Bill C-11

Online Streaming Act

An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Broadcasting Act to, among other things,
(a) add online undertakings — undertakings for the transmission or retransmission of programs over the Internet — as a distinct class of broadcasting undertakings;
(b) specify that the Act does not apply in respect of programs uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service, unless the programs are prescribed by regulation;
(c) update the broadcasting policy for Canada set out in section 3 of the Act by, among other things, providing that the Canadian broadcasting system should
(i) serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians from Black or other racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socio-economic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages, and
(ii) provide opportunities to Indigenous persons, programming that reflects Indigenous cultures and that is in Indigenous languages, and programming that is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities;
(d) enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society, including by supporting the production and broadcasting of original programs in both languages;
(e) specify that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (the “Commission”) must regulate and supervise the Canadian broadcasting system in a manner that
(i) takes into account the different characteristics of English, French and Indigenous language broadcasting and the different conditions under which broadcasting undertakings that provide English, French or Indigenous language programming operate,
(ii) takes into account, among other things, the nature and diversity of the services provided by broadcasting undertakings,
(iii) ensures that any broadcasting undertaking that cannot make maximum or predominant use of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming contributes to those Canadian resources in an equitable manner,
(iv) promotes innovation and is readily adaptable toscientific and technological change,
(v) facilitates the provision to Canadians of Canadian programs in both official languages, including those created and produced by official language minority communities in Canada, as well as Canadian programs in Indigenous languages,
(vi) facilitates the provision of programs that are accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities,
(vii) facilitates the provision to Canadians of programs created and produced by members of Black or other racialized communities,
(viii) protects the privacy of individuals who aremembers of the audience of programs broadcast, and
(ix) takes into account the variety of broadcasting undertakings to which the Act applies and avoids imposing obligations on any class of broadcasting undertakings if that imposition will not contribute in a material manner to the implementation of the broadcasting policy;
(f) amend the procedure relating to the issuance by the Governor in Council of policy directions to the Commission;
(g) replace the Commission’s power to impose conditions on a licence with a power to make orders imposing conditions on the carrying on of broadcasting undertakings;
(h) provide the Commission with the power to require that persons carrying on broadcasting undertakings make expenditures to support the Canadian broadcasting system;
(i) authorize the Commission to provide information to the Minister responsible for that Act, the Chief Statistician of Canada and the Commissioner of Competition, and set out in that Act a process by which a person who submits certain types of information to the Commission may designate the information as confidential;
(j) amend the procedure by which the Governor in Council may, under section 28 of that Act, set aside a decision of the Commission to issue, amend or renew a licence or refer such a decision back to the Commission for reconsideration and hearing;
(k) specify that a person shall not carry on a broadcasting undertaking, other than an online undertaking, unless they do so in accordance with a licence or they are exempt from the requirement to hold a licence;
(l) harmonize the punishments for offences under Part II of that Act and clarify that a due diligence defence applies to the existing offences set out in that Act; and
(m) allow for the imposition of administrative monetary penalties for violations of certain provisions of that Act or of the Accessible Canada Act .
The enactment also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Eatrides, thank you for being with us here today. We've been looking forward to having you at the table. It's taken a little while to finally coordinate this, and we appreciate your time.

During the debate on Bill C-11, as you're aware, there was great conversation with regard to user-generated content and whether or not it was scoped in. The government tried to insist that it wasn't. What I note, however, is that, in its directive to the CRTC, it has had to make that explicit. It has made the distinction, or it has distinguished for you, that user-generated content is not to be regulated.

If that's already not in the legislation, then why would that distinction need to be made in your directive?

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Today, I rise to speak to the government's legislation, Bill C-52, enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. The bill was initially introduced by the former minister of transport. Bill C-52 has far-reaching implications for Canada's transportation system, and as the official opposition, it is our duty to ensure it will truly meet the serious and ongoing concerns many Canadians have within the transportation sector.

