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.

[Olivier Carrière, Assistant to the Quebec Director, Unifor]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

My name is Olivier Carrière, and I am the assistant director of Unifor Québec.

I'll pick up where my colleague Randy Kitt left off.

The local program improvement fund, or LPIF, was created in 2009. At the time, the problem was clear. The CRTC understood that and everyone agreed that the way to fix it was to set up a fund to support local news. In 2014, the CRTC unfortunately changed its tune. Suddenly, a fund to support news was no longer necessary because of the return of advertising revenue.

The CRTC got it wrong. After eight years of decline, it is now clear that the content offering is more and more out of touch with the realities in Canada and Quebec. American media now dominate our living rooms, with no regard for local programming or news.

That is why we can't let the CRTC make these decisions single-handedly. We believe Bill C‑11 should be amended.

Specifically, Unifor supports the bill but recommends that subsection 11.1(1) of the new act be amended by adding paragraph (d), which would establish a fund.

The paragraph reads as follows:(d) developing, financing, producing or promoting local news programming and coverage, using contributions paid by distribution undertakings to related programming undertakings or by distribution undertakings or online undertakings to an independent fund. In making regulations respecting the distribution of the contributions, the Commission must take into account the local presence and staffing of the programming undertaking.

That is paramount. Funding for local news must be tied to the actual number of local human resources needed to produce that news. In our view, that is the most reliable way of ensuring that industry funds will be spent solely on the purpose for which they are intended: making sure that Canadians have access to relevant and timely local news coverage they can count on. In order for people to access relevant news coverage, someone has to make it available.

The Broadcasting Act was created to protect Canadian voices in a marketplace in which they would not otherwise receive support. That has not changed. Bill C‑11 merely updates—or modernizes, if you prefer—the law. The local news model was upended and now deserves some consideration.

I'll turn the floor back over to Mr. Kitt.

[Kenneth Hirsch, Co-Chair, Quebec English-language Production Council]

Thank you, Kirwan.

I'm Kenneth Hirsch, co-chair of the Quebec English-language Production Council.

That said, we do have concerns with the terminology used in Bill C-11. We want to be sure that the language in the act is clear and unambiguous. The nomenclature that appeared in Bill C-10, “official language minority communities” in English, and “communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire” in French, has been replaced in Bill C-11 by the expression “English and French linguistic minority communities” in English, and “minorités francophones et anglophones du Canada” in French.

Thus, the French version of the new wording proposed in Bill C-11 removes the word “community”, which is an important concept for organizations working for these communities and distinguishes them from the majority. To avoid these problems, we would propose that Bill C-11 should return to the term originally used in Bill C-10, which we prefer: “official language minority communities”, and in French, “communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire”.

In addition, Bill C-11 should expressly define these minorities as English-speaking communities within Quebec, and French-speaking communities outside Quebec.

We thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.

[Kirwan Cox, Executive Director, Quebec English-language Production Council]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee, thank you for giving us this opportunity to meet you and express our support for Bill C-11, which is desperately needed and long overdue. We hope Parliament passes this legislation as soon as possible.

I am Kirwan Cox, and my colleague is Kenneth Hirsch, from the Quebec English-language Production Council. We represent the English-language film, TV, and media production industries in Quebec. Our objective is to increase the production of films and television by the official language minority in Quebec, which, unfortunately, is now at its lowest level in history. QEPC strives both to increase the vitality of English programming in Quebec and to support Canadian content in both official languages across the country.

Today, we will focus on the official-language minority elements of the act. We are very pleased to see that the official-language minority measures adopted by this committee in Bill C-10, and passed by the House of Commons, have again been proposed by the minister in Bill C-11.

Not since the original Official Languages Act was passed over 50 years ago has any legislation been more important to the vitality, if not the survival, of both official-language minorities than Bill C-11 as now written.

We hope you will support these measures that are so important to us, to our French colleagues, and to the larger Canadian cultural sector.

[Matthew Hatfield, Campaigns Director, OpenMedia]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Matt Hatfield and I'm the campaigns director at OpenMedia, a grassroots community of over 200,000 people in Canada who work together for an open, accessible and surveillance-free Internet.

I'm speaking to you from the unceded territories of the Stó:lo, Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam nations.

