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.

[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.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to support my colleague's motion as well.

I would note that, if you go back to Hansard and my debates around Bill C-11, I repeatedly asked the government why it was trying to make podcasts live in the same world as, say, a radio station. I was assured at that time it was indeed not the case, and the government was definitely not doing that, yet we have reports in the media this week that now the government is expecting podcasts to register...or the CRTC is expecting that podcasts would register with it.

I think it would be imperative for this committee to study it or to ask the questions, anyway, of the department, of the CRTC and of the minister: What's suddenly changed, and why are we all of a sudden asking podcasts to register when we were assured that, when Bill C-11 passed, this would never happen and that this was not the government trying to impose radio station and CanCon requirements on podcasts? That was definitely something we were assured of at the time.

Believe me, Madam Chair, I did not believe the government when it said that. You always say that you hate to say “I told you so”, and now we're here saying, “I told you so”. I think it's important that this committee study this. I think it should be sooner rather than later. I would hope we can pass this motion this morning, for sure, and get the minister here tomorrow and the CRTC next week forthwith.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I won't take the committee's time. I agree we should hear from the CRTC and from the minister, but I think the rest of this motion is just an attempt to relitigate Bill C-11, which has already been passed by this committee.

I'll leave it at that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Yes, indeed.

I'll try to be brief, but it won't be easy. I know we have other motions to debate this morning, and I can see that this one is generating a lot of discussion. The fact that we already have extremely varied, even diametrically opposed opinions, demonstrates the need to have a discussion on it.

Now, let me explain why it would make me uncomfortable to target, for example, hate speech in this study: a bill dealing precisely with hate speech will soon be tabled. Now, before we start discussing online hate speech and the markers and parameters to be established around this notion, we must at least start by agreeing on the markers or means that the government can have to protect the concept of freedom of expression, which is fundamental to our democracy.

I didn't say freedom of speech, I said freedom of expression, because, as Mr. Shields was saying earlier, freedom of expression is a broad spectrum that includes, among other things, freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, but also the freedom to dress as you like, for example.

So I want us to have this discussion before we tackle the extremely tricky subject of hate speech. Indeed, if the discussion we're having today on a little motion that simply proposes to discuss it together is anything to go by, we won't be out of the woods when we tackle a subject as thorny as hate speech. It's true that there is a resurgence of violence among various groups. I'm not going to point the finger at the far right or the far left. For me, all extremes are harmful. I think there are extremes on both sides. We can discuss this, if you like.

That's why it would make me uncomfortable to focus too much on one particular aspect of freedom of expression during this study; we're going to have to debate it at length when the bill is finally tabled. We've been told it's been ready for two years, so we can't wait to see it. We've spent an hour discussing our perceptions of this or that aspect of freedom of expression. I'm proposing something. In fact, I was hoping we could have this discussion without flaunting our political colours too much, and maintain a certain openness and neutrality.

There are many concepts within freedom of expression, and there are a host of things that are even somewhat abstract. For example, the right to be offended doesn't exist, but being offended is measured at different levels, depending on the individual. To answer Mr. Noormohamed's question, this is what I was thinking of when I talked about the means that the government should have at its disposal to ensure the exercise of freedom of expression. When can you say that someone has gone too far? Does it depend on the thickness of my own skin, my resistance, or the hypersensitivity of certain groups? We need to do something to make people understand that, yes, sometimes we will be offended by what someone says. Can we make it clear that at a certain point, it becomes incitement to violence and the line of what's acceptable has been crossed?

In short, it's complex, but we can't hope to study the online hate bill without having managed to agree ourselves on some markers and recommendations that we could eventually give to the government to ensure the exercise of freedom of expression in our society.

I agree that we should focus on the somewhat sad episodes we've been seeing in our society over the last few years. I was not in favour of the truckers' demonstration, the “freedom convoy”. I was inconvenienced by it like many others, but I never thought these people had no right to be there.