The bill proposes to set publicly reported service standards for private sector companies and government agencies responsible for air travel at Canada's airports almost exclusively through regulations, which would be created by the minister and the cabinet.

Furthermore, it proposes to require airport authorities to formalize noise consultation processes and environmental standards, and to publish information on their directors and senior management. Finally, Bill C-52 aims to amend the Canada Marine Act regarding the setting of fees by Canadian port authorities.

First and foremost, the timing of the bill's introduction raises concerns. Bill C-52 was presented on June 20, just one day before the House recessed for the summer. That raises questions about the government's motivations and intentions. It is essential to consider whether the timing was chosen to deflect attention from previous travel-related crises and to create an impression of swift action.

Between the summers of 2022 and 2023, Canadian travellers faced a disastrous travel season with numerous flight cancellations and unacceptable delays. Previous to that was the disastrous mismanagement of passports that affected travellers, but that is a whole other issue. In particular, the Christmas travel season last year brought further chaos and frustration in airports. Those events highlighted the need for significant improvements in our transportation system.

However, the Liberals are focusing on announcements and consultations rather than delivering tangible results for Canadian travellers. What is their solution? It is to empower themselves further.

One of the most pressing issues within our transportation system is the backlog of complaints with the Canadian Transportation Agency, the CTA. This backlog has grown by 3,000 complaints per month and has resulted in a staggering 60,000 complaints now waiting to be adjudicated.

That backlog represents thousands of Canadian passengers who had their travel experiences disrupted or delayed, or had some form of service situation, and all those people are awaiting resolutions. Those passengers have been unable to resolve their compensation claims with airlines, and they have now been asked to wait over 18 months to have their complaints considered by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

This adds insult to injury and prolongs what could be serious problems. People are out-of-pocket, and airlines are not being held accountable for mismanagement and poor service.

Most recently, we heard damning reports of Air Canada's and WestJet's treatment of passengers with disabilities. For Air Canada, in one case in May, two employees, instead of being trained on the proper equipment, attempted to physically lift a passenger but ended up dropping him. In another report, a woman's ventilator was disconnected and a lift fell on her head. A man was forced to physically drag himself off a flight in Vancouver. Air Canada admitted it had violated federal accessibility regulations.

We heard that those passengers got notice, forgiveness and, hopefully, amends to which they are entitled, and Air Canada said it would be looking to ensure proper compliance. I am looking forward to ensuring that Air Canada's CEO will be appearing before the human resources committee I serve on, as we have called for him to testify and to explain to Canadians exactly how this airline intends to comply.

The latest example was from WestJet where a paralympian was forced to lift herself up the stairs to the plane. It was reported that she commented that she was frustrated and humiliated, and there was a ramp within 50 metres.

All those situations are disturbing, disappointing and unacceptable for persons with disabilities to have gone through. Unfortunately, Bill C-52, which we are debating here today, does not provide solutions to eliminate the complaints backlog or set specific service standards within accountability mechanisms.

Federally regulated entities involved in air travel must also be held accountable for delays or cancellations. They include airlines, airports, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, Nav Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency. However, this legislation falls short of those expectations.

While the bill addresses some aspects of accountability and transparency, it fails to hold all relevant entities responsible for ensuring smooth and reliable air travel. A comprehensive approach to accountability should encompass all stakeholders involved in the travel experience. One of the significant concerns with Bill C-52 is the concentration of power in the hands of the minister and the cabinet to develop regulations in the future.

While regulatory flexibility can be useful, this bill does not include concrete improvements in legislation. We see this often with the Liberal government, where so much is left to regulation, which leads to uncertainty and lack of transparency. We saw this with the Internet censorship bill, Bill C-11, and with the disability benefits bill. Instead, this legislation relies on promises of future regulations, which raise concerns about vagueness and the potential for arbitrary decision-making. It is not even a band-aid. It is an IOU for a band-aid.

