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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-11. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-11, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 25 and 26 on page 8 with the following:

“limitation, closed captioning services and described video services available to assist persons living with a visual or auditory im-”

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Madam Speaker, considering the current trend of the current government, I certainly do not take it for granted that I am able to stand in this place and freely deliver a speech in the House of Commons, particularly when I am critiquing government legislation.

Bill C-11 would put the CRTC in charge of regulating the Internet. That is what we are discussing today. Former CRTC commissioners and other qualified critics have spoken to this legislation and have made it clear that it is an overreach and a violation of Canadians’ right to freedom of expression.

From the beginning, I have been a vocal opponent of this bill and I have laid out my case for that. However, today I will remind Canadians and this House of the concerns I hold, shared by colleagues on this side of the House. Because of my outspoken nature on this bill, I have been ridiculed, criticized and even called names by those across the way. That has been hurtful and it has been harmful, but I have proceeded. The reason for this is that I am not elected to serve the government. I am not elected to make sure its legislation gets through. I was put here by Canadians for Canadians, and it is with them in mind that I stand in this place. It is with them in mind that I also fight against this incredibly draconian and regressive piece of legislation that attacks their charter rights as Canadians.

There are two things I wish to address today: one, the process that was followed with this legislation, and two, the content.

Let us start with the process. I would be remiss if I did not mention the travesty that took place this past Tuesday. While most Canadians were sleeping, the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage met and were forced to vote on amendments without them being read into the public record, which simply means that numbers were given and members were asked to vote. The public was unsure of what we were voting on and what it meant for them. There was zero transparency. There was no debate, no discussion and no questions. “Just shut up and vote” was the message given. The process was cloaked in secrecy and was an inexcusable assault on democracy. Having been forced through the committee, the bill is now before the House and will soon be forced on to the Senate.

Let me dive into the content of this bill. The heritage minister has been extremely misleading. He has told Canadians that more government control over Internet content will somehow promote Canadian culture and help artists. This could not be further from the truth.

My Conservative colleagues and I have met with industry experts and with digital-first creators, those who produce content for TikTok, YouTube, etc., and they have dispelled these myths. I would like to use their voices here today in order to defend their cause.

Oorbee Roy, known as Aunty Skates on TikTok, is a 47-year-old South Asian woman from Toronto. She made it clear that her success is based on freedom and not control. She said:

That I'm not the right fit is a story I've been told my whole life. I'm too brown. I'm a nerd. I'm too old. I'm female. I'm not feminine enough. I'm not the right demographic, but I've never been the right demographic. My voice has been suppressed far too many times. That's not an easy thing to do, because I have a pretty loud voice.

Somehow along the way, I discovered a platform that allows me to tell my story as I see fit in my own voice. Other people are indeed interested in my story. Somehow this tall, brown, old and somewhat-out-of-shape mom who skateboards resonates with people all over the globe. Authentic, inspiring, genuine content—that's Canadian content.

Canadian YouTuber Lilly Singh explained it best when she said, “For Canadian creators who don't fit the mainstream mould, the openness of YouTube provides the opportunity to find their niche among billions of people.” Again, freedom is what leads to success.

Morghan Fortier, co-owner and CEO of Skyship Entertainment, said, “We've seen first-hand that, when barriers are removed and Canadians are given equal, free access to an open platform and a global audience, they can take on the world. For Canadian creators, YouTube is a level playing field on a world stage. It doesn't matter who you know or what you look like. Any Canadian with an idea and a smart phone can be a creator and find an audience on YouTube.” She went on to say, “If this bill passes as written, the CRTC could determine what content should be promoted in Canada through discoverability obligations.... This approach puts the regulator between viewers and creators, handing the CRTC the power to decide who wins and who loses.”

If Bill C-11 passes through the Senate, it will not create a level playing field. Instead, many digital-first creators will be harmed as the government, through the CRTC, picks winners and losers. Not only that, but, in the name of protection, the CRTC will build a wall around digital-first creators, and this wall will actually prevent them from being able to reach a global audience, which is what they depend on for their success. We should know that our Canadian digital-first creators are amazing and they are achieving tremendous success around the world. Their success, however, will be severely thwarted by the bill.

Scott Benzie, from Digital First Canada, explained:

The bill has the intent of promoting Canadian content to Canadians. While that's admirable, most Canadian creators do not care solely about the Canadian market. The platforms are built for global discovery.... [L]ocal discovery...is a recipe for failure and jeopardizes successes like the indigenous creator renaissance on TikTok, Canadian musicians seeing global recognition and the world-class gaming industry.

Let us talk further. Let us talk about freedom and choice, values that all Canadians hold dear. Right now, virtual codes, known as algorithms, are set up on the Internet to show Canadians more content that they love. Personal choice is honoured in this process. Bill C-11 would change that. Instead of using algorithms to give individuals more of what they want, the government will insist that YouTube and TikTok and Google use algorithms to give more of what the government wants Canadians to see. It is incredibly dictatorial. It is dangerous.

Jeanette Patell, from YouTube, explained:

Bill C-11 could deeply hurt Canadian creators and viewers [in other words, all Canadians]. For viewers who rely on us to serve them content that is relevant to their interests, artificially forcing an open platform like YouTube to recommend content based on government priorities would backfire.

Matthew Hatfield, from OpenMedia, gave a great analogy:

We would never consider a situation where the Canadian government would go to Canadian bookstores and say, “We've thought about what Canadians need, and these are the types of titles we want you to put in your front window.” However, through the discoverability requirements we have in this legislation, that seems to be what we're doing.... It's inappropriate. It's an overreach. If we're supporting Canadian content, it needs to be in ways that are respectful of and responsive to what people in Canada want.

Let us be very clear. The bill is not about protecting culture. It is about giving the government more control over public discourse, the things that we can see, post and hear online. To have a government agency regulate the dissemination of information online puts Canada in step with places like North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia.

The current chair of the CRTC, Mr. Ian Scott, has confirmed that this is the case. He has said that user-generated content, in other words our content, my content, anybody’s content, will be wrapped up in the bill, but then he goes on to say not to worry, because even though he is given those wide-sweeping powers, he will not use them and we should just trust him. If he is asking us to trust him, why not just take those provisions out of the bill?

That is exactly what these amendments would do. We are asking that those powerful provisions that allow for an abuse of power be taken out of this bill and that Canadians be respected.

The best way to promote Canadian culture is through the protection of free speech. Giving Canadians the freedom to create, express their views, and speak freely is what supports the proliferation of our rich Canadian culture. Our culture is held within the Canadian people, all of them. However, the government has grown far too comfortable with taking control.

As I come to my conclusion here, I wish to thank all of the digital-first creators who weighed in and expressed their views. I also wish to thank the industry experts and the freedom advocates who worked tirelessly to expose the danger of this legislation. I want to thank the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have had their voices heard. It is for them that I contend today.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Lethbridge for her speech, although it was a bit much for my ears at times. I want to go back to one of the complaints that the Conservatives made in committee. They complained that there was not enough time to hear from a number of witnesses. One of those witnesses was Scott Benzie from Digital First Canada, an organization that has no members but is financially supported by YouTube. Many YouTube and TikTok users came to testify. There are 160,000 YouTubers in Canada.