That said, how far did they have the right to be there? To what extent was their freedom to express themselves and their discontent acceptable? These are things we didn't discuss together, precisely because the political positions were extremely tense.

We aren't open to a discussion on this. We've locked in on the left, we've locked in on the right, creating two distinct camps with an unbridgeable divide. But that's not the way to exercise freedom of expression on this issue.

In short, I propose, Madam Chair, that the motion be withdrawn for the time being. I am more than willing to entertain amendments to the motion, but I will not support a motion that specifies a particular aspect of freedom of expression, such as hate speech. I want to keep this discussion fairly broad and open.

I also don't want us to follow suit on Bill C‑11 by the CRTC, which gives Conservatives the urge to discuss government censorship. This is not at all the discussion we should be having.

I propose that we talk about this again next week, when we return from the parliamentary break. If any of my colleagues have amendments to propose, I'll be happy to consider them. For the moment, I don't think the present discussion allows me to support an amendment proposed to the current motion.

Madam Chair, I propose that discussion of this motion be stayed and that we return to it at a later date with any amendments.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have just a couple of quick things.

We've heard a lot today about the risk of the loss of freedom of speech. Mr. Shields has made some very powerful comments around this, yet look at our own recent history in the last few years in this country.

The Black Lives Matter protests were allowed to occur across this country. The occupation of Ottawa and the remarkable and profound disturbance, noise and impact on the quality of life of citizens in this country was left unchecked for weeks. Folks who protest climate change are allowed to do so in freedom without the police attacking them. There are marches against the LGBTQ community, which I personally find remarkably abhorrent, but they are allowed to occur across this country with freedom.

I have been part of sit-ins. I walked and marched in one of the first Black Lives Matter protests in New York City when I was working there. I've seen the privilege of freedom of speech, but I have also seen the consequences of freedom of expression on people's lives.

The social contract that I would argue we have in this country is that we have to ask ourselves what the consequences are to others of the things we are saying and doing. We may not go up to somebody and punch them in the face, but the words we use can have a profound impact, particularly on young people and vulnerable people. We have an obligation to ask ourselves, as all of us come from different faith traditions, whether our faith traditions allow us to behave in these ways. These are personal questions. Whether you're Muslim, Jewish or Christian, “love thy neighbour” is an important concept. The idea that we think about the well-being of others—these are important concepts.

No one should have to worry about their church, mosque, gurdwara or synagogue being burnt down or attacked. It is unacceptable. I agree with you that it is absolutely unacceptable for any place or worship or any place of gathering to be attacked or burnt down. However, the idea that we should put ourselves in a place where that is left unchecked is something that does cause me a tremendous amount of concern.

With respect to C-11, I'm sure we will have lots of conversations about this. My goodness, though, as somebody who worked in tech for over a decade, I don't understand why we would have a problem with companies that are making $10 million in this country telling us where their headquarters are. I don't see that as being censorship at all. I see that as being responsible corporate citizenry, but we'll leave that where it is.

We are in a place now where we have this motion that Monsieur Champoux has put together. What I'd really love to know from Monsieur Champoux is what he would be open to in terms of changes to this. What would be some of the things he might be willing to look at or be open to in terms of change and in terms of areas where he might put some sort of parameters around this?

In particular, with the expression “the means the Government should have at its disposal to ensure its exercise”, how does he see that playing out? There's a government of one stripe, and there may be a government of a different stripe in a decade. Different interpretations of that might mean different things to different people. I was wondering if he might share with us how he sees that shaping up.

Perhaps that's a good segue into his time at the microphone.

Thank you.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's interesting that you say “expression”.

Being an old guy, I remember how in grade 12 I would have been kicked out of school if I didn't shave and if my hair touched my collar. When you talk about freedom of expression, I would have been denied an education if I didn't shave or cut my hair. Not too long before that, girls weren't allowed to wear pants in school as an expression.

You're very right, Madam Chair, that expression can come in very different ways. Sometimes we forget history in the sense of what rules we can effect for expression.