In a matter as critical as transportation where there is essential service provided, and the comfort and convenience of the Canadian people are at stake, it is crucial that regulations are well defined and not left to the discretion of the government and the minister of the day. The lack of this clear direction with specific remedies in this bill to address the long-standing problems in our transportation system is a significant shortcoming. While the bill aspires to enhance transparency and accountability in the transportation system, it fails to deliver. It fails to provide the concrete solutions to the issues that have been plaguing the system for years. As for the results and who will be held accountable, there are no answers in this legislation.

We need legislation that not only identifies problems but also provides tangible solutions. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that any legislation passed is effective and beneficial to the Canadian people. Bill C-52, as it stands, is lacking.

News Media Industry

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good ideas in Bills C‑11 and C‑18, but, for now, they are not working. They are not doing anything. That is why, pending the conclusion of negotiations with the web giants in the case of Bill C‑18, an emergency fund for the media is required. That is reasonable. It is essential to maintain the diversity of information in the short term. In the long term, much more will be needed.

Now, we can send a clear message to our media that we are taking action to save them. Will the minister quickly set up an emergency fund before we find out that other newsrooms are closing in our media?

[Carole Piovesan]

Okay.

I participated in the national consultations on data and digital literacy, I think it was, in 2018. I participated as an innovator—as one of the innovation leads.

I did not participate in the drafting of the digital charter, nor in the white paper to reform PIPEDA that came out at that time. I have not participated in the drafting of any of these laws, neither Bill C-11 nor Bill C-27.

[Scott Lamb, Partner, Clark Wilson LLP, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for having me here today on the important matter of reform of our privacy legislation and Bill C-27.

I'm a partner at the law firm of Clark Wilson in Vancouver, and I'm called to the bar in Ontario and British Columbia. I've been practising in the area of privacy law since approximately 2000. I've advised both private sector organizations in a variety of businesses and public bodies such as universities in the public sector. I've also acted as legal counsel before the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia in investigations, inquiries and judicial review.

With the limited amount of time we have, I'll be confining my remarks to the proposed consumer privacy protection act, specifically the legitimate interest exception, anonymization and de-identification, and the separate review tribunal. Hopefully, I'll have a bit of time to get into the artificial intelligence and data act, AIDA, with respect to high-impact systems.

I will of course be happy to discuss other areas of Bill C-27 and questions you may have. Also, subsequent to my presentation, I'll provide a detailed brief on the areas discussed today.

Starting with the proposed consumer privacy protection act and the legitimate interest exception, it's important to point out that arguably the leading privacy law jurisdiction, the EU with its GDPR, provides for a stand-alone right of an organization to collect, use and disclose personal information if it has a legitimate interest. Accordingly, if Canada is to have an exception to consent based on an organization's legitimate interest, it's important to look, in detail, at how that will operate and the implications of that exception.

First, to reiterate, the draft provisions in proposed subsection 18(3) are an exception to the consent requirements and not a stand-alone right for an organization as set out in the GDPR.

What's the significance of this? A stand-alone right generally is not as restrictively interpreted by the courts as an exception to an obligation from a purely statutory interpretation point of view. In short, the legitimate interest exception is very likely to be a narrower provision in scope than the GDPR's legitimate interest provisions.

A stand-alone right may be a means to circumvent or generally undercut the consent structure of our privacy legislation, which again is at the heart of our legislation and is a part of the inculcated privacy protection culture in Canada. Maintaining the legitimate interest provisions as an exception to the consent structure, on balance, is preferable to a stand-alone right.

Second, the exception is only for the collection or use of personal information and is not permitted for the disclosure of personal information to third parties. The prohibition on application of the exception to disclosure of personal information that is in the legitimate interest of an organization, in my view, doesn't make sense. While I'm in favour of the first instance of an exception over a stand-alone right, I think you have to expand this to cover disclosure as well.

The provisions in proposed subsection 18(3) expressly state that the legitimate interest of an organization “outweighs any potential adverse effect”. This is effectively a high standard of protection. The usefulness of this exception, if limited to only collection and use, is significant for organizations. For example, a business may have a legitimate interest in collection and use of personal information to measure and improve the use of its services or to develop a product. However, proposed subsection 18(3) prevents that organization from actually disclosing that personal information to a business partner or third party vendor to give effect to its legitimate purpose.

