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.

Online Streaming Act

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague feels the same way she did when we were studying the previous version of this bill, which she said was designed to help artists that are stuck in the early 1990s because they have not managed to be competitive on new platforms.

I have already mentioned this here, but two days ago, Patrice Vermette, a Quebecker from my riding, won an Oscar for production design for his work on Dune. Denis Villeneuve directed the film, which won six Oscars. There is also Xavier Dolan, a Quebecker who is at Cannes almost every year. The Cirque du Soleil is from Quebec.

There are thousands of artists who represent Canada and Quebec and captivate audiences all over the world. These are the people that Bill C‑11 is designed to protect.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

History seems to be repeating itself. Canadians will recall, but here we are again. Having debated Bill C-10 last spring, we are now debating its replacement, Bill C-11. The new heritage minister will try to tell Canadians that he has fixed the problems that existed in the former legislation. However, this is an extremely misleading statement.

My time is short, so I am going to cut to the chase. The government claims that the bill is about support for Canadian culture and levelling the playing field. I would like to see Canadian culture promoted and celebrated, so let us explore that for a moment.

I have two questions. First, is the bill about meeting Canadians where they are at in the 21st century and celebrating the amazing work being done by digital first creators to produce Canadian content and enhance culture in their very own unique way, or is the bill about the government imposing its definition of Canadian content in order to fulfill a government-driven agenda? Second, will the bill truly level the playing field, or will it be used as a cash grab in which those who have worked hard to expand their viewership and generate revenue are forced to subsidize the traditional media industry, which is producing content for which there is little to no demand? I realize that these questions make the government uncomfortable, but they must be asked in order to understand this legislation.

My grandparents were not required to subsidize horse and buggies when cars became an alternative. Society moved forward in an innovative way, because it just made sense.

In effect, Bill C-11 would put in place an Internet czar, the CRTC, which will govern how easily creators, those who post, are able to make their content accessible online to those of us who view it. In other words, it would impact what Canadians can and cannot access. It would be an act of censorship.

The Internet is a vast, infinite and magical space where all Canadians, no matter their background, are able to post and engage. In the new public square where we engage with one another, we do it through writing, audio and visual arts. For many Canadians, socializing online is the new norm. If passed, Bill C-11 will thwart our freedom in this new space.

Again, the minister will try to tell us that all the problems have been fixed. He will point to convoluted parts of the bill in order to try to prove his point, but here is the thing: If the minister is telling the truth and has nothing to hide, why is the bill not crystal clear? Why is the Liberal government choosing to use muddy language by placing exceptions within exceptions in order to confuse people?

There are many flaws in Bill C-11, but I will focus on three of them today: the first is the overabundance of power that it would place in the hands of the CRTC, otherwise known as the “Internet czar”; the second is its negative impact on creators; and the third is how it negatively impacts viewers.

If passed, the bill will give the Internet czar, the CRTC, almost unlimited power in order to regulate the Internet. Talk about an attack on freedom. The CRTC could have been given very specific, very narrow guidelines, but the government chose to give it free rein to amend, to exempt, to include. The Liberals claim that bringing more government intervention, and this is an interesting one, will boost Canadian culture, but that is not true. I mean, tell me a time in history where more red tape and regulation has increased innovation, incentivized artistic creation and brought about prosperity? Members cannot, because it does not, ever.

Let us talk about creators. One of the biggest complaints that we heard from digital first creators last time was that the bill would regulate their content online. Members can think of TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, podcasts, YouTube and, yes, even cat videos. Now, the minister will claim once again that he fixed it by adding section 4.1(1) back into the bill, but the problem is that section 4.1(1) is immediately followed by subsection 4.1(2), which creates exceptions that nullify 4.1(1). It is pretzel logic. It is confusing and purposefully muddy.

Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He seems qualified. He has pointed out that, under the act, digital first creators can be described as broadcasters and therefore forced to comply with the CRTC regulations.

In other words, essentially any audiovisual material could be brought under the scope of this bill, not just large streaming platforms, but even individuals who use music. The member opposite actually even clarified this earlier in her own speech.

This means that TikTok videos, which essentially always use music, and YouTube videos, which mostly use music, will in fact be captured under this legislation. This means creators, right off the top of their revenue, will have to pay 30% into an art fund. They have to pay in, but they do not get to pull out.

It also means that the content of digital first creators will be assessed based on how Canadian it is. The CRTC, the Internet czar, will of course make the conclusion. That material will then be promoted or demoted accordingly. The minister will try to tell Canadians that what I am saying is not true, that only big companies, such as Netflix and Disney, will be caught by this legislation, but if that is the case, I would again ask the government to clarify that and to say it outright. It does not. The bill does not. It is purposefully muddy.