How many more do the Conservatives need to hear from?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, as we went through this process at committee, there were only five meetings held in total where we heard from witnesses.

This is a piece of legislation that takes the Broadcasting Act, which is normally only applied to radio and television, and applies it to the Internet. It is a massive change to the way we do broadcasting in this country, or what is termed broadcasting.

For the committee to only have five opportunities to hear from witnesses when there were more than 100 who asked to be heard is inexcusable. There still remains more than half of our witness list who never got an opportunity to have a seat at the table and have their voices heard.

If someone were to ask how much is too much, and imply that to give more voice on this would somehow be hindering the process, I would say no to that, as this is a democracy. We want to hear from people.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, we certainly know that this member had a lot of opportunity to speak at the committee. As a matter of fact, when the minister came to speak to the committee, this member filibustered the committee so that the minister could not even answer questions that were being asked by committee members.

I think it is quite rich for this member to get up and talk about the democratic process and how it was not able to unfold at committee, when this member used tools that she had to specifically disrupt the operations of the committee. The other committee members could actually do their work.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets that if he has questions or comments, he should wait until I recognize him.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the speaker opposite is being incredibly disingenuous right now. I did filibuster at committee. I filibustered because the members opposite, the Liberal members at the table, brought forward a motion that was shutting down debate. I did not want debate to be shut down because I believe Canadians deserve to be heard.

Unfortunately, the Liberals planned it very strategically to have the minister sitting at the table at the same time, so it appeared as if I did not want to hear from the minister. Of course, Canadians who were watching know that is not true, and it is incredibly disingenuous of the member to suggest that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary had an opportunity to ask a question. If he is thinking out loud or wants to have a discussion, he should take that outside.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, I am saddened by the member's speech. We have seen how disinformation has undermined, in the United States from the Republican Party, the basic principles of democracy. Her comments today are so far from the truth that I find them very disturbing.

For weeks and weeks, the Conservatives filibustered the committee and blocked witnesses from appearing. Even though all the other parties had submitted amendments, the Conservatives refused to move to have amendments discussed to improve the bill. The NDP got almost a dozen amendments through because we believed in working hard to improve the bill.

At the same time, it is important to note that we have a better bill because of the process, but not thanks to the member and not thanks to Conservatives who impeded, at every step, the due consideration of the bill that was so important. We had five weeks of witnesses—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Lethbridge has 55 seconds to respond.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record. We did not have five weeks of witnesses. That is incredibly misleading, and I would give the hon. member the opportunity to apologize to the House for misleading. We had five days.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will not apologize. We had the equivalent of five weeks of hearings. The member knows that. She should apologize for misleading the House.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The committee did not have five weeks. It had five meetings: five two-hour—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We are getting into debate. Therefore, I would ask members to maybe raise that during their speeches in the House or through other questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11, the online streaming act.

The online streaming act would help ensure a strong place for Canadian stories and music in the digital world. It would make the online streaming platforms contribute their fair share to our culture. The bill is based on the simple premise that those who benefit from the system must contribute to it. This has been the approach in Canada for over 50 years, and the results speak for themselves. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have to invest in our culture and arts. That is why we all have the Canadian content that we love so much.

I grew up on a small, quiet street in Kingston, Ontario. Five doors down from me were the Sinclairs and across the street from them were the Bakers. Little did I know, as an eight- and nine-year-old paper boy delivering papers around the street, that every time I passed by the Bakers' house and heard this loud music coming from the basement I was actually witnessing the formation of The Tragically Hip. Later on, they became the incredibly successful band that we have all come to know and love in Canada.

Gord Sinclair, one of the members of the band, appeared before committee. I listened to his testimony at committee and would like to share it with the House because I think it is extremely important and properly illustrates why this type of legislation is very badly needed. I believe that it belongs in Hansard.

Gord said this in his statement:

My name is Gord Sinclair, and I am a member of The Tragically Hip. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

The Hip set out from Kingston, Ontario, in the mid-1980s, and our journey—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

One witness in five weeks.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There seem to be some conversations and some heckling. I would ask members who are heckling not to do that, and I would ask those who are having side conversations with other members to please go to the lobby and have that conversation. If they wish to come back and listen in on the conversation so they can ask questions and comments, they can do that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am just amazed that the member for South Shore—St. Margarets is heckling me while I read the transcript of what somebody said in committee.

This is, again, from Gord Sinclair, from The Tragically Hip:

The Hip set out from Kingston, Ontario, in the mid-1980s, and our journey took us around the world and lasted over 30 years. It concluded where it began, back in Kingston, when our final concert was broadcast nationwide and viewed by a third of the population of Canada.

How did we wind up there?

Over the years, we wrote some good songs, we worked hard and we had great fans, but in the beginning we were beneficiaries of CanCon, the partnership between private broadcasters and government. This was not a handout. For us, it was a leg-up. With the help of our managers, we recorded an EP and got signed to a label and, with their help, we were able to get some airplay on radio. That gave us enough exposure across the country to take the show on the road, as so many great Canadian entertainers have done.

Canadians excel at live performance. The sheer size of the country is our greatest asset. The road is long and hard, with vast distances between gigs. You can't have a day job and aspire to be a performer in Canada. You either learn to love the life and your travelling companions or you break up. The late great Ronnie Hawkins always said that Canadians have to work 10 times as hard to get a tenth as far.

The artists who do endure have honed their talent to a very high standard. Canadian musicians are seasoned travellers. They've learned to play live and to live on the road, and that's what sets us apart. Somehow, during the years and hours of staring out the van window at granite and black spruce, you discover what it means to be a Canadian. You realize that despite its size, distinct regions and communities, there is more that binds us together in this country than separates us. The Hip wrote songs from that perspective. Many of them resonated with our fellow Canadians and enjoy enduring popularity.

Through the travel, the space, the time and the weather, the songwriter searches for meaning and what gives us a common identity. Nations create and preserve themselves through the stories they tell. Words set to rhythm and melodies are our stories. They allowed us to enjoy a long fruitful career until Gord Downie's untimely death....

Times change. In the 30 years that The Hip were performing, we went from producing vinyl records and cassettes to CDs, videos and DATs through Napster, and to iTunes and YouTube, and now to streaming and its dominant platform, Spotify. Through it all, until recently, there have been live shows to make ends meet, but people no longer buy the physical products our industry produces. In the digital age, people haven't given up on music—just the idea of paying for it. That business model is unsustainable.

We are all stakeholders of the arts, and the future has never been more dire. For years, traditional broadcasters, in partnership with the federal government, have helped develop and sustain Canadian recording artists. The Canada Music Fund provides critical support for music in this country. What will happen if that funding disappears?

Gord Downie wrote in our song Morning Moon that if “something's too cheap, somebody's paying something”. Every song ever recorded can now be streamed for less than $10 a month. The somebodies in this case will be the future you and me when we realize that we've undervalued the contribution of Canadian musicians and songwriters.