It's World Teachers' Day. I am a former high school teacher and university instructor, and one of the challenges I always presented to students was expressing opinions, and a wide range of opinions, to get students at secondary and public school and university to feel free enough to express whatever opinions they would like in a setting in which they should be free to do that.

I was in university in the States in the riot and revolution times in the late 1960s when universities got burned down and cities got burned down. I was in those places. I was in Detroit when it burned. I was at San Francisco State University when it burned.

If you haven't lived where violence becomes extreme, then be careful what you're saying about what you know. Freedom of expression is critical. It needs to be respected, but when people feel they are living in a society where they can't express their opinions, then we have moved in the wrong direction. We all understand legally why you can't yell “fire” in a theatre. We know that in a public space. Anyone who has been through legal training knows what freedom of speech is allowed and not allowed, whether you're sued for libel or whether you're disrupting the peace.

Freedom of expression is critical in a democracy. My youngest grandchild is taking political science in university. We've corresponded a lot in the last month about questions she has asked. She asked about democracy in her last assignment.

I said that we, as a representative democracy, try to represent our people in our constituencies. Our constituencies are varied. The city I live in is a small one, but per population it is the most ethnically diverse one in Canada. That's for economic reasons: The largest meat-packing plant in Canada is right beside my community. We have over 100 different nations represented in our community. It's a very lively, very culturally diverse community, and that is really a good thing.

There is freedom of speech on our city council, on our school board. We have different races on our school board and on our councils representing our community. Freedom of speech is critical to that happening.

When I see things like Bill C-11 and when I see things like the announcement this week, those things bother me because that's the kind of thing I encouraged in a university classroom, the kind of thing I encouraged in high school classrooms, to get young people to think, to express their opinions and to be varied in their opinions.

Sure—do research. Attempt to do all the research you can and find it, but there were over 100 Christian churches burned in the last couple of years in Canada. There were well over that. It's been well documented. I'm not saying it's something concerning my religion or background, but you have to make sure you're talking about both sides of the issues.

This is a place where we need to express our opinions in this setting. If we're a representative democracy we can express a variety of opinions, as my friend Mr. Julian does, I do and several others on the committee have done for years. We need to do that in these committees. This is what freedom of speech is about. We're a representative democracy. We need to protect freedom of speech and protect it at all ends.

I've seen situations in which it has not been protected. Those are pretty brutal and they destroy our society. We need to protect freedom of speech.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to speak in favour of Mr. Champoux's motion, because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives us freedom of thought, expression, opinion and belief. I see in the country an erosion of that right.

Taleeb was talking about what he's seeing in his riding, and certainly there have been comments made that were offensive to Jewish people and to Muslim people. There have also been comments made that are offensive to Christian people, and there have been comments made that are offensive to the LGBTQ and trans communities. There have been offensive comments.

I think we need to be careful and understand the difference between hate speech, which is defined in the Criminal Code as something that would be reasonably expected to incite violence, and offensive speech—somebody who has an opinion that you don't agree with. I certainly find the extreme left opinions very offensive, but it is their right to express them and we've certainly seen violence on that side as well.

I know Mr. Julian loves to talk about the extreme right, but I would say the extreme right and the extreme left are demonstrating similar behaviours. As Canadians, we want people to express their opinions and views in a respectful way without violence.

I think there's value in this study, because I think something needs to be done to the legislation to take the threshold of hate speech from today, where nobody can really bring a suit on it, to an understanding of what commonly we agree shouldn't be said because it's harmful to communities or whatever. It's a lesser crime, if you will, but we still want to send the message that it shouldn't happen.

I think within this study there is the ability to do that. With the censorship that we've seen increasingly with bills like C-11, and even C-18, people are concerned about the censoring of their freedom of expression, thought, opinion and belief.

I support this motion.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

The motion that I wish to move and discuss.... I certainly recognize that we want to discuss Mr. Champoux's motion, and I'm not looking to block that in any way. I very much support his motion. I believe it's a common-sense one, and it's one that needs all our support, so my hope is that it can be passed very quickly today.