Finally, the point is that other jurisdictions allow for a legitimate interest of an organization to apply to disclosure of personal information as well as to collection and use. Specifically, again, that is not only the EU GDPR but also the Singapore law. I note that when you look at those pieces of legislation standing side by side, Singapore also has it as an exception. Singapore also has some case law that has moved forward.

I think it would give a lot of comfort to this committee if it were to examine some of the case law from Singapore, as well as some of the more current case law from the GDPR regime. It does give some sense of what this means as a legitimate interest, which I can appreciate at first instance may seem rather vague and could be seen as a giant loophole. However, my submission is that's not the case.

The next item I'd like to talk about is anonymization and de-identification. Clarity on this issue has been sought for some time, and it's reassuring that the change from Bill C-11 to Bill C-27 introduced this idea, a concept of anonymization, as separate from de-identification. However, technologically and practically speaking, you're never going to reach the standard set out in the definition of anonymization, so why put it in the act in the first place? There's been some commentary on this, and I am generally in support of the recommendation that you should insert into that definition the reasonableness to expect in the circumstances that an individual can be identified after the de-identification process. Then the data is not anonymized and is still caught by the legislation and the specific requirements for the use and disclosure of such data.

In terms of use and disclosure, I also note that proposed section 21 confines the use to internal use by the organization. The utility of this provision could be remarkably limited by this, again compared to what our trading partners have, because in modern research and development you have the idea of data pooling and extensive partnerships in the use of data. If it's strictly for internal purposes, we could lose this important tool in a modern technological economy that relies on this. Therefore, I recommend that it be deleted as well.

Also, proposed section 39 would limit the disclosure of de-identified personal information to, effectively, public sector organizations—this is very restrictive—and consideration should be given to disclosing to private sector organizations that are really fundamentally important to our modern economy and research and development.

In terms of the separate review tribunal, I know that the Privacy Commissioner has been hostile to this and I recognize that the Privacy Commissioner performs an invaluable role in investigating and pursuing compliance with our privacy legislation. However, given the enormous administrative monetary penalties that may be awarded against organizations—the higher of 3% of gross annual revenue or $10 million—for breaches, clear appeal rights to an expert tribunal and review of penalties are required to ensure due process and natural justice standards and, frankly, to develop the law in this area.

It is also noteworthy that judicial oversight of the decision of the tribunal would be according to the Supreme Court of Canada's test in Vavilov, which is limited to a review on the reasonableness standard, which is a very deferential and limited review. It's been suggested that you try to limit these things from going on forever and ever. With judicial review, they would be limited. I know there was one suggestion that the ability to seek judicial review should jump right from the tribunal to the Federal Court of Appeal. I think that's fine if you want to expedite this and meet that concern. I think that's probably right, but I do like the structure of a separate review tribunal.

Finally, on artificial intelligence and the high-impact systems, I think the focus of that, in terms of identifying the concept of high-impact systems, is sound in structure and potentially generally aligned with our trade partners in the EU. However, the concept cannot be left to further development and definition in regulations. This concept needs extensive consultation and parliamentary review.

It is recommended that the government produce a functional analysis of a high-impact system from qualitative and quantitative impact, risk assessment, transparency and safeguards perspectives.

It's further recommended that distinctions be made between artificial intelligence research and development for research purposes only and artificial intelligence that is implemented into the public domain for commercial or other purposes. What I would not want to see come out of our AIDA legislation is that we have some sort of brake on research in artificial intelligence.

We are vulnerable and our allies are vulnerable to other international actors that are at the forefront of research in artificial intelligence. We should not have anything in our legislation to break that. However, we should protect the public when artificial intelligence products are rolled out to the public domain, and ensure that we are protected. I think that's a distinction that is missing in the discussion, and it's very important that we advance that.

Those are my submissions.

Thank you.