There is no better art form to preserve, promote and export our culture than music, but after two years of pandemic-induced venue closures and cancelled performances, our domestic industry is in peril. Artists must see a glimmer of hope for a career in music or they will simply give up. Where will our next Joni Mitchell come from if we abandon our young artists? Artistic development takes time. If we don't actually value something at a level necessary to sustain it, it will surely disappear.

Streaming is here to stay, but the platforms and ISPs must contribute to the long-term health of the arts in some way. They must look on it as an investment. Streaming is a great way for artists to have their material heard, to discover new music and to be discovered, but in an industry that has seen the majority of its revenue streams disappear, how can an artist earn a living? Streaming can help, but regulations must adapt to allow Canadian culture to flourish in the digital age....

My worry is that many will give up before they get the chance to find their voice. As much as the global market is important, Canadian artists must also reach their fellow Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In today's environment, there is a place for everyone, just as there is a place for streaming alongside traditional broadcasters and live performances.

Our potential as a creative nation is as vast as the country itself. Songwriters are our best cultural ambassadors. We are compelled to create, to express what we know and what we feel. We need partners in government and industry....

Right now, somewhere in Canada, a young artist is searching for their voice, the right bit of melody to go with the perfect words. We need your help to hear these voices.

These are the words of Gord Sinclair. To the member who was heckling me previously, and who continued to heckle me while I was reading that, I really hope for the goodness of this institution that he was not doing the same while Gord was delivering those words at committee, because that would have been extremely disrespectful.

I thought it was extremely important to read those words into Hansard so they could be part of the debate the House experiences on this issue. I am very concerned by the rhetoric I have been hearing. Unfortunately for them, I do not think this applies to Canadian discourse, but unfortunately for Conservatives, I do not quite think this manufactured outrage they are attempting for a second time has been nearly as successful as it was the first time around in the last Parliament because they just do not seem to have the traction, despite the outrage we have seen, particularly from the previous speaker.

What I do know is that musicians and individuals who are looking to preserve that Canadian culture, and who take great pride in being Canadian, need our support. Doing something strictly because we think we are going to get a little political gain out of it, but doing it at the cost of those cultural creators throughout our country, is extremely, to use her word, disingenuous of what we should be doing and how we should be properly taking care of Canadian artists.

I have no problem supporting the bill. I know the bill does not do a number of the things that were previously said. It does not impose regulations on the content everyday Canadians post on social media. It does not impose regulations on Canadian digital charter content creators, influencers or users. It does not censure content or mandate specific algorithms, as the previous member indicated, and it does not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member across the way made the comment that the bill does not give the CRTC the ability to regulate user-generated content. However, Mr. Ian Scott, the chair of the CRTC, came to committee, and he said that yes, in fact, they do have that ability. He said however right now they refrain from using it. He asked us to trust him, but he made it very clear that he has the power to regulate user-generated content, which is, in other words, everyday Canadian content online.

The member opposite seems to know something different. I am wondering who is telling the truth, him or the CRTC chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting comment. If we reflect on the words that she just used, what she said is that apparently he already has the powers. Her words were, “he has the power” to do this. I am not here to reflect on what the CRTC's current powers are, I am here to reflect on the content of the bill.

My interpretation and my reading of the content of the bill is that it does not give any of those powers this individual is referencing, although we will note she was very judicious in her words. She specifically said, “he has the power”. That would imply that he already has the ability to do that and that his comments are related to that, not what is in the bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague mentioning Gord Downie, someone that I was proud to know. I have seen the growth of careers of those in bands like the Hip, and I see the crisis facing musicians today, especially after COVID and the shutdown of live venues, along with the fact that Spotify is ripping artists off dramatically. When I hear the Conservatives talk, they are saying that the bill is actually going to somehow make it impossible for us to watch a video of someone fixing their deck. I do not know what they think entertainment is, but we are talking about a powerful industry in Canada. Our artists travel the world, yet without the ability to have a sustained financial income, we are seeing more and more musicians unable to make it, along with more and more theatres, and more and more groups.

I ask my hon. colleague this: What specifically in the bill will guarantee that we start to see a revenue stream return rightfully to the artists who make the content?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I started off my speech by telling the story about how I lived on the street five doors down from Judge Baker's house where The Tragically Hip used to practise in the basement. As a newspaper boy, I used to listen to the noise that was coming from the basement, and I had no idea I was witnessing the formation of The Tragically Hip.

Members heard from the words of Gord Sinclair when he was at committee, which I read out in the House, when he said that, had it not been for CanCon and government investment, The Tragically Hip would have never become what it did.

Finally, regarding the member's comment about the Conservatives being worried about somebody being able to watch somebody repair a deck, I just hope that all members know that the member for Timmins—James Bay has a great YouTube channel where they can watch some of his home improvements. If I thought for a second that this bill would limit my ability to do that, I certainly would not be supporting it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am very worried that it might be misconstrued that I am getting financial benefits when I do decks and drywalling. That is not the fact at all. I just want that on the record.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is well known that Pierre Trudel, a law professor at Université de Montréal, said that broadcasting must be protected—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is trying to pose a question. It is very hard for the parliamentary secretary and me to hear that when there are side conversations going on from one end of the chamber to the other.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that Pierre Trudel, a law professor at Université de Montréal, said that broadcasting must be protected, that the freedom of Internet users is not at risk, that there is no thought police on television and that there will be no thought police online.

In May 2021, the Department of Justice filed a legal opinion refuting these allegations and confirming Mr. Trudel's statement that freedom of expression is not at risk.

I do not understand why the parties are bickering about protecting broadcasting.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, perhaps that is a better question for the Conservatives, who continue to rail on this issue, despite the fact that these legal opinions have come forward. Of course they are going to dig up one or two individuals who can support what they are saying, as they continuously do in the House.

However, in my opinion as to why we are debating, it is because the Conservatives, in the last Parliament, drew a little blood out of this issue. They saw that, and like a group of sharks, they circled around it. They are attempting to get more and more blood out of it, quite frankly. I just do not see any concern, and this member has indicated that perfectly through her question.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑11 at report stage. Let me start by saying that this bill matters a lot to the Bloc Québécois and has since the last Parliament.

I spoke in favour of this bill in a speech last month. However, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the hard work of my colleague from Drummond, who has devoted himself, body and soul, to this bill ever since its previous incarnation as Bill C‑10. He deserves every bit of the applause I am hearing right now.

I will begin my speech today with a reminder about how important Bill C‑11 is to the discoverability of francophone culture. I will move on to a reminder about the importance of local media, and I will wrap up with an expression of hope regarding the importance of fighting misinformation, which has had such an impact on this parliamentary session.

As I was drafting my speech, I came across the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. The CDCE states that Bill C‑11, which updates the Broadcasting Act, is one of Canada's important and long-awaited cultural policies. On its website, the CDCE has what I think is a very good summary of the importance of Bill C‑11.

It ensures that Canadian creations and productions have a prominent place on our airwaves and on our screens, and that the companies generating revenues from access to culture in the music and audiovisual sectors contribute to their creation, development and distribution.

Canadians are increasingly accessing culture through online platforms. Much of the broadcasting ecosystem is transitioning to digital content. This has a number of benefits for the public and for creators: increased access to a variety of stories, music and ideas, increased opportunities for creators to launch their work, and renewed ability to reach audiences in Canada and around the world...