OpenMedia is not made up of academics or lawyers. We're a citizens' group. I'm here today to ask that you ensure that the online streaming act respects the choices and freedom of expression of ordinary citizens.

The Internet works nothing like traditional broadcasting. I say that knowing full well that we're gathered to discuss a Broadcasting Act reform bill that would give the CRTC, a broadcasting-era regulator, the power to treat Internet content as if it were broadcasting. However, holdover ideas from the radio and television era are the reason for the deep confusion you've run into as a committee in trying to keep Bill C-11 and its predecessor, Bill C-10, from seriously overstepping the government's intent.

Traditional broadcasting was a top-down system in which the wishes and preferences of Canadians could not be directly expressed. Our only choice was to watch what a broadcaster chose to air on a few dozen channels, or not to watch at all. No one gave us a chance to share our own thoughts and voice, outside a few proud local community stations with limited reach.

The Internet is utterly different from that. Every day, we each make hundreds of choices among millions of channels and pieces of content online. Many of us take on the next step and share our words, jokes and passions back into that system through the same distribution platforms. We're not passive recipients of the Internet. We're active participants in crafting the feeds we want. We follow the individual creators we like and we use platforms like Patreon or YouTube to earn revenue from our fellow Internet users.

Treating the broadcasting system and the modern Internet as fundamentally similar would seem like a joke if the consequences were not potentially so serious.

We've heard for over a year that Bill C-10 and Bill C-11 would never regulate user content. Minister Guilbeault's team pretended that excluding users personally as legal entities meant their content was safe from CRTC regulation. That was untrue. Minister Rodriguez's team is telling us that they've fixed it and that user content is now excluded, but last week CRTC chair Ian Scott confirmed that this is not true and our content is still subject to CRTC regulatory control under Bill C-11.

You need to fix this. We understand that the CRTC believes it has always had the power to regulate our user audiovisual content online. That's a theoretical position and it doesn't matter very much to ordinary Canadians. Concretely, you are now considering a bill through which the CRTC will explicitly take up and use very broad regulatory powers that it has never exercised before over the Internet. The minimum safeguard you must adopt would be ensuring that user-generated content is fully, plainly and definitively excluded from CRTC regulation.

Proposed subsection 4.1(2), which reincludes most of our online user content in the CRTC's control, is the heart of the problem. The three criteria laid out do not meaningfully protect any of our content. More or less, everything earns revenue online, everything has unique identifiers attached to it, and all major online platforms are going to be broadcasting undertakings registered with the CRTC.

All we're really getting from the government right now is a flimsy promise that the CRTC won't misuse this astonishing extended power and a policy direction that they won't even let Canadians see yet. That's not good enough. Policy directions can be changed at will, which means that at any time, a future government could issue new CRTC guidance requiring they regulate our posts directly.

Our online rights must be legally entrenched, not informally promised. Canadians need proposed subsection 4.1(2) to be removed altogether, or much more definite limitations to be placed on it. You must clearly exclude all of our podcasts, TikToks, YouTube channels and social media posts from this bill. Leaving this dangerous loophole clause this wide open is not responsible. It's leaving a door ajar for future mass censorship of Canadians' personal online expression.

While respecting the content we produce, our government must also respect our right to freely choose the content we consume. We would never tolerate the government setting rules specifying which books must be placed at the front of our bookstores, but that's exactly what the discoverability provision in proposed subsection 9.1(1) of Bill C-11 is currently doing. Manipulating our search results and feeds to feature content that the government prefers instead of other content is gross paternalism that doesn't belong in a democratic society. Any promotion requirement on platforms for government-selected CanCon should respect our choices and limit itself to optional or opt-in results, not mandatory quotas.

People in Canada are looking to see whether public officials like yourselves are going to defend our fundamental rights. Since last year, OpenMedia community members have sent over 53,000 individual emails to our MPs and the Department of Canadian Heritage on Bill C-10 and Bill C-11.

While our community is interested in seeing Canadian stories told in the 21st century, it cannot come at the price of a blank cheque to the CRTC to take regulatory authority over our audiovisual posts, or having the government decide what we should be watching and listening to. We urge you to fix Bill C-11's overreaching on both these fronts before the bill leaves your hands.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Eve Paré, Executive Director, Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo]

The Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, ADISQ for short, represents independent businesses in Quebec dedicated to the development of musical artists. On behalf of our members, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment on Bill C‑11. I am joined today by Marie‑Julie Desrochers, our director of institutional affairs and research.

