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.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

All of that is understood. However, in my opinion, adding something like that would not change the way the CRTC conducts its consultations. That said, I think that the discussions and even the CRTC's mandate, particularly in light of Bill C‑11, will help improve the process. I think this is how we will be able to accomplish what you want to do.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

The motion that I wish to move is as follows:

Given the amount of outstanding work at this committee, the committee instruct the chair to schedule five meetings between July 8 and September 13 to address reports that consumers may face higher prices after streaming giants are told to invest $200 million in Canadian film, TV and music, and the impact this will have, the minister’s outstanding appearance on anti-racism and other matters deemed relevant by the committee.

The reason I'm moving this motion is that this committee certainly has quite a few things on the docket that are outstanding. There's nothing that precludes us as individuals here at this committee from working over the summer. My suggestion is that we would then take on five meetings from July 8 to September 13.

Let me give some examples. Bill C-11, of course, threatens the choice and reasonable prices that Canadians have with regard to access to streaming. The slowness with which regulations are rolling out from the CRTC does need to be looked into. The impact that those regulations are going to have, not only on Canadians as consumers but also on stakeholders, is really important for this committee to better understand.

In addition to that, we have a motion that was brought forward by Ms. Ashton, asking for the minister to come concerning the anti-racism strategy. It was agreed to at this committee that we would try to do that as soon as possible. That is something that could be done over the summer.

Furthermore, the CBC CEO, Ms. Catherine Tait, was here earlier, about six weeks ago. She stated to us that the board for the CBC would be meeting this month, June, in order to determine the bonuses that would be given to executives. Of course, I think this committee has great interest in knowing what the final decision is concerning those bonuses. That decision, of course, will be made in June, and then they're supposed to be dished out in July. We would have the opportunity to bring her forward as the CEO for the CBC and to ask her questions with regard to that decision-making process, therefore allowing for transparency and accountability concerning the 1.4 billion taxpayer dollars that go towards the CBC every year.

These are just a few of the reasons it would be a good idea for us as a committee to meet over the summer. I am therefore moving this motion.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Great.

You are here, of course, as representatives of the CRTC. You're responsible for regulating radio, television and, under Bill C-11, the Internet. You've already stated that's a pretty big job.

There are, of course, many anxious players in the field who are looking for a definition of CanCon. It was defined in the 1970s. It's quite antiquated. It was created for radio and broadcast television. The players who need this definition are making business decisions day in and day out. They've been told to sit tight—that there are other regulatory decisions being made first.

When can they expect an updated definition of CanCon?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

What the bill says is simply to inform, to consult. In my opinion, this is not something that is very restrictive in terms of time.

That was a request from Quebec's minister of culture and communications, at the very end of the process surrounding the study of Bill C-11, which was nearly passed. Obviously, we all agreed that the Government of Quebec's approach came a little late.

In this case, the bill is trying to meet certain demands of the Government of Quebec, including this one, which seems very simple to me. The bill asks that Quebec be systematically informed and consulted when measures are being adopted or hearings are being held on a subject that concerns the province. I will give you two examples to show how the CRTC may sometimes need the Government of Quebec's help.

In 2005, the CKAC radio station closed. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion asking the CRTC not to allow the closure of CKAC, which was literally part of Quebec's radio heritage. Despite this, the CRTC decided to stand by its decision and allow the station to close.

There was also the issue of 911. At one point, there were no regulations requiring that 911 services be in French in Quebec. The Government of Quebec asked the CRTC to regulate the matter and to correct the situation, as it made no sense. However, the CRTC has not changed its regulations. It simply informed the telecommunications companies and asked them to adjust.

So there are some elements that justify a somewhat more sensitive consultation. I don't think that's too much to ask. We are not asking for all powers to be transferred to Quebec. We're not saying that the CRTC isn't doing its job properly. That's not the case at all, and I hope that's not the impression you're getting from me.

The purpose of the bill is as follows: When the CRTC is about to do something, we ask it to inform Quebec so that the province can prepare. The CRTC could ask Quebec to comment, to submit questions or to submit a brief so that it can study the issue. That does not mean that the CRTC will apply everything that Quebec has submitted to the commission. It means that the CRTC will inform Quebec of what it is about to do. Since Quebec will certainly have something to say about it, the CRTC will be there to listen. It's not really any more complicated than that.