Many large corporations take advantage of this digital age without any obligation to contribute. Artists, creators, producers, publishers and other professionals of the music and audiovisual industries, as well as for Canadian society, do not reap the potential benefits of investment in the Canadian cultural ecosystem. C-11 was introduced to correct this unfairness.

Unfairness is indeed a problem.

The purpose of the new bill essentially remains the same as the previous one—namely, to apply the Broadcasting Act to the web giants by forcing them to contribute financially to the creation and discovery of Canadian cultural content.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, will receive new powers that will allow it to determine which online services will have to be regulated and what quotas will need to be respected. Bill C‑11 will help better regulate video streamers such as Netflix, Apple and TV Plus, Disney+, Prime Video, but also companies that specialize in streaming music online such as Spotify, YouTube and Apple Music. The bill will require them to contribute to Canadian content when commercial items such as albums are downloaded and distributed on platforms.

However, the exclusion clause, namely clause 4.1, addressed earlier, has been revised. Now creators, users and social media influencers are exempt from the legislation. The money a creator earns from their content is immaterial in the eyes of the new legislation. So‑called amateur content on social media would be exempt. The legislation focuses specifically on commercial products.

The level of monetization of the use of content in full or in part by a broadcasting undertaking regulated by the CRTC will, among other things, be taken into consideration. The CRTC will also have the option to impose conditions associated with discoverability and the development of Canadian content.

The bill will not touch the algorithms that can influence the recommendations made to users, and that is very important. The Department of Canadian Heritage says it wants to focus on discoverability outcomes and not intervene directly with respect to web giants' algorithms. There are still questions to be asked, for example, on whether the two are not already intertwined and whether greater discoverability of Canadian and francophone content is necessarily dependent on algorithms.

In our case, it is the outcome that counts. Quebec, francophone and Canadian content must be much more accessible on platforms. Ottawa is trying to give the CRTC the power to hold discussions with each of the digital companies to determine how much they should contribute to Canadian content based on their business model. The CRTC will be able to impose administrative and monetary penalties on those digital broadcasters that refuse to comply with the Broadcasting Act.

Finally, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is proposing other legislative changes in his bill that will apply to all broadcasters, traditional or otherwise. The law should also strengthen programs produced by Canadians that cover news and current events—from the local and regional to the national and international—and that reflect the viewpoints of Canadians, including the viewpoints of indigenous persons and of Canadians from racialized communities and diverse ethnocultural backgrounds.

After everything we just talked about with regard to this legislation, I also want to mention the gains that the Bloc Québécois was able to secure with Bill C-11.

The Bloc Québécois did a lot to improve the previous version of the bill, namely Bill C-10, by ensuring the protection and promotion of original French-language programs; the discoverability of Canadian programming services and original Canadian content, including French-language original content, in an equitable proportion; the promotion of original Canadian content in both official languages and in indigenous languages; a mandatory contribution to Canada's broadcasting system if a company is unable to make use of Canadian resources as part of its programming; the requirement for first-run French-language content, in order to ensure there are new French-language shows on Netflix, for example, and not old ones; and a sunset clause that would provide for a comprehensive review of the act every five years.

This is very important, because we will thoroughly review C‑11 and meet with the various industry stakeholders and experts to get a sense of what is happening in the industry. We will have to keep evolving this law. We will not hesitate to try to improve it, if necessary, and we will surely propose again many of the hundreds of amendments that were rejected in the spring. Some of our proposals would have made improvements for local, community and independent players, for example.

We have to keep in mind we want a piece of legislation that will not be obsolete as soon as it is passed. Technology is developing very quickly, and we need a long-term vision to ensure that the act does not become outdated after just a few years. Flexible legislation is important, especially since Quebec's and Canada's cultural sectors have been waiting for decades for this act to be updated.

The cultural sector made a simple demand just a few days after Bill C‑11 was introduced. We need to ensure that this bill is passed quickly. The sector has waited long enough.

In May 2021, on Tout le monde en parle, even the former minister of Canadian Heritage said that every month that goes by without us enacting Bill C-10, now Bill C-11, represents more than $70 million that does not go to our artists in Quebec and Canada.

Second, do not forget that, like Bill C-18, which specifically focuses on assistance to print media and is based on the Australian model, Bill C-11 also fits into the context of this media crisis.

Since their inception, Facebook, Twitter and Google have been appropriating news articles and reports without giving any compensation to the authors or the media outlets concerned. For too many years, the digital giants have therefore been instrumental in dismantling our traditional media. This phenomenon began with national advertisers deserting traditional media for Facebook and Google, later followed by local advertisers, who also stopped buying advertising in local weeklies in favour of the giants.

Advertising on digital platforms is now the property of Google and Facebook, which alone are pocketing 80% of online ad revenue. Moreover, digital giants pay nothing for journalistic content that ends up on their platform, and they disregard the copyright of journalists whose work others share on social media.

Third, I really want to talk about misinformation, especially since there has been so much of it in connection with Bill C‑11: cat videos that will not be allowed to circulate, freedom of expression denied and information controlled, like in Russia. I have heard so many shocking things during the debates on this issue.

Just this week, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada expressed concerns about the impact of misinformation on the health of our democratic institutions. He pointed to the demonstration in downtown Ottawa that paralyzed the city for three weeks, but he emphasized the importance of our shared responsibility to fight ignorance and hatred, which lead to misinformation. He expressed one wish for people in positions of authority, such as ourselves, namely that we pay more attention to the statements we make and their veracity.

I also replaced a colleague at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during its deliberations on radicalization and online hate. We cannot continue to ignore our role as elected representatives in the deterioration of public discourse on topics like Bill C-11 and in the divisiveness that exists. I hope to see this place debating a bill to address online hate sooner rather than later.

As a final point, I do not know whether this will be my last speech of the session, so I want to remind everyone listening of my unwavering commitment to the people of Shefford. I always keep in mind that I am accountable to my constituents, first and foremost, and, in this case, I am thinking of our local media in particular. I want nothing but the very best for the people of my region who have a right to access francophone cultural products, and for our artists, who have such an important and vibrant presence in our communities. They have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic, so they need some good news. Let us do something for them and pass Bill C-11.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member for Lethbridge gave the example of a Canadian content creator on YouTube who worries about not being included in the digital landscape, if Bill C‑11 is passed, and about their voice being silenced by the government.

In an effort to set the record straight, could my colleague indicate whether this theory is correct?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for her love of French. She is improving. That is great. I love having discussions with her.

I think I demonstrated that there has been a great deal of misinformation about this bill.

I remember the sarcastic intervention by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert when he said that after listening to the Conservatives, he had to agree with their arguments.

The Conservatives claim that we now have a system that imposes things on us, controls information and might well drift into allowing excessive control over what is broadcast.

I showed that compared to the former Bill C‑10, clause 4.1 of this bill adds protection against that. I would remind members that the bill includes a provision requiring a five‑year review of the legislation. We could therefore monitor the progress of the situation.