In Canada, independent businesses are responsible for 95% of French-language music production. That sets us apart from the rest of the world, where large companies dominate the market. The Broadcasting Act has for decades been instrumental in that minor miracle. The act has helped homegrown French-language music spread, structure itself as an industry, reinvent itself and reach the public over the years.

In Canada's French-speaking markets, two out of three songs played on commercial radio are French. On satellite radio, our francophone music has secured a meaningful place for itself among hundreds of English-language channels, despite the initial protests of companies claiming they weren't able to showcase our homegrown music. Our television music programs are broadcast almost weekly on our public and private general interest networks.

All of these showcase media have such a rich and diverse supply of music to draw from thanks, in large part, to broadcasters' contributions, most of which are paid to Musicaction and the Radio Starmaker Fund. Both of those mechanisms are dedicated to funding the production and marketing of French-language music in all its forms, and do so admirably. As a result, artists are able to launch and build lasting careers in Canada and abroad.

The effects of that virtuous circle are impressive. According to the Observatoire de la culture et des communications du Québec, music produced by local artists accounts for 50% of music purchased by Quebeckers in any given year. People like and choose homegrown music, but first, they have to have exposure to it.

As you know, the way people consume music is changing. Online media represent an increasingly large share of that consumption, alongside conventional media. In March of this year, Léger conducted a survey commissioned by ADISQ, and what it reveals about how the two types of media coexist is quite telling. The results show that 60% of Quebeckers identify the radio as a tool for discovering new artists, making it the most popular medium for musical discovery.

The survey also reveals that 61% of people now listen to music using an online service. Unlike conventional media, online services are completely unregulated, to the point that the effects of the act have been waning for far too long, both funding-wise and promotion-wise. What that means in concrete terms is alarming. ADISQ uses data from Luminate to measure what Quebeckers are listening to every week on online audio services. Just 8% of the tracks people listen to are French.

That is why action is so urgently needed, and Bill C‑11 could finally make the difference. In order for those changes to truly matter, we recommend looking at them through two lenses.

First, the bill should end the unjustifiable inequity currently undermining our ecosystem by treating conventional and online companies differently. The effort to achieve balance, however, must not lead to a lower standard. The support provided by conventional media remains crucial and should be supplemented by online media. That means the bill should safeguard the Canadian character of conventional companies, protect minority languages, enshrine the use of Canadian resources as a clear goal and, above all, adopt a technology-neutral approach so that it covers all services that affect Canada's cultural sovereignty, today and tomorrow.

Second, it is necessary to ensure that the CRTC has the staff, funding and enforcement powers it needs to carry out the ambitious renewed mission with which it is being tasked. No matter what some may argue, the CRTC does not have too much power. All it needs are the proper tools to counterbalance the disproportionate power currently held by foreign companies, which are driven solely by profit.

Some claim that the cultural community is advocating for a handful of creators and producers, but those who do misunderstand the attachment people have to their culture. According to that same survey, 70% of Quebeckers who stream music want platforms to recommend French-language music made in Quebec. Approximately 73% of people think the government should pass legislation to make it mandatory for Apple Music, Spotify, YouTube and similar music platforms to contribute to the funding of such music. That's what you call widespread support.

The work you will be doing in the weeks ahead will benefit Canadians and creators alike. By supporting the diversity of cultural expression, you promote freedom of expression, expand consumer choice and strengthen Canada's democracy. For Bill C‑11 to do what is promised, Parliament must pass a strong piece of legislation that covers all the services operating in our ecosystem and that provides Canadians with a nimble regulatory framework for decades to come.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll resume this meeting.

I will just again mention that there are a couple of things to remember.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those of you participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English and French for whichever you would like. I will remind you that all questions should be addressed through the chair.

We are meeting again to discuss Bill C-11.

Witnesses, I just want to remind you that you each have five minutes for your organization to present, and then we go into question and answer rounds.

I will begin by calling you by name, and you can begin your five minutes.

We will begin with the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo with Eve Paré, the executive director, and Marie-Julie Desrochers, director of institutional affairs and research.

I don't know which of you will be speaking, so I'll just let you begin for five minutes, please.

[Alain Saulnier]

I will focus on the last question.

Doing nothing will marginalize cultural groups, like francophones, all over the country.