Canadian Heritage

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 547 people working at TVA lost their jobs on Thursday, the darkest day in the history of Quebec television.

The federal government has to realize that Bill C-11 and Bill C-18 will not be enough. The government has to launch a $50‑million emergency fund for news media. It has to hold a summit next spring at the latest with all industry stakeholders to find long-term solutions to ensure the survival of our media outlets. Their future is at stake, and the time to act is now.

Will the minister create an emergency fund and hold a summit?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, once again, our thoughts are with the workers and their families, particularly as the holiday season approaches.

This situation could have been avoided and all of those workers would still have jobs if the Conservatives had not spent the past few years opposing Bill C-11. Yes, Bill C‑11 is enough. Yes, we are here with a bill that is in place to help save media jobs. We managed to get Bill C‑11 passed, and it will provide solutions to protect thousands of well-paying jobs.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, a full-blown atomic bomb has dropped on the world of Quebec television. TVA, the most-watched television network in Quebec, will be laying off 547 people, a third of its workforce. We are losing extraordinary artisans of our culture. It is catastrophic.

It is catastrophic, but not surprising, unfortunately. If this is happening to TVA, all of our media are at risk. We have to rethink everything, if we want to save our media. A massive undertaking is needed.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage seriously think that Bills C-11 and C-18 are enough to save Quebec media?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, my heart goes out to the journalists and workers at Quebecor and TVA, all the 500 employees who lost their jobs yesterday. This is not good news for Quebec. This decision was made by a private company. We always support journalism and information sharing.

That is why Bill C‑11 is so important. We hope that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives will vote with us to support Canadian and Quebec journalism.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, first, our thoughts are with the more than 500 families who are affected by these job losses. We will be there for them, and we will also be there for the cultural industry and the media. The reality is that this is the reason why we need to continue our work on Bill C‑11. That is why we introduced that bill. The reality is that the Conservatives always oppose measures to protect the cultural industry, the media and even Canadian content.

[Dr. Teresa Scassa]

I completely agree that there are problems with this provision.

The one I flagged in my opening comments is that it refers to de-identified information. This was taken verbatim from Bill C-11 and put into Bill C-27, but in Bill C-11, “de-identified” was given the definition that is commonly given to anonymized information.

Under Bill C-27, we have two different categories: de-identified and anonymized. Anonymized is the more protected. Now you have a provision that allows de-identified information—which is not anonymized, just de-identified—to be shared, so there has actually been a weakening of proposed section 39 in Bill C-27 from Bill C-11, which shouldn't be the case.

In addition to that, there are no guardrails, as you mentioned, for transparency or for other protections where information is shared for socially beneficial purposes. The ETHI committee held hearings about the PHAC use of mobility data, which is an example of this kind of sharing for socially beneficial purposes.

The purposes may be socially beneficial. They may be justifiable and it may be something we want to do, but unless there is a level of transparency and the potential for some oversight, there isn't going to be trust. I think we risk recreating the same sort of situation where people suddenly discover that their information has been shared with a public sector organization for particular purposes that have been deemed by somebody to be socially beneficial and those people don't know. They haven't been given an option to learn more about it, they haven't been able to opt out and the Privacy Commissioner hasn't been notified or given any opportunity to review.

I think we have to be really careful with proposed section 39, partly because I think it's been transplanted without appropriate changes and partly because it doesn't have the guardrails that are required for that provision.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry. I had an urgent call. I had to leave, so like MP Masse, I apologize if somebody covered this.

My first questions will be for Dr. McPhail.

I want to start by saying that we've had some interesting testimony already, and some pulling of teeth out of the minister to get the amendments he said he would make and then refused to make and then did make as drafts—which I think, in some cases on privacy, are wholly inadequate.

You know, we had Bill C-11, which the Liberal government brought in and which was flawed. They didn't listen to the privacy commissioner of the day and got responses afterwards, when it was tabled, that it was a bad bill. Then the 2021 election came along, so it died. The minister didn't listen to the testimony and brought in a flawed bill again, and let it sit in the House for a year before we debated it. Then, at the last minute, after four years of battling back and forth, he decides that maybe individual privacy matters, so we'll recognize a fundamental right.