In this specific case, I believe that this worry is unfounded. We have shown that there is a protection mechanism in the bill. This does not infringe on freedom of expression; Canada has not become a dictatorship that tells people what they can say, do, think or broadcast. That is really pathetic.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to get some clarification from the member, because even at the eleventh hour of the abridged debate on this bill, there still seems to be doubt as to whether user-generated content is regulated. Liberal members, Bloc members and NDP members seem to be saying that it is not regulated. Why not remove all doubt and simply put a clause in the bill that says user-generated content is not regulated?

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

There are numerous clauses, if you read the bill. Read the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is not time for the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to answer the question. It is up to the hon. member for Shefford.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find that interesting. All parties seem to recognize that there is already a provision in this bill stating that this content will not be regulated.

When someone gets to the point where they feel like everyone else is wrong and they are the only one who is right, it may be time for them to do some soul searching. Are they contributing to disinformation? Have they properly done their work as parliamentarians? Have they read the bill? Are they representing all their constituents?

Francophone artists would not agree that they have not kept up with the times and have not been able to adapt to the digital age since 1993. That is what I heard said about certain francophones and artists from Quebec.

It is shocking that the Conservatives are trying to accuse our artists of not being able to adapt to the digital age. Quite frankly, that is insulting.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the member for Shefford. The Conservatives have lost it. They spread completely false information. It would seem that they never read the bill. They are making all sorts of accusations. People have to at least try to be realistic when saying things in the House of Commons. Even though we can say anything, the Conservatives should exercise some self-control.

I have a simple question to ask the member for Shefford, who gave an excellent speech. It is now estimated that web giants, who have been profiting for years, will contribute $1 billion, which will be invested in Canadian jobs. What impact will this have in Quebec?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a former journalism student and as a lover of arts and culture, I am watching this bill very closely. I hope that the money will highlight some amazing cultural projects from Quebec and help make them successful.

I also want to say that we need to allow local media to thrive, as called for by the Voix de l'Est, a newspaper from back home. In my speech I mentioned Marie-Ève Martel's excellent book Extinction de voix, which explains why this bill is so important. This money must be redistributed to help local media and local artists. This money could be reinvested elsewhere.

The web giants have done enough copying from our local media. Now it is time for them to give back to the smallest media outlets, in order to ensure that Quebec culture can truly be enjoyed around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise. I certainly salute the numerous colleagues, such as the member for Shefford and the member for Kingston and the Islands, who have actually addressed the bill. They have obviously read it. This is very important.

What is unbelievable to me is the over-the-top, crazed, Republican-style rhetoric that we have heard from the Conservatives over the last few weeks. This is very simple. There were the equivalent of five weeks of hearings, and the vast majority of witnesses who came forward, as members know, were in favour of the bill but wanted improvements. I will be pleased in a moment to talk about how the NDP was successful in improving the bill, playing our role yet again as the effective opposition party and pushing to make sure that bills are better.

After the equivalent of five weeks of hearings, for two weeks the Conservatives blocked witnesses, refused to let the amendments that had already been submitted be discussed and debated, and blocked everything. They completely filibustered so that nothing could move forward. We have seen the same sad travesty here in the House. The Conservatives, ever since they basically imploded six months ago, have refused to let anything good go through the House for the benefit of Canadians. It is sad. The Conservative Party used to be a respected opposition party, but what it has done over the last few months undermines that.

I will say that there are members of the Conservative caucus whom I have a lot of confidence in, including the member for Perth—Wellington. I wish that his voice was heard more often in the Conservative caucus.

That being said, what did the NDP do? The New Democrats brought forward a series of amendments. We wanted to make sure the bill was stronger. That is our role. As the effective opposition in the House of Commons, we tackled it from five standpoints.

First, when we looked at Bill C-11, we wanted to make sure that we renew broadcasting in Canada and that online companies actually pay their fair share. We are talking about $1 billion in investments. That means tens of thousands of jobs right across the country. This will mean a significant renaissance of the Canadian creative and cultural industries. There is no doubt.

We also wanted to make sure we broke down barriers for marginalized peoples in Canada, so we tabled Bill C-11 and successfully got it through the committee. It is now before the House for consideration at report stage, and hopefully it will get to third reading as well. There are substantial improvements that break down barriers for Black and racialized Canadians in broadcasting, for indigenous peoples, indigenous culture, indigenous voices and indigenous languages, and for people with disabilities. Canadians with disabilities have been excluded from the broadcasting system and from online streaming for far too long. Those are important barriers that the New Democrats broke down, and we are proud of our accomplishments. We want to compliment the members of the heritage committee who voted for those far-reaching amendments.

Second, we wanted to renew community broadcasting. The disinformation and Republican-style rhetoric of the Conservative Party, and the hate we have seen with the “freedom convoy” that many Conservative MPs endorsed, are things that really need a renewal at the community level. Hate and disinformation come from the fact that we do not know our neighbours, and the erosion of community media and community voices has unfortunately contributed to the amplification of the hate and disinformation in our country that we are all seeing.

The NDP tabled this, and again a majority of members of the heritage committee agreed with the idea that we have to reinforce community voices, community media, community broadcasting and community radio. I would like to thank CACTUS and numerous other community organizations that offered important amendments so that we could improve community broadcasting and know our neighbours better. The best antidote to the hate and disinformation we are seeing from the Republicans in the United States and the far right in Canada is to ensure that we know our neighbours and appreciate them. That was an important second series of amendments we brought forward.

Third, we wanted to reinforce freedom of expression. Unanimously, members of the heritage committee agreed, and that means freedom of expression is now paramount in this legislation.

Fourth, we wanted to make sure that Canadian jobs and Canadian broadcasting were enhanced. We have $1 billion now, which is substantial. It is a massive increase in the resources available to Canadian cultural industries. We wanted to make sure it assures there are Canadian jobs, so we tabled with success a number of amendments that enhance the Canadian employment and Canadian jobs component.

Finally, we wanted to ensure more accountability for the CRTC, and we were successful in that endeavour as well.

As a result, what we have is a Bill C-11 that is better and more improved. We are happy that we were able to use our effective opposition voice not to destroy, block or stop any consideration, but to improve this important bill.

It is worth mentioning that the vast majority of witnesses who testified before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage were in favour of this bill. Even the Conservatives have to admit that these witnesses said that the bill must be passed. Dozens and dozens of organizations representing hundreds of thousands of Canadians from across the country told us that this bill should be passed, but that it had to be improved.

The NDP proposed amendments to improve accessibility for marginalized people, people with disabilities, indigenous peoples and racialized people in Canada, and these amendments were adopted. These measures will improve the bill overall. We also succeeded in getting the number of local and community programs increased. The fact that the CRTC will now be more accountable to Canadians is another NDP success. Canadian jobs are another very important aspect of the bill. We wanted freedom of expression to come above everything else, and the NDP's amendment in that respect was successful.

The reality is that the equivalent of five weeks of meetings were held with regard to the bill before us, during which we heard from dozens and dozens of witnesses. We can say that we met the expectations of these witnesses by ensuring that the bill is better now than it was when the committee got it.