Artists, video-makers and authors have worked too hard for lawmakers to suddenly let the market dictate what happens, leaving it up to companies—whose editorial policies and strategies are determined by shareholders—to decide what is good or bad for us. That is not up to them, so we really need to get moving. We can't wait another 30 years for a new Broadcasting Act. We need to act quickly.

In my view, we are in danger right now. By we, I mean francophones, first nations and small cultural minorities other than anglophones in the west. We need to do something, and we need to do it now.

I would call Bill C‑11 a first step. Other legislation is coming, including Bill C‑18, which deals with the media. In fact, I would be happy to appear again once the bill has been referred to the committee. To my mind, we need to start moving the needle now.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations, which were very informative. I hope they and their family members are healthy and safe given the ongoing pandemic.

I have three questions. They are for Mr. Saulnier, Ms. Guay and Mr. Skolnik.

My three questions have to do with comments made by the first panel of witnesses we heard from today.

Number one, the OUTtv Network executive told us that online platforms were engaging in a form of discrimination by rejecting certain content. I'd like to know more about that.

Number two, I want to know how exactly Bill C‑11 could impact Canadian artists. Mr. Payette said that the big companies picked the winners and losers and that the bill could help create a more level playing field for Canadian artists.

Number three, if Parliament does not pass Bill C‑11—if we allow the industry to go unregulated for even more years—what impact will it have on Canada's cultural industry and Canadian jobs?

I'd like to hear from Mr. Saulnier first, please.

[Alain Saulnier]

We've allowed these giants, these platforms, to set up permanently in our jurisdictions, and Canada and Quebec aren't the only ones dealing with this. Every country in the west has had to face this new reality. That's why it has taken everyone so long to respond, although Europe has taken a much more aggressive approach, if you will. Here, though, we have been much too slow to make regulations.

Now, it feels as though we are up against giants and reeling them in at all is impossible. That is why I think Parliament needs to pass Bill C‑11 quickly. If lawmakers don't do it now, they'll just be kicking the can down the road yet again.

Small cultural groups around the world—that includes us, as francophones—will become even more marginalized than they are today. Lawmakers should not wait any longer; nor should they be influenced by the digital giants who want to impose their content their way by deciding what is good and what is bad. We can't go down that road.

[Bill Skolnik]

As you heard, we're in favour of diverse cultural expressions. That's our raison d'être. The window is closing because, whether it's deliberate or inadvertent, the large platforms are taking over. We need to allow particularly our indigenous folks, and other communities as well, the ability to continue to receive funding through the various means that the traditional broadcasters have provided. That is something we want to see continue and that's represented in Bill C-11 by using the platforms and their contributions.

[Tim Louis]

I very much agree. Thank you.

Maybe I could turn to Mr. Skolnik. BillC-11 has important provisions to support our programming specifically for historically overlooked communities. Can you speak to how Bill C-11 will be important to our cultural identity and our community, and how that window is closing and this timing is critical?

[Nathalie Guay]

Thank you very much for the question. I'd be glad to answer it.

I found the methodology used for the calculation at the Canadian Heritage site. I'd be happy to send you the information. It clearly explains how these amounts were determined for both the audiovisual and music sectors.

We would like to point out four major differences between Bill C‑10 and Bill C‑11. First, in Bill C‑10, there is a mention of “original programs in French”, whereas in Bill C‑11, unfortunately, the reference is to “original French language programs”. In addition, it's important to us that the expression “official language minority communities” be put back into Bill C‑11.

Then there is the question of the factors that would encourage independent producers to own the intellectual property. I'm talking about the new section that provides guidelines for the definition of Canadian programs.

Finally, with respect to paragraph 3(1)(a) of Bill C‑11, which concerns the fact that the Canadian system ought to be the property of Canadians and under their control, we would propose a different wording, because we believe that the changes made could make it easier for foreign undertakings to acquire Canadian undertakings.

Of course, there is also the new item on social media. We had been satisfied with the final wording in Bill C‑10. Now, we consider the sandbox, as it has been called, to be an acceptable solution. We are very much looking forward to the next phase so that the CRTC can do the work of reviewing the data. We're hearing a lot about how this might play out, and about the various types of regulations that could affect social media. However, it's important to remember that the first phase consists of conducting an analysis and that this can only be done once there is enough transparency and data sharing among the principal stakeholders and the CRTC.