That is why I am wondering about you saying that it represents an additional workload. As you said, in many cases, Quebec is already speaking out during hearings on issues concerning broadcasting, telecommunications and the CRTC, among others.

[Scott Shortliffe]

It really depends on what we're consulting on, to be honest. If it affects francophone interests and the interests of the Province of Quebec, we have a long record—I was looking at it before we came—of cases where they've intervened with us. It depends from year to year, and it depends on the subject.

I will say that certainly they've taken a great interest in how Bill C-11 will affect francophones and francophone production, not only in Quebec but across the country. We've seen them be more active, and we welcome that. We want to hear from all aspects of Canada, and we have a special interest in ensuring that French is supported.

[Sean Heather, Senior Vice-President, International Regulatory Affairs and Antitrust, U.S. Chamber of Commerce]

Madam Chair, on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to be here to provide testimony to the standing committee as it evaluates actions ahead of the CUSMA review.

The chamber has a long-standing commitment to the North American economic relationship. No organization in the United States has been a more vocal advocate for a strong and mutually beneficial partnership with Canada and Mexico. We are guided by principle, not politics. We defend and promote free enterprise, free markets, rules-based trade and investment, and the rule of law.

The trilateral relationship goes beyond the impact of our $1.7-trillion annual three-way trade to include significant direct investment ties and highly integrated value chains that support millions of jobs across all three countries. Our three countries have the potential to expand this important relationship and work together to meet shared challenges, such as the diversification of semiconductor production, energy security, energy transition, food security and critical minerals.

CUSMA is intended to facilitate closer economic co-operation and provide legal certainty for cross-border trade and investment. The chamber calls on each of the three governments to address implementation and compliance issues and uphold the spirit and letter of the agreement. In short, we each must keep our word.

For example, the chamber has called for the U.S. government to uphold the dispute settlement panel ruling on automotive rules of origin published back in January 2023. As we aim to make North America the most competitive global platform for vehicle production, the future of the continent's automotive industry depends on the certainty provided by this agreement. In addition, maintaining our competitive edge also means avoiding the expansion of U.S.-driven buy American policies. In short, we need to recognize that in North America, we make things together.

At the same time, we appreciate the opportunity to highlight areas that require Canada to fulfill its CUSMA commitments. Canada is advancing an ambitious digital agenda. We are concerned that Canada is looking to bolster its competitiveness at times by targeting U.S. businesses. Such policies not only erode Canada's culture of innovation and competitiveness, but also undermine Canada's commitment to maintaining open and fair business climates.

First, I'd like to flag our concern with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's decision to impose an initial based contribution of 5% on U.S. streaming services. This decision fails to recognize the investments made by American streaming services in Canada's creative sector. Indeed, Americans can hardly turn their televisions on without seeing programs created here in Canada.

Consequently, Americans find it ironic that Bill C-11 specifically targets U.S. companies in a manner that may violate Canada's international trading obligations, including those under CUSMA. This action appears to contravene commitments that guarantee a minimal standard of treatment, require equal treatment of foreigners and local enterprises, and obligate Canada to refrain from imposing certain performance requirements on foreign direct investment.

Second, we have a deep concern over the potential for Canada to reintroduce its unilateral digital services tax by implementing Bill C-59. The DST is set to introduce discriminatory measures against U.S. companies, violating Canada's obligations under CUSMA and the WTO and contradicting Canada's commitment to the G20 OECD process. Adding to our concern is the fact that Canada's proposed DST is two and potentially three years retroactive. We would note that the Office of the United States Trade Representative has investigated several measures substantially similar to those proposed by Canada—including a French DST, on which the Canada version is modelled—and found them to be unreasonable or discriminatory and burdensome or restrictive to U.S. commerce and thus actionable under U.S. trade law.

Last, we have serious concerns with the artificial intelligence and data act, which is part of Bill C-27, currently being studied by your colleagues in the House of Commons industry committee. In its current draft, the bill is overly broad and restrictive, capturing a potentially endless number of low-risk use cases that risk putting Canada out of step with the U.S. and other important trading partners on AI regulation. If it moves forward, we are concerned that it will have an adverse effect on Canada's competitiveness, hinder AI development, limit business exploration and ultimately affect productivity and economic growth. During our visit to Ottawa this week, we'll be hosting an AI policy dialogue precisely to discuss some of the challenges and opportunities related to AI.

