outlets are doing has value, and the web giants have to recognize that there is a value and that it is normal that they contribute.

I am very surprised that my Conservative friends have a problem with that, because they even said in the last campaign that this is what we should do. There is an agreement, almost a consensus, that we have to act and that we have to act now. The Conservatives have been stalling debate in this House. They did it with Bill C-8 and Bill C-11. They like to stall things. If they do not want to come here to work, then they should move aside and we will do the work.

[Monica Auer]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Waugh.

In terms of the CBC decision, it's bizarre that it's taking this long. I have no reason to explain it. I should tell you that, having worked at the commission, I admire so many of the commission staff working under difficult times, especially during the pandemic. As I understand it, leadership comes from the top. If the commission itself—the commissioners—is not requiring timeliness, I don't think we can blame the staff for that.

I'd like to also mention that my data, which I had looked at for the CRTC, showed that from 2000 to 2021, the commission staff had increased by a quarter—from 400 to more than 500. There are resources there. The commission got additional funding just to help it begin to do this and Chairperson Scott addressed the fact that he had allocated 100 people to start preparing for C-11.

However, the fact remains that when you try to find out what the commission is doing, it is difficult to find out. Why is that? Why can't we actually have ongoing, regular reports from the commission about what it is doing?

When you think about the issue of transparency—because timeliness is really, in a way, part of transparency—why don't we actually know today who is making decisions at the commission? The commission's process of making decisions changed after the 1982 charter. That's why there's a requirement in the 1991 act that they who hear decide. The problem is that it's the chair who decides who decides. That means the independence of the commission is compromised.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to pick up with the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications.

It's been 17 months and we still haven't heard boo from the CRTC on the licensing of CBC, our national public broadcaster. Next month, in June, it will be a full year and we're still waiting for a three-digit suicide helpline. These are two examples where the CRTC isn't doing its job today.

Ms. Auer, I think you've hit it right on. With a staff of 650-plus, they are still not capable of doing what they should be capable of in the Broadcasting Act. I want you to expand on that.

I have talked excessively about the CRTC. They cannot handle today's facts, yet we're going to be piling C-11 on, plus C-18, it looks like. I'd like your thoughts, please.

[Joel Fortune]

Let me try to start, Mr. Julian.

There's a gap now in the bill. That's the main thing. That's our key point—there's a gap. Right now the Broadcasting Act clearly covers the activities of cable and satellite companies. They're called distribution undertakings. It's clearly covered in the act. There's a regulatory regime and ultimately the CRTC has clear jurisdiction to ensure that all players are treated fairly and that everybody makes an appropriate contribution to Canadian broadcasting.

Bill C-11 goes a little bit along that path, but it doesn't create a similar environment for online distributors. These are the platforms like Roku and others that make available programming services with third parties on their platforms. Increasingly, our own Canadian cable and satellite companies are going to take this route. They're going to take their services online. They're going to use the Internet to deliver third party programming services.

Our concern is that the commission will not have the same type of authority in that environment that it has now in the cable and satellite environment. Ultimately, I think we're going to look at a substantial weakening of how Canadian programming services are delivered to Canadians in our own market. I think you heard from Mr. Danks last week that access by Canadian services to the domestic market is really a precondition for global access on these platforms. We need to use our own market to our own advantage, and to that end we need sufficient authority to make sure Canadian services are present and treated fairly.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I would rather we now talked about another provision, Ms. Blais, since my time is rather limited.

I wanted to hear what you had to say about proposed paragraph 3(1)(f). In my opinion, this is an extremely important provision. The amendment you're suggesting is also very important because of the nuance it tries to address or remove.

I don't know if you're familiar enough with this provision to tell me about it, but proposed paragraph 3(1)(f) talks about maximizing the use of Canadian human and creative resources. However, the end of the wording proposed in Bill C‑11, if I'm not mistaken, allows for some flexibility in the case of foreign undertakings.

Can you explain to me why you want to delete that part of the proposed wording?

[Nathalie Blais]

First of all, the reason we suggest deleting the end of the wording proposed in Bill C‑11 is that we believe it introduces uncertainty as to the limits of the Canadian broadcasting system. A court could be led to believe that foreign broadcasting undertakings are not part of the Canadian system. We also believe that the reverse could be true. There is uncertainty in this regard, and it could in some ways make the issue worse. Indeed, if the provision were to be amended, the question could arise as to how Canadian ownership and control should be interpreted. This issue has already been decided by the Court of Appeal in 1998. At that time, the Court of Appeal stated that Parliament had not limited the field to Canadian-owned and controlled broadcasting undertakings, but rather had provided that the Canadian broadcasting system must be, in effect, owned and controlled by Canadians.

In our view, amending paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act to try to include foreign undertakings may be shooting ourselves in the foot, when the provision already allows for some foreign ownership.

In fact, in the report published in 2003 by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which was chaired by Mr. Clifford Lincoln at the time, the calculation was made based on the definition of control in fact and it was concluded that 46.7% of Canadian broadcasting undertakings could be foreign-owned without affecting Canadian ownership and control of the system.

There are between 600 and 700 broadcasting undertakings in Canada. We therefore believe that there is sufficient room for the addition of foreign-owned undertakings operating in whole or in part in Canada. There is no need to amend paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act other than to perhaps clarify what the broadcasting system is, now that our system is no longer closed.

I don't know if my colleague would like to comment on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses very much for being with us today. Once again, their testimony is very enlightening and their opinion is very useful to us.

I'll start with Ms. Blais.

I'd like to talk about paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act. Bill C‑11 already proposes an amendment to this paragraph, which deals with Canadian ownership. The proposed version is as follows:

(a) the Canadian broadcasting system shall, with the exception of foreign broadcasting undertakings providing programming to Canadians, be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians;

In your proposed amendment, you suggest deleting the exception mentioned in the bill, in order to include all broadcasting undertakings operating in whole or in part in Canada.

Ms. Blais, could you tell me what your intention is in suggesting this amendment to proposed paragraph 3(1)(a)?