[Kevin Waugh]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the three groups that are in front of us here this afternoon.

I'll start with the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. I believe you were in front of us on Bill C-10, so what's changed, in your mind, between Bill C-10 and Bill C-11?

Nathalie, I noticed that you talked about the $830 million that was supposed to be generated. At the time, it was Minister Guilbeault. Nobody substantiated that $830 million. Nobody knew where that number came from. To be honest with you, as a hypothetical number, the minister at the time said that would be the windfall for Canadian producers. Maybe you can comment on that, because you did bring up the number of $830 million.

[Nathalie Guay, Executive Director, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Nathalie Guay, the Executive Director of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, which has only a few requests to make with a view to improving Bill C‑11.

First, the broadcasting system must continue to promote Canadian talent. The suggested wording of paragraph 3(1)(f) establishes two regimes. The first sets higher expectations for Canadian undertakings, including online Canadian undertakings, with respect to the use of Canadian creative resources, expenses related to Canadian programming, contributions to the fund for the support of content development and efforts to promote Canadian programming. The second regime opens the door to reduced requirements on foreign online companies in these areas.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the Canadian Heritage estimate that the bill could lead to the injection of an additional $830 million per year in our ecosystems was largely based on an estimate of spending on Canadian programming and on a contribution comparable to the current obligations of Canadian broadcasting undertakings. With a two tier system, there is a risk of setting this objective aside, not to mention the fact that an imbalance is being introduced between the respective obligations of Canadian undertakings and foreign undertakings.

Second, we think that the CRTC orders need to be subject to the possibility of an appeal to the Governor in Council to have them cancelled or referred back to the CRTC for review and a new hearing. It would simply adapt the current provision in the Broadcasting Act to the new regulatory framework. In addition, it could strengthen both parties' confidence in the CRTC.

Third, we would like to see a public hearing process for orders. We think that this would encourage a more effective way of factoring in the various points of view, particularly with respect to potential stakeholders' varying levels of experience and resources, and also because hearings provide an opportunity to respond to the arguments of other parties.

Fourth, we suggest an amendment to subsection 8(2) to allow for providing full representations concerning a notice rather than simply a summary.

Fifth, we would like the committee to reintroduce a number of terms that had been adopted in the former legislative instrument, Bill C‑10. I could explain that in further detail if anyone would like me to.

To conclude, we are not proposing any changes to the social media provisions. The government has already tightened this up by proposing criteria that the CRTC should use for its analysis. We also believe that adding further details would make the framework less flexible and would create loopholes that would make the new framework obsolete.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[Bill Skolnik, Co-Chair, Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions]

I'm going to start.

Thank you, Dr. Fry, and I'd like to thank the committee very much for having us once again. It's a great honour, and we're very pleased to be here. My name is Bill Skolnik. I am the co-chair of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

We are an alliance of 47 associations representing more than 200,000 performers, creators, technicians and professionals, and 2,000 organizations in music, screen production, book and music publishing, live performance and the visual arts. For more than 20 years, our members have been working together to protect and promote Canada's diverse cultural expressions. My colleague Nathalie Guay and I have been delegates at several UNESCO assemblies held to support the objectives of the 2005 UNESCO convention on the diversity of cultural expressions.

Canada, as I'm sure you are aware, was the first country to ratify this convention and is considered a leader in ensuring that the principles of the convention are upheld. This crucial protection and promotion requires the exercise of cultural sovereignty, and that is the essence of Bill C-11. The Broadcasting Act is cultural policy. It is our belief that this tradition and legacy must continue to thrive. Moreover, the review of the Broadcasting Act is an essential part of the tool kit needed to redefine and rebalance our ecosystems.

This committee has had the chance to learn at length about the impact COVID has had on our sector. The CDCE applauded the tabling of Bill C-11 on February 2. We can only hope that this attempt to revise our legislation will conclude shortly so the benefits can reach Canadian creators, artists, producers and organizations as soon as possible. They have been waiting for a very long time.

Finally, allow me to recall that, according to a recent Nanos poll, the legislation has broad support from the public.

I will now turn the floor over to Nathalie who will present the changes that we ask you to consider. These proposals emerged from intense and detailed discussion, and represent a broad and unified consensus crafted by our multi-faceted membership and beyond.

Thank you.