With that said, the motion that I would like to move today is:

That the committee immediately undertake 4 hearings on the government’s decision to force social media services and podcasts to register with the government’s Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), and that the committee hears from: the Minister of Canadian Heritage for 2 hours, the Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of the CRTC, the Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage and impacted stakeholders, including podcast hosts and other witnesses deemed relevant by the committee, and that the committee report to the House.

Madam Chair, the reason why this is so important is that, on Friday, there was this sneaky announcement made by the CRTC, the regulatory arm of the government, that podcasts would now be captured by Bill C-11. They would be required to register with the government, and then being registered with the government, they would, of course, have their content censored. It would be assessed based on a list of criteria determined by the government. If it meets that criteria, it will be allowed to stand. If it doesn't, of course, we expect the government to probably take it down.

This is a form of censorship. What's interesting to me is that in May, the CRTC said that it was not going to go after podcasts. It said that was a myth. Here we are only five months later, and we find out that actually, yes, the CRTC has every intention to regulate podcasts. That's a huge problem. It's a problem for Canadians who enjoy listening to podcasts and those who want choice in that realm.

The motion I'm moving today would be that we listen to those individuals, who are either creators who have podcasts or those Canadians who are consumers who enjoy listening to those podcasts, and that we take the time to hear those important voices.

The reason why this is so important is that, at the end of the day, Canadians deserve freedom to access the information that they wish to access and to be able to put out the information that they desire to put out. The Internet is the new public square. It's where the exchange of ideas takes place, so we want to make sure that sphere remains open and free, and encouraging of dialogue and even robust debate.

In order to make sure that is in fact the case, I think we need to hear from a wide swath of witnesses. I would ask that this committee undertake a study that is four meetings long and that we hear from those witnesses across Canada.

I recognize that one of the arguments I suppose one of my colleagues from across the way will likely bring up is that, no, they're not regulating individual podcasters; they're regulating the platforms. That might be true, although the wording the CRTC is using is quite convoluted. However, if you regulate the platforms, it's a distinction without a difference, because it's users and podcasters who ultimately put their material on those platforms, so if the platform is regulated, the platform is going to be forced to regulate the podcaster because they're going to have to abide by those regulations.

Again, I would say that the CRTC went back on its word. Therefore, the government went back on its word and is actually going after podcasters—those individuals who are bringing forward creative content for the sake of Canadians to be entertained, informed or other.

I think if the CRTC is going to go in this direction, the least we can do as a committee is to take the time to hear from individuals on how this is going to impact them.

Canadian Heritage

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals said Bill C-11 was not about censorship. They said it was simply about going after big tech giants and making them pay their fair share.

Sneaky new regulations were pushed through on Friday. However, people are paying attention, and Canadians are aware that, in fact, their voices are being censored with a podcast registry. Is that not innovative? When it comes to attacking freedom, the Liberal government cannot help itself. It is absolutely committed to censoring what we can see, what we can say and what we can hear online.

I am curious: Why is the government so hell-bent on censoring people's freedom of speech?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, our government is proud to support our creators all over the country. They are among the best in the world. They are sharing our Canadian stories, and it is really important that we keep on supporting them.

This is why we brought forward Bill C-11. Through this new bill, we are going to bring in new revenue so that we could better support our creators in Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the question, Ms. Hepfner.

Earlier, I briefly outlined the intent of the motion. The concept of freedom of expression is obviously not clear to everyone. With regard to the measures put in place during the pandemic, some people felt that their freedom of expression was being curtailed or that they were being censored. Those are comments that have been made.

We dealt with the broadcasting bill, Bill C‑10, which became Bill C‑11. It was passed in 2022. This bill also seriously challenged the concept of freedom of expression. People accuse the government, rightly or wrongly, of intending to curtail freedom of expression.

I think it must be clearly established that, when a bill is passed in the House of Commons, it must comply with the rule concerning respect for freedom of expression, as set out in paragraph 2(b) of the Charter—that's one of the intentions.