Even though I am disappointed with the Conservatives for holding up all the work for weeks, refusing to hear from witnesses and consider amendments, and refusing to do everything necessary to improve the bill, I think that what did come out of the committee study was an improved version of Bill C-11. There is more transparency. All of the work that we have done over the past few weeks has resulted in a better bill.

I would like to say one last thing. Bill C‑11 and the fact that we have managed to make more Canadian voices heard are another way to counter disinformation. There is not just disinformation around Bill C‑11. In the United States, Republican disinformation is currently a major issue because it is warping democracy and undermining the very essence of voting. This hate coming out of the United States, this disinformation, must be kept out of Canada as much as possible.

We saw the hate expressed by the so-called “freedom convoy”. At that time, we saw that these people wanted to take down our democracy, take down Canada's Parliament. Some of the Conservative members supported that. The way to counter disinformation is to provide more information. That is also one of the objectives of the improved version of Bill C‑11.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments when we return to debate after question period.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Online Streaming Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly listened to the intervention of the member for New Westminster—Burnaby prior to question period. He started by talking about the way that the NDP, a relatively small party in this chamber, was able to successfully take forward its concerns to committee through amendments and to negotiate at committee to properly represent their constituents.

I know my question is going to come off tongue-in-cheek, but I am wondering if the member for New Westminster—Burnaby can provide the Conservatives some insight into how it feels to know that members are actually doing the job that they have been elected to do as opposed to just coming forward with rhetoric and bringing forward misinformation about everything the bill does not represent, and that they actually did their job and were able to bring forward some amendments that were important to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not only important for us, but it is important for all Canadians. There is no doubt that we have improved the bill.

I have some suggestions for the Conservatives, because they have certainly lost their way over the last six months. First off, when a bill comes—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes is rising on a point of order.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if you could inform the House if we do, in fact, have quorum at this time.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

We will check.

And the count having been taken:

We have quorum, and I therefore invite the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby to complete his question. He has a few seconds left.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I just wanted to suggest that Conservatives actually read legislation.

Second, they should actually listen to witnesses when they come before committee, rather than blocking them from testifying.

Third, they should actually offer improvements to legislation. That is the role that we have here. That is why the NDP has been the real effective opposition in the House of Commons. Yes, we are seeking to oppose when it is warranted, but above all we are seeking to make sure that things in the House of Commons are done in the best interests of Canadians. The NDP influence on Bill C-11 has been undeniable, in terms of improving it, including aspects of freedom of expression.

That is the kind of work all members of Parliament should be doing.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I speak for most of us in the House when I say we are thankful to receive correspondence from our constituents on issues that matter to them. Even when we disagree, it is important to engage and inform them about the process in this chamber.

I wonder if the member could speak to the disinformation campaign that we have seen on the bill in particular, because there is nothing so disheartening as when I receive correspondence that is just riddled with conspiracy theories, to be honest.

Could the member comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a disturbing undercurrent that we saw bring the United States right to the edge of having a coup d'état. The kind of disinformation that drives people from the far right, the far-right extremists, is something we have to be very acutely conscious of. The comments from Conservative MPs that, somehow, Bill C-11 is going to allow the government to follow people on cellphones, and the odious comparisons with the murderous dictatorship in North Korea are unbelievably inappropriate comments made on the floor of the House of Commons.

This is very disturbing. We have to push back against Republican-style disinformation from many, but not all, Conservative MPs. Some Conservative MPs still respect Parliament. The ones who do not, though, need to be called out.

That is why we have spoken specifically on the bill and specifically on the provisions that we have improved. It is an effort to get real information out to Canadians. Shame on the Conservatives for what they have said through the course of the last few months.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver East on a per-capita basis, we actually have the largest number of artists in our community. They are actually very much looking forward to the passage of Bill C-11.

Can the member explain to the Conservative members why this bill is so important to artists?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will do my best, because my community, as well, of New Westminster—Burnaby, is really known as Hollywood North. There is a real creative energy that is in our communities. We know that $1 billion will be transferred from the web giants, which have basically been taking that money out of the country, and it will be provided to Canadian cultural content and Canadian cultural institutions, broadcasters and Canadians who are creative, both in the online world and the broadcasting world.

What we are going to see is a real renaissance of Canadian content, and that is why I will be supporting the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-11. For decades, Canadian broadcasters have given us incredible Canadian content on our televisions and our radios. This is no accident. We support our cultural sovereignty. It is who we are as Canadians. It is our past, it is our present and it is our future. It is how we tell our stories to each other. As a condition of their licences, TV and radio broadcasters have had to invest in our culture and our artists. That is why we have the Canadian content that we are so proud of.

Here is what has changed. Online streaming platforms are the new broadcasters, yet they do not have to play by the same rules. Online streaming is the norm. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. That is why the government introduced Bill C-11, the online streaming act. This bill ensures that online streamers contribute in an equitable but flexible way to the creation of Canadian content, and ensures that Canadians can find that content on their platforms.

Now, let us talk about what this bill would not do. This bill would not impose regulations on content that everyday Canadians post on social media. This bill would not impose regulations on Canadian digital content creators, influencers or users. This bill would not censor content or mandate specific algorithms on streaming services or social media platforms, and this bill would not limit Canadians' freedom of expression in any way, shape or form.

We have heard a lot of misinformation. My colleague just mentioned previously that a lot of emails have come in with a lot of confusion and misinformation, and I believe that is deliberate. I was going to address two of the issues that we might be hearing some of the most misinformation about in the Online Streaming Act.

First is the fact that user-generated content is excluded. People ask where that is in the legislation. The bill explicitly excludes all user-generated content in social media platforms and streaming services. I will read the subsection. Subsection 2.1 of Bill C-11 states:

A person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service — and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this Act.

In plain language, that means that users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters and therefore they will not face any obligations under the act. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think we have quorum in the House again.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

We will check.

And the count having been taken:

We do indeed have quorum, so the member for Kitchener—Conestoga may continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said, in plain language, that means that any users, even digital-first creators with millions of subscribers, are not broadcasters. They will not face any obligations under the act. Any suggestions otherwise are simply untrue.

With this approach, the experience for users creating, posting and interacting with other user-generated content will not be impacted whatsoever, while still standardizing the treatment of commercial content such as TV shows and songs across the platform. We studied this and it is very clear. It is a little hard to explain in legalese, but the bottom line is that music content creations are exempt.

The other misinformation that has been floating around is on freedom of expression issues. Just to be clear, clause 12 of the online streaming act explicitly states that any regulation the CRTC imposes on platforms through the Broadcasting Act cannot infringe on Canadians' freedom of expression on social media. It states:

For greater certainty, the Commission shall make orders under subsection 9.‍1(1) and regulations under subsection 10(1) in a manner that is consistent with the freedom of expression enjoyed by users of social media services that are provided by online undertakings.

Freedom of expression is protected under the charter and would be protected in the online streaming act. Artists are at the forefront of protecting freedom of speech. It is our arts that allow us to push these conversations. Every single arts stakeholder I have met supports this bill and free speech. I am putting that misinformation aside.

I am a recording artist. The arts sector is how I was proudly able to make a living for my entire life before having the privilege of serving my community and my country as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Conestoga. As an artist, I felt support from fellow Canadians. I felt support from Canada. We are proud of our artists, and they deserve our respect and support.