Let me talk about the negative impact that the bill will have on viewers, members, me and Canadians. Imagine going on YouTube to look for videos on Black voices but being shown instead a bunch of videos on hockey in Canada, having never searched for hockey before, and all of a sudden those are the videos that are being fed to you. That would be extremely frustrating.

What we are talking about here is discoverability. It is the use of algorithms to make some content accessible and other content not. It bumps it up or down. Sometimes it can be found on page 1. Sometimes it is found on page 53. Currently YouTube carries material based on a person's individual preference. It bumps it to the top of the page if a person likes it, if maybe they have watched similar videos in the past.

This legislation would force content, so-called Canadian content, in front of the eyeballs of Canadians at the expense of showing them the content they actually really want. It totally disrespects and disregards Canadians' freedom, choice and desire to watch certain things over others, all because the government has an agenda.

Canadians know what they like. They know what they want to watch. That desire, that free will, should be respected. I have not even addressed the problem with the definition of CanCon, which is absolutely ludicrous. Let us talk about that for a moment. CanCon, or Canadian content, is that content that the government would actually be putting at the top of the page.

A bilingual Canadian sitting in his Montreal condo producing YouTube videos about maple syrup and hockey, all while using the Canadian national anthem in the background of his video, would still not get counted as Canadian content. Can members imagine that? In fact, based on the definition of CanCon, the only ones who will receive the government's stamp of approval are members of the traditional media.

The CRTC will define who is in and who is out, who gets noticed and who does not, who gets to be on page one and who has to get bumped to page 53. An individual's preferences are inconsequential, and the government would now decide.

In Canada, we are punching above our weight in what creators are able to produce. It is absolutely jaw-dropping. They literally share their talent with the world. It is incredible. Lilly Singh, a famous YouTuber, has pointed out, “creators who have built their careers on the Internet need to be consulted on these decisions.” She went on to say, “In trying to do what seems like a good thing - highlighting great Canadian-made content - you can unintentionally destroy a thriving creative ecosystem.”

Morghan Fortier of Skyship Entertainment is so eloquent when he put it this way, “In Canada, digital content creators have built a successful thriving industry on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and others that export a huge amount of Canadian content to the rest of the world.... They've done this through their entrepreneurial spirit, their hard work and largely without government interference or assistance.

“This achievement should be supported, celebrated and encouraged.”

Bill C-11 is presented as a means to support the future of the broadcast industry, but it completely ignores the global reach of Canada's digital success stories in favour of an antiquated regionalized broadcast model.

Bill C-11 is a direct attack on digital first creators. It is a direct attack on our choice as viewers. It is actually a direct attack on the advancement of arts and culture in Canada in the 21st century. The bill needs to die 1,000 deaths.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech from my colleague, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Bill C‑11 corrects a concern that was raised during the study of Bill C‑10, the predecessor of Bill C‑11, which was dropped in the previous Parliament.

Bill C‑11 clearly states that the CRTC will not be able to use algorithms to verify whether digital platforms are meeting the objectives set out in the Broadcasting Act.

I have a question for my colleague. If it turns out that algorithms are the only way to verify whether the objectives are being met, what might the solution be? How will we ensure that the platforms are meeting discoverability and other objectives?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the individual across the way made mention in her speech that through Bill C-11, money will be taken from broadcasters and put into an art fund, and artists will then be able to pull from that art fund in order to generate more “Canadian content”.

She said this is an investment in broadcasting of Canadian material. When I look at YouTube, TikTok, Twitch or Snapchat, I see some incredible up-and-coming Canadian artists. We call them digital-first creators, and they will be captured under this piece of legislation. There is good potential that 30% of their revenue will have to be contributed to this art fund.

Can the hon. member help me and those digital creators understand whether they would have the opportunity to also pull from that fund by applying for grants from it, in the same way that they are paying into it?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can see that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House still have some things to say.

I thank and commend my colleague from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for his speech.

I completely agree with him. Quebec and Canada have had some massive success stories precisely because our broadcasting system promotes content created by Quebeckers and Canadians. Many artists have enjoyed successful careers in Quebec, in Canada and abroad because of the CRTC's broadcasting rules.

There are a lot of benefits, but there are also some pitfalls. One such pitfall that we hear about quite a bit is regulation of social media, and I think this aspect has been adequately addressed in Bill C‑11. The Minister of Canadian Heritage clearly stated that he did not want to regulate content generated by users, by the private individuals who use platforms like YouTube, TikTok and so on. These creators have, however, expressed some concerns about the wording of this bill in its current form.

Does my colleague think that we could review the wording of Bill C‑11 to satisfy and reassure these creators, who are becoming more and more of a presence in our broadcasting system?

The House resumed from February 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Citizenship and Immigration

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to rise to address this issue, and to a certain extent it is, but I am somewhat disappointed with the Conservative Party because I believe it is using this issue as a way to frustrate the legislative process, and I do not say that lightly.

All members of the House have been very supportive of the people of Ukraine. They understand the situation and want to do what Canadians as a whole want us to do, and that is to support the Ukrainian people in this time of need. We have seen that in the form of take-note debates. I believe we have had two take-note debates, although maybe one was an emergency debate. I am not 100% clear on that. Members from all sides of the House recognized what is taking place in Ukraine.

It does not take very much to get an appreciation of what is happening. We can go to YouTube or check news channels and see the horrors of war taking place today in Ukraine. Cities are being completely demolished, and people are dying every day by the thousands. In Putin, we see a dictator who has seen fit to destroy the infrastructure of a country, but the people of Ukraine are resisting. That resistance and love for Ukrainian heritage are what are ultimately going to prevail. We know that and we see that.

It was inspiring when President Zelenskyy addressed this chamber virtually and spoke to Canadians through the House of Commons. I believe, as I know my colleagues believe, that the Government of Canada needs to do whatever it can to support Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, and not use the political manoeuvres that I believe we are witnessing today to fit another agenda that is, really and truly, meant to frustrate the government.

If the Conservative Party really wants to have a debate about what is happening in Ukraine today and wants to talk about visitor visas or visa requirements, there are other opportunities. The Conservatives could have approached the government about having another take-note debate. They could have had their own opposition day and a very specific motion to deal with the topic they want to talk about today. They could have done that. There are other ways that the official opposition could have raised this very important issue. There is not one member of the Liberal caucus who would deny the fact that the issue being debated is, indeed, of critical importance. It is the timing of it.

Yesterday, for example, we were looking forward to Bill C-8 passing, but Conservative after Conservative stood and spoke. Bill C-8 is the fall economic statement that would provide pandemic relief and support for Canadians in all regions, but the Conservatives have made the determination that they do not want to see that bill pass.

Today we all know we are supposed to be debating Bill C-11: the modernization of the Broadcasting Act.

A great deal of effort has gone into that bill through input from Canadians, the work of the ministry and its department, and the work of the minister himself. It has been debated quite extensively thus far, and it was supposed to continue to be debated.

Again, we see the Conservatives bringing forward a concurrence motion. To the best of my knowledge, they did not approach the government House leader and ask for a take-note debate. To the best of my knowledge, we did not get to the rest of the orders of the day. Conservatives could have brought in an emergency debate on the issue. If they had waited an extra two minutes during House proceedings, we could have had an emergency debate.

I am sure members in the Conservative Party know that the type of debate they are encouraging right now is, in fact, limited to three hours. An emergency debate would have allowed more people to participate. A take-note debate would have allowed more people to participate. An opposition day motion would have not only allowed more people to participate, but it would have allowed the Conservative Party to frame a question to ultimately be put to the House and see whether that could have been supported.

That is the reason I say to the Conservative Party, and those who might be following this debate, that it is shameful of the official opposition to try to take an issue that is important to all Canadians and politicize it. I say shame on the Conservative Party of Canada for doing what it is doing: using manipulation to try to twist something so it can score some political points, or limit or cause more frustration on another piece of legislation.

For Conservatives to try to give the impression that Liberals do not want to contribute to the issue of refugees in Ukraine is absolutely ridiculous. As a government, we want to do whatever we can to support the people of Ukraine. Almost 3.9 million people have fled Ukraine to date. That is the most recent estimate I have heard. Almost four million people have fled Ukraine.

I talked at the beginning about those horrors. Let us take a look at the track record of this government. I will compare it with the record of Stephen Harper. In 2015, we had the election along with what was taking place in Syria. We had about 25,000 refugees to settle, and the Conservative Party was balking back then and asking how we were going to do that.

The Conservatives seemed to be in opposition to it, because I think their number was around 10,000. Do not quote me on it, but it was substantially less than what we said. Not only did we achieve 25,000, but from what I understand, we actually exceeded 50,000. That does not happen overnight. There is a process. To my friends across the way, I ask them to tell me another country, on a per capita basis in the western world, that had more refugees from Syria than Canada did.

Then we have Afghanistan, where the former foreign affairs minister said we would resettle 20,000 refugees, but then that doubled to 40,000. The Conservatives are already critical of some of the processes regarding processing those refugees. We will eventually get there. We understand the important role that Canada has to play when it comes to refugees.

When I was the critic for the Liberal Party of Canada dealing with immigration matters, we had Stephen Harper and the Conservative minister of immigration cutting back refugee settlement programs.