Here's my problem with where the government is, and I think Dr. McPhail and Dr. Scassa outlined some of the reasons. If you had watched my earlier questioning.... While the Liberals are going to put the fundamental right in the “Purpose” section, the most important section, they also say the ability of an organization to use that data is basically of parallel importance in the purpose of the bill.

Then, as you've pointed out, there are issues in proposed section 12 around consent and implied consent. Quite frankly, I thought implied consent was gone a long time ago, in the 1990s, like reverse consent. Apparently, implied consent still exists here, so I can just say, “No problem, Brad. I think you would have consented to this, so I'll use it anyway.”

Then, in proposed subsection 15(5), as pointed out in the testimony we had earlier, there's a huge problem.

Proposed section 18, which I've talked a lot about, basically says, “No problem. Big business can use your data, no matter what the consent is, if it's in their interest to use it, even if it causes harm.”

Then there's proposed section 35. I brought up proposed section 35 to the former privacy commissioner last time. It says that if an organization is using your data for research or statistics, it can use the data however it wants—unidentified, directly. It doesn't say, like PIPEDA used to say, that it is for scholarly work. Those words are no longer there. It says that an organization can use it, and “an organization”, as we know, in this bill is a business.

There's a lot to fix in this bill to put the balance back on the individual. The Liberals have put the balance on big, multinational data-mining companies—Facebook, Google and others—to have the rights to do whatever they want with an individual's data. I am wondering, is it simply removing proposed section 18, the legitimate interest, that puts the balance, or do you have to make another statement of a higher level in the “Purpose" section? Do you have to get rid of proposed section 35 and replace it with what already existed in PIPEDA that's being removed here?

Maybe I could ask Dr. McPhail and then Dr. Scassa to comment.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for all the excellent testimony we've heard today.

My first couple of questions are going to be for ACTRA. Thank you so much for being here. I'm very blessed, in my riding, to have so many people within the arts and culture sector, but I know that they are prevalent right across our country. I'll say to you that I never forget the importance of arts and culture to our economy, to jobs, to our sharing our stories and to our having a better understanding of each other and a way of bringing our country together, so thank you.

You were very clear in terms of what you want us to do around improving economic circumstances, copyright law and AI, and I really want to say I appreciate that. You mentioned the Online Streaming Act, so I wouldn't mind asking you a quick question on that. I know it's estimated to generate around $1 billion for the Canadian creative sector.

Can you talk a bit about how you see the impact of the Online Streaming Act on the sector in terms of Canadian production and jobs?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Given that,

the government is desperate to police and control speech,

freedom of expression is fundamental to a free society,

the government rammed Bill C-11, the online censorship bill, through every step of the way, ignoring the concerns of Canadians and Canadian content creators, to force it into law,

the government has given itself the power to control what Canadians can see, hear, and say online,

Canadians must always stand up for their right to freely express themselves and access information of their choosing without government censorship,

the government is now requiring podcasts and social media services to register with the government as an overreach of Bill C-11 and a drastic affront to free expression,

it is the opinion of the committee to repeal Bill C-11 and that the committee report this finding to the House.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I would.

Just by way of background, this is revisiting the discussion we had when the member who brought the bill forward was here. We spent the last parliamentary session trying to modernize a lot of the legislation to make sure we captured the digital changes that have happened.

We updated Bill C-11, Bill C-18 and Bill C-27 to all reflect the digital age. We want to make sure that “digital creations” are included. Then, when we had the language discussion, we agreed that English and French were important but, as has been pointed out, there are indigenous languages that people do creative activities in and there may also be ethnic-specific ones. In order to reflect that diversity and the digital creations, this amendment is to add the following:

filmmaking and digital creations that reflect the diversity of Canada, including with respect to the languages in use and its ethnocultural composition.

That's brought to you by the legislative people who know the legalese terms.

Thank you.