During the pandemic, we turned to our artists to make sense of the experiences we were going through. It was the stories, the books, the shows and the music that got us through the pandemic. I have said on more than one occasion that science is getting us out of the pandemic, but arts is getting us through it. We need to support our arts sector. It is one of the hardest-hit sectors in all of the economy and is taking the longest to recover as we move out of the pandemic. That is another reason this bill is so important. We need to show our artists that we support them.

I sit on the heritage committee and was at every meeting on Bill C-11 and at every meeting on Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. I have studied this. I met with countless stakeholders, individuals and organizations, and they are expressing the fact that the Broadcasting Act needs to be updated. Our arts and culture industry is telling us how vital and urgent this legislation will be for it, and we are listening.

I try not to get political in the House, but I find that politics has been creeping back in. The Conservatives have used every tactic in their tool box to delay and block Bill C-11. They did not allow the committee to get to clause-by-clause with their filibustering. They went as far as to filibuster their own study motion at one point. They said they had questions for the CRTC and then filibustered a whole meeting while the head of the CRTC and officials sat there and could not appear to answer the very questions we wanted to ask. The Conservatives said they wanted to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage and then filibustered a whole meeting while the minister sat there. He could not appear to answer the questions we needed to ask. It has been deeply disappointing, because those stalling tactics are wasteful and prevent us from helping our artists.

I will not stop advocating in support of our artists. I appreciate the co-operation of every party except the Conservatives. We have worked together to move things forward. We have co-operated, we have contributed to amendments and we have had conversations. I truly do not understand why the Conservatives are supporting the foreign tech giants over our own Canadian artists.

I would like to quote Marla Boltman from an organization called Friends, who summed it up very nicely. She said:

Requiring contributions from foreign tech giants that extract billions of dollars from our country will help sustain our industry while driving investment and innovation in the creation of Canadian content that continues to reflect our diversity of voices and who we are as Canadians. Foreign contributions will level the playing field between Canadian broadcasters and foreign platforms.... If you benefit from the system, you must contribute to it.

I could not agree more.

Bill C-11 is about fairness. It is about supporting our cultural sector. It is about having the power to shape our culture and make sure that everyone can see themselves in our culture. It is about being proud of who we are and being proud of Canadians. That is why I think it is important to keep moving on this important legislation, and why I will be supporting it.

I just want to say that, as a musician myself, some of my earliest memories of playing were in our small apartment on the piano. My dad would pick up his bass. He used to play bass in the day. That is part of the way I learned how to play music, just playing some rock and roll songs. I actually thought my dad wrote all those Beatles' tunes we used to play. I did not find that out until later.

As it is Father's Day, I want to say a personal happy Father's Day to my dad and to all the fathers and father figures out there who have supported the next generation of artists.

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his contribution to the arts.

As somebody who was an online content creator and able to create a business as a result of it, and who also worked in mainstream media, I am curious to have his thoughts on how he thinks the CRTC can logistically regulate the millions of videos that are uploaded to social media and YouTube every single day.

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

Mr. Speaker, digital creators are a future source of our culture. They are going to continue to tell stories. Many of them are already artists in the existing ecosystem here.

In no way will this bill have the CRTC regulating their content. The CRTC is working with the platforms themselves. That is why there is flexibility between the regulation and the legislation we have right now. The legislation will give the CRTC the tools to work with the platforms, but according to proposed subsection 2.1 of Bill C-11, the user content itself, even for digital first creators, will not be subject to the Broadcasting Act.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I was glad to see that amendments were made regarding user-generated providers. I wonder if the member could help clarify what the amendments would mean if Bill C-11 were to pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague always asks wonderful questions. Every time she asks a question, the whole House listens, and I think that is a testament to her nature. She is looking out for our artists, including digital first creators.

The intent of this bill is not to scope in digital creators. If they have user-generated content, the bill is not going to cover them. It is simply requiring platforms that are not paying into our system to contribute. Right now our traditional broadcasters contribute to the system. They pay into it, and the online foreign streamers are not paying into that system. the bill would simply let them pay into the system and make sure that all our voices can be heard with some discoverability measures.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga, who is himself an artist.

I would like him to explain to all Canadians client why it is so important that web giants compensate artists and content creators. Can he explain how the financial framework changed in the space of a generation and why this bill is important?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the advice he offers from time to time. It always comes in handy, and I appreciate that.

The world is changing fast. It used to be a closed system, where our traditional broadcasters paid into the system to make sure they contributed to Canadian culture with grants and programs that artists could draw from to tell their stories. Right now we have two systems. We have the traditional broadcasters, which are in radio and TV and are still paying into the system, and we have our online foreign streamers, which are not. They are not paying into any kind of system. Sometimes they contribute to a production here, but they are not paying into the system itself, and that is the level playing field we need to see. If they are acting as broadcasters here in Canada, which these foreign online streamers are, they would fall under the same regulations and would have to contribute funds to our culture for our Canadian artists to draw from to tell their own stories.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that proposed subsection 2.1 provides clarity to some extent with user-generated content, but proposed section 4.2 clearly says that user-generated content or programs that generate revenue can be regulated. I am wondering if the member would at least acknowledge that this act would in fact allow for the regulation of user-generated content that generates revenue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague is in Dauphin, Manitoba, and I used to play at that festival, which is one of my favourite festivals of the summer, so he understands the importance of supporting our artists.

We need to make sure there is a balance between legislation and regulation. If we put everything in and do not give any flexibility, we will not have the ability as technology changes to make sure we can adopt to new technologies.

Right now the digital creators are still protected. Proposed section 4.2 does not say that they would be scoped in.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, as my hon. friend opposite did, before I begin my remarks on Bill C-11, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my father, as Father's Day is coming up this weekend. I thank him for all his love, guidance and support over the years. He is currently undergoing chemotherapy and is not feeling 100% himself. However, my three brothers, my mother, all of our extended family and I know he will be back to 110% soon. I just want to say we love him.

I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-11. Although I believe the Broadcasting Act needs to be renewed, I am deeply concerned with Bill C-11 because, in many ways, it is simply a revival of the flawed and failed Bill C-10 from the previous Parliament.

The government claims that Bill C-11 is being introduced to protect Canadian content creators. However, the bill fails, as many such entrepreneurs are opposed to this legislation. The bill fails, for example, Chad, who lives in Upper Stoney Creek in—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I have to interrupt the hon. member because the hon. Minister of Seniors is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was speaking about Chad, who lives in the Upper Stoney Creek portion of my constituency. Chad is a digital creator who is concerned about the threat Bill C-11 poses to his livelihood. Chad is not alone by any means. We have seen dozens of Canadian content creators testify at the heritage committee to their deep concern with regard to this bill.

Chad told me that Canadian content creators are thriving with open social media platforms and, in fact, 90% of all viewer traffic on Canadian YouTube channels comes from international audiences. Let me put that another way: Canadian content creators export 90% of their product. Every Canadian knows that the world is a consumer of Canadian content. Our talented comedians, musicians and other artists are the content creators, just like Chad, who do a fantastic job of making sure that people from around the world get a glimpse of our great nation. Therefore, why is the government failing Canadian content creators again? Prominent YouTube artist J.J. McCullough, who testified before the heritage committee, said, “I also worry that the dreams of the next generation of Canadian YouTubers will become less achievable once they're forced to navigate intimidating new regulatory hurdles my generation did not.”

It is the same government that is already failing young Canadians in so many ways. As they struggle to fill up their tank to drive to work each week, as they are no longer able to achieve the dream of home ownership, and as they struggle to keep up to the costs of living because of generationally high inflation rates, now the government introduces a bill that would place hurdles on the ability of young Canadians to succeed in one of the few sectors of the economy that has flourished during the last two years. Instead, it is putting big print media companies first. With respect to this bill, if it were really concerned about content creators, then why would it not put content creators first? Why are the Liberals so against it?

I know that Professor Michael Geist was a speaker at one of the committees. He is the University of Ottawa's Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law. He expressed this concern and I will quote. He said, “Canada punches above its weight when it comes to the creation of this content, which is worth billions of revenue globally.... We are talking about an enormous potential revenue loss for Canadian content producers.”

The article then states, “Geist says [that] would make platforms including YouTube and TikTok 'force-feed Canadian content' that people might not usually choose to watch, rather than curated content matched to their preferences.” It then continues, “If people do not select Canadian content they are offered, or if they indicate they don’t like it or choose another video instead, it could lead to content that wasn’t chosen, disliked or not watched to the end automatically being downgraded around the world.”

Therefore, why would this bill be placing power in the hands of the government to make these decisions? I might add that this is the government that cannot manage the passport system, as we have seen with the ridiculously long lines at Service Canada offices across the country. Why would we trust the same government to regulate content creation, which is a space which, by its definition, needs to be nimble, flexible and dynamic?

The concerns over Bill C-11 are not limited to detrimental effects on the livelihood of Canadian content creators, but extend to the right of free speech, which is a core identity of Canadians. If the last few years have taught us anything, it is that open social media platforms are vital and crucial for us as we maintain our social connections. Podcasts and the simple joys of sharing videos of puppies and kittens and such with friends could be heavily regulated and restricted if this legislation goes through. These are examples of social media content that have seen great success without government regulation, but that would be controlled by the CRTC, a bureaucracy which would needlessly clamp down on social media platforms.

The government is failing Canadians in the sense that it is introducing legislation that would reduce choices in content that have given Canadians relief over the course of the past number of years. What also gives constituents and I concern is the threat to the ability of Canadians to freely express themselves without government interference.

Poet Maya Angelou once said to watch people's feet, not their lips. The Liberal talking point is that they want free speech and do not want to curtail it. This happens to be the very process to discuss Bill C-11, and it is a sham. We are seeing the Liberals stopping and silencing debate, not just in committee, but also in this chamber. This is ironic, because the Minister of Canadian Heritage was recently reported in the Globe and Mail saying that the Senate is not going to look at this before the summer, and recently the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, estimated that it could take two years to implement Bill C-11. What is the rush? Why is there curtailing of debate on this bill in this House? Canadians need to stop watching the Liberals' lips and start watching their feet.

The impact that this legislation would have on freedom of speech is a serious concern for many in Flamborough—Glanbrook, who have sent hundreds of emails and made dozens of calls to my office, and I have to say the overwhelming majority are opposed to Bill C-11. As an example, Christina and Albert from Mount Hope emailed my office to express their concerns about the vagueness of the legislation and how it would allow for almost unhindered regulation of the Internet by the CRTC and, in turn, would influence what social media posts Canadians can see. Christina and Albert were also concerned with the possibility that those views that differ from the government’s might be more readily clamped down on in social media, because the CRTC would have regulatory control over the Internet. There are similar concerns from Harry in Lynden, in my constituency, as well as Arie in Mount Hope. Their overall concern is the limiting of the content they might watch or the content they might create and post.

I share the concerns of my constituents. We are proud as Canadians that Canada is seen internationally as a beacon of democracy, but this legislation and the limitations it would have on free speech are a betrayal of those freedoms that we certainly cherish and promote worldwide.

I know my time is winding down, so let me conclude.

For these reasons, Canadians are rightly concerned about this bill, its contents and the process by which it is being pushed through this chamber. This is why I stand with the people who have contacted my office and taken the time to call or write, with the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook and with my Conservative colleagues and urge everyone to vote against Bill C-11.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also want to assure the House that the government, the CRTC, is not interested in puppies and kittens.

I am a francophone. There are 600,000 Franco‑Ontarians. Unfortunately we are not a strong market force. Is my colleague saying that we should not help develop my culture in Ontario?

That is exactly what Bill C‑11 does. The same content that is on television and radio goes into a fund to support francophone communities in developing their culture. If those same videos are streamed on platforms, nothing goes toward supporting our cultures.

Does my colleague not agree that we should be supporting my culture? Is my culture equivalent to his?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague opposite that I very much respect the francophone culture and franco-Ontarians. If members were to look at my CD collection, and I am dating myself by saying this, I had perhaps an equal number of francophone artists as anglophone artists, so I certainly encourage and respect that.

I do not think this bill is necessarily what is necessary to accomplish that, and I would note that the chair of the CRTC, Ian Scott, did indicate that this bill would allow the CRTC to regulate user-generated content, so that is the concern.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I share his concerns. He also made reference to people that he and his party consulted. Unfortunately, we have noticed that it is always the same person who is consulted, while the member for Drummond has long consulted all the organizations that represent content creators and the creative industry. They are in favour of Bill C‑11 and they also agree that it is urgent to pass it.

I would ask my colleague to explain to us the source of all these concerns expressed by the only person, just about, that they consulted.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did refer to one individual in my riding who is a content creator and who expressed his concerns, but as I noted as well, a number of content creators who spoke at the heritage committee raised similar concerns. My home city of Hamilton, Ontario may be not the same as Burnaby, which is the Hollywood of the north, but I think we are quickly becoming a destination for a lot of movie production and content production, so we take that personally as well.

As I said, there were hundreds of emails and quite a number of phone calls, and the vast majority were opposed to this legislation. It was not one single source at all. It is a concern. We are hearing that directly, and I did not solicit these.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to ask the member if his party understands that the proposed changes in Bill C-11 include user-generated content creators generally but provide exceptions only to professional content providers who are generating revenue.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, given the brevity of time for a response, let me just reiterate this. As was pointed out by my colleague for Lethbridge this morning, there were five days of two-hour debate at the committee, which was shut down. There were committee amendments that were voted on by number, without being read into the record, at committee this week, which really is a sham. There were a number of people who wanted to present at committee and have their voice heard, which ended up on the cutting-room floor, because this was rammed through. I think that is really the story of what this is about, and the reason why we should be very concerned about the content of the bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 13, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1, and a vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 3.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Normally at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to an order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 20, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m. so we can start private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have consent to see the clock at 1:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 17 consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at the report stage of Bill C-11.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #158

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated as well.

The question is on Motion No. 2. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #159

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare Motion No. 2 carried.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #160

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? Later today?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.