We need to have discussions about this. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is not only to ensure that people understand what we're doing here, but also to provide a framework for decisions that are sometimes made in a very questionable way. I'm thinking here of what has happened in the education sector in recent years. There has been censorship of works, which were often rather playful books, if we're talking about comic books, or works of a cultural nature, that might offend certain beliefs but were entirely faithful to others. We need to have this discussion, but we didn't have it while the debate was raging.

I think it's up to the committee to talk about this and to welcome people who have questions about the concept of freedom of expression. Some people may say they don't agree with certain criteria or definitions of what freedom of expression is—and that's what I'd like to see.

I think this is going to be a very relevant, very interesting and very constructive discussion. The perceptions of the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc and NDP are different. Everyone has a vision of what is acceptable and what is not. However, within what is acceptable and what is not, depending on a person's perception, there is a core that is the right to freedom of expression, which can take many forms. I think that's what's going to be interesting in the discussion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to MP Aldag and the senator.

Our committee has just been through an exercise that many of the legislators are going through in terms of trying to make sure we reflect digital progress. We had Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and you see the competition bill, the digital bill and everything else coming before the House.

In this description of “arts”, I think one of the things that might be missing is digital arts and things like animation. We talked about online creators and everything. Would you be open to an amendment that would add digital art so that we can make sure that it's good not just now but as we progress in the future?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here, back in the House. Today I will be speaking about Bill C-49, which is the act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

I have listened to the debate today, and a lot of times, members opposite have said they want to know what it is that the Conservatives do not like about the bill. Therefore, I am going to tell them what I do not like about the bill, and I am one of the Conservatives over here.

Let us start off with the name change to remove the word “petroleum” and change it over to “energy”. I am not opposed to “energy” at all, but words are important, and we have had an entire history of a war against oil and gas in this country from the NDP-Liberal government. Continually it has shut down projects. There were 18 LNG projects on the books when it came to office, and it shut them all down. It has shut down pipelines and shut down various expansions, so I think the removal of the word “petroleum” tells us where it thinks it wants to take this direction in the future.

We just heard the minister from Newfoundland talk about the importance of petroleum drilling projects there, so I am very concerned about the bill and the change to get away from petroleum, because Canada could be self-sufficient. We import $15 billion a year of dirty dictator oil, and the government seems fine to continue that. That is the wrong direction. We should be taking our environmentally sustainable oil and gas and making sure we are self-sufficient here in Canada. The whole eastern part of the country could use that.

That is the first problem I have with the bill.

The second thing about the bill is that it would award new powers to the regulators. Today we have people who are regulators in the petroleum drilling industry. Now, with a wave of the magic wand, they would be regulators of offshore renewable energy. This is another example of the Liberals expanding regulators' scope when they are not experts in that area. They did the exact same thing with the CRTC when we were talking about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and the CRTC has said clearly that it had no experience overseeing digital media, but the government made it the regulator of it. This is an opportunity for disaster.

I am not opposed to renewables. When I was a chemical engineer, I worked in renewables. I worked on solar projects, wind projects and even offshore Lake Erie wind projects, so I am a fan of transitioning and coming to better renewable energy, but let us learn the lessons from Ontario. All of those solar and wind projects were done in a hugely subsidized way that drove the cost of energy in the province of Ontario from eight cents a kilowatt hour to 23¢ a kilowatt hour and made us totally uncompetitive.

I am thus very interested in the details of this offshore renewable energy and what kind of subsidization the government is going to do, because if it does the same it did to batteries and puts $31 billion of taxpayer money into trying to attract people to build a facility, then the taxpayer is on the hook, and this is not an economically sustainable thing. It is another concern that I do not see that detail here in the bill.

The most concerning element of the bill is the addition of a new layer of decision-making and the granting of ultimate authority to federal and provincial ministers. It would increase the timeline for a final decision to 60 to 90 days from 30, with the possibility of an indefinite extension as the call for bids is issued.