At the chamber, we are focused on keeping the 2026 CUSMA review in perspective. While the three trading partners are sovereign states, no one has identified a compelling reason to undertake a wide-ranging renegotiation of this agreement. Primarily, this upcoming review is an opportunity to ensure implementation and compliance with the existing commitments. Having said that, Canadian policies such as Bill C-11, the proposed DST, and Canada's approach to AI all have the potential to complicate this review. Perceptions that Canada is violating CUSMA commitments will serve to increase pressure to criticize the agreement during the review process.

In closing, the chamber stands ready to work with our partners in Canada to continue to build a strong North American partnership. We thank you for this opportunity to share our views at this hearing and look forward to your questions.

Online Harms Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we must protect Canadians in the digital age, but Bill C-63 is not the way to do it. It would force Canadians to make unnecessary trade-offs between the guarantee of their security and their charter rights. Today I will explain why Bill C-63 is deeply flawed and why it would not protect Canadians' rights sufficiently. More importantly, I will present a comprehensive alternative plan that is more respectful of Canadians' charter rights and would provide immediate protections for Canadians facing online harms.

The core problem with Bill C-63 is how the government has changed and chosen to frame the myriad harms that occur in the digital space as homogenous and as capable of being solved with one approach or piece of legislation. In reality, harms that occur online are an incredibly heterogenous set of problems requiring a multitude of tailored solutions. It may sound like the former might be more difficult to achieve than the latter, but this is not the case. It is relatively easy to inventory the multitudes of problems that occur online and cause Canadians harm. From there, it should be easy to sort out how existing laws and regulatory processes that exist for the physical world could be extended to the digital world.

There are few, if any, examples of harms that are being caused in digital spaces that do not already have existing relatable laws or regulatory structures that could be extended or modified to cover them. Conversely, what the government has done for nearly a decade is try to create new, catch-all regulatory, bureaucratic and extrajudicial processes that would adapt to the needs of actors in the digital space instead of requiring them to adapt to our existing laws. All of these attempts have failed to become law, which is likely going to be the fate of Bill C-63.

This is a backward way of looking at things. It has caused nearly a decade of inaction on much-needed modernization of existing systems and has translated into law enforcement's not having the tools it needs to prevent crime, which in turn causes harm to Canadians. It has also led to a balkanization of laws and regulations across Canadian jurisdictions, a loss of investment due to the uncertainty, and a lack of coordination with the international community. Again, ultimately, it all harms Canadians.

Bill C-63 takes the same approach by listing only a few of the harms that happen in online spaces and creates a new, onerous and opaque extrajudicial bureaucracy, while creating deep problems for Canadian charter rights. For example, Bill C-63 would create a new “offence motivated by a hatred” provision that could see a life sentence applied to minor infractions under any act of Parliament, a parasitic provision that would be unchecked in the scope of the legislation. This means that words alone could lead to life imprisonment.

While the government has attempted to argue that this is not the case, saying that a serious underlying act would have to occur for the provision to apply, that is simply not how the bill is written. I ask colleagues to look at it. The bill seeks to amend section 320 of the Criminal Code, and reads, “Everyone who commits an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament...is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”

At the justice committee earlier this year, the minister stated:

...the new hate crime offence captures any existing offence if it was hate-motivated. That can run the gamut from a hate-motivated theft all the way to a hate-motivated attempted murder. The sentencing range entrenched in Bill C-63 was designed to mirror the existing...options for all of these potential underlying offences, from the most minor to the most serious offences on the books....

The minister continued, saying, “this does not mean that minor offences will suddenly receive...harsh sentences. However, sentencing judges are required to follow legal principles, and “hate-motivated murder will result in a life sentence. A minor infraction will...not result in it.”

In this statement, the minister admitted both that the new provision could be applied to any act of Parliament, as the bill states, and that the government would be relying upon the judiciary to ensure that maximum penalties were not levelled against a minor infraction. Parliament cannot afford the government to be this lazy, and by that I mean not spelling out exactly what it intends a life sentence to apply to in law, as opposed to handing a highly imperfect judiciary an overbroad law that could have extreme, negative consequences.

Similarly, a massive amount of concern from across the political spectrum has been raised regarding Bill C-63's introduction of a so-called hate crime peace bond, calling it a pre-crime provision for speech. This is highly problematic because it would explicitly extend the power to issue peace bonds to crimes of speech, which the bill does not adequately define, nor does it provide any assurance that it would meet a criminal standard for hate.

Equally as concerning is that