We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party on providing humanitarian support to refugees. I saw it first-hand when I was sitting in opposition and the Conservative Party had no respect for refugees or had minimal respect for providing the supports they required in order to settle in a healthier way here in Canada. Now the Conservative Party members have the tenacity to say that we could be doing better from a government perspective.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish a very happy birthday to Mitch. I hope he has the time to celebrate with his family over the weekend.

Tomorrow we will call Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update, for the third day of debate at report stage, and we will continue on Monday, if that is necessary. Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Wednesday we will continue with debate on Bill C-5, which is mandatory minimum legislation, at second reading.

I would also inform the House that Thursday, March 31, will be an allotted day and next Friday, a week tomorrow, it is our intention to begin consideration of the second reading of Bill C-13, the official languages bill.

[Scott Benzie]

Right now, this piece of legislation will have a dramatic effect on almost every creator who earns a living online, so yes, we are absolutely laser-focused on Bill C-11. It is a problem.

By the way, I also have a day job. This is something that I'm doing for passion, and something I believe in, which is why I'm doing it. I don't have lawyers. We don't have lobby groups or associations or paying members. We're just trying to speak up for a bunch of entrepreneurs who have earned their money online and don't want to be regulated by the government.

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

—and it's incredible work for only three months in having done that, but again, where is all this advocacy that you're talking about? I can't find online any the work you're doing, the criticisms you have about the inequity that exists.

Even in speaking with Mr. Michael and Ms. Roy, there were significant differences in the compensation models they were experiencing, and you seem silent. Again, it just seems to be an anti-Bill C-11 platform that you're coming here on.

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

From some your comments, I guess I'm concerned that your organization is more of an anti-Bill C-10, anti-Bill C-11, organization than a pro-creator artist organization.

My concern is that these platforms have incredible unchecked power over creators. These are some of the largest companies in the world, and in looking at your website and your Twitter account, both for you personally and for your organization, they are absent anything except for C-10.

My question is whether everything is hunky-dory with these major corporations and no changes are required, because that's what's coming through loud and clear from your silence on social media and on the Internet.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Benzie, thank you for your answer to that. I want to give you an opportunity to expand on that a bit more.

We have heard from the heritage minister that in no uncertain terms does Bill C-11 include user-generated content, that Bill C-11 has fixed that mistake that was in Bill C-10. I guess I'm just wondering what your response to that would be.

[Scott Benzie]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

To address the first point, about creators coming to committee, I'd like to thank the committee, actually, for having us involved, finally, in these discussions. Digital first creators don't have lobby groups. We don't have associations.

That's why, Mr. Julian, negotiating with the platforms is just impractical for us. We don't have teams of lawyers and lobby groups who can put all that together.

You know, for those creators to step forward and tell their stories I think is really important, and I think it's important for everybody to hear them. Things are changing in our cultural world. I'm hopeful that they'll come back. I'm hopeful that, going forward, we're treated with the same respect as my other colleagues here on the call. That's all I'll really say about that.

With regard to throwing around terms like “misinformation”, the fact of the matter is that Darcy was absolutely correct. This bill will have a dramatic impact on digital first creators. An argument can be made that user-generated content is absolutely still in this bill. That exemption, clause 4.2(2)(a), is far too vague. It's far too broad. There are no guidelines. It basically includes the entire Internet. I'm hoping that when you guys start to debate Bill C-11, we're welcomed back to this table to have that discussion.

I'll add one last point. I've heard terms like “parroting misinformation” myself in conversations with heritage members and with other MPs—that we just don't understand the bill, or we're not smart enough to understand the bill, or we don't get it, or we're just parroting misinformation. It's condescending and it's not true. Hopefully, you'll listen to us when we're having these conversations going forward.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Benzie, I will direct my questions to you. I want to thank you for being here. I believe it's important for us to hear about digital first creators, because it's something [Technical difficulty—Editor] definitely not given enough space or time to within Parliament. Certainly, these are individuals who are helping to shape the culture of our country.

You outlined in your remarks that of course digital creators are punching above their weight. I think they deserve a great deal of celebration in that regard. At the last committee, we were able to hear from Darcy Michael and Oorbee Roy. They both came forward and shared their success stories, which was very inspiring for us.

During his time, Darcy Michael expressed some concerns with regard to Bill C-11, the streaming act, and if it should pass, the fact that it would have quite detrimental consequences for him. Of course, the same would be true for Ms. Roy and many other digital first creators as well.

Mr. Bittle at that time berated Mr. Michael here at committee. However, he wasn't satisfied, I guess, so he took it to Twitter. On Twitter he accused Darcy of parroting “misinformation” about Bill C-11.

I guess what I'm wondering from you, Mr. Benzie, is this. You're someone who has reviewed Bill C-11 in depth. You're someone who I believe is an authoritative voice—it's quite evident—with regard to digital first creators in Canada. Can you provide some further insight? Will Bill C-11 impact digital first creators or will it not?