I have an issue with letting federal ministers have the power to, first of all, issue land licences in a province. The province's jurisdiction has to be respected, and we have seen numerous occasions where the government wants to overreach into provincial jurisdiction, with the carbon tax, for example, and with many of the other health initiatives the government has had where it has wanted to reach into provincial jurisdiction. Clearly the provinces have pushed back, as they should. We need to make sure that, if ministers are being given these powers, there is some kind of limitation on those powers, because we know that we have already heard concerns about the bill with respect to indigenous consultations being given to the regulators.

The regulators would have the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples. That is an abdication of the responsibility of the federal government. I am not sure that the regulators actually have the resources to do adequate consultations, which could result in court cases and challenges that would further delay and cause uncertainty in projects as they move forward. That is a concern to me, absolutely.

The other thing that gives me great concern is that the bill would give the federal cabinet the authorization to end any operational petroleum drilling on a whim. We have just gotten through saying that the government is against oil and gas. It is trying to shut down fossil fuels. Now we would be giving cabinet the power, federally, to arbitrarily, on a whim, shut down petroleum projects that we have heard from the minister from Newfoundland are extremely important to the province. This would be without the province's permission and without adequate consultation necessarily.

This is an obviously bad idea. We can see where this is going. The first initiative of the government would be to shut down as much oil and gas as it can. That is what it has done in Alberta. I am from Sarnia—Lambton, which accounts for 30% of the petrochemicals. Believe me, when the minister came to Sarnia to hear the concerns of the people about getting a transition, we were not even mentioned in the plan in the go-forward. That tells us exactly how much the Liberals care about the oil and gas workers at risk in this whole equation.

The bill would also create a new licensing system for offshore drilling. There is language in the bill that says the government would impose a 25-year cap on licences. Any licences would be limited. After 2050, everything would be off. Why would we do that to ourselves as a country? We do not know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. We do not know whether or not there will be wars or a need for those resources. Why would we arbitrarily limit our licences and cut them all off at 2050, especially considering the expression of indigenous people to have economic growth and get involved in projects? If they have a licence, is their licence going to be pulled as well after 2050, arbitrarily?

We do not need to restrict ourselves in this way. It is concerning to me that this would be in the bill, because there is no need to do that. If it is decided in 2050 that the situation warrants fewer licences, that is the government of the day's decision. Again, it is very troubling to see what is in here.

Today, petroleum activities are subject to a fundamental decision by the existing review boards in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. A decision on approving or rejecting a project allows 30 days for provincial or federal ministers to respond, or the regulator's decision is accepted. However, for offshore renewable energy projects, under this new process, the regulator would give recommendations to the federal and provincial ministers. Ministers would have 60 days to respond, with a 30-day extension allowed if given in writing, and with, again, the possibility of an indefinite extension if they decide a call for bids is issued.

This is exactly, once over again, Bill C-69, in which the government took the approval process for projects and made it longer, and made it possible, at a minister's whim, to restart the process as many times as necessary to frustrate the private investors and drive them out of the country. This is what has happened with multiple projects: the LNG and the pipeline projects I have mentioned. More than $80 billion of foreign investment has been driven out of the country. The uncertainty of having to spend billions of dollars and wait six years to get a project approved keeps anybody from wanting to do a project in Canada unless the taxpayer is willing to give them $31 billion to do it.

This is not moving in the right direction. We need to be nimble when it comes to our decision, responsible but nimble. Again, I do not agree with the red tape regime that would hinder both traditional and alternative energy development in the bill. The broad, unilateral, discretionary cabinet power for arbitrary decision-making increases timelines and adds uncertainty around onerous requirements that are already driving away investment.

I want to read a quote from Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who talked about the lack of consultation with provinces. He said, “They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity”. The provinces are concerned that they are going to see infringements from the government and I think, based on what has happened before, that they are right to think that.

There was a project that was a renewables project. It was in New Brunswick. It was the first North America tidal power project deal, and the Trudeau Liberals killed it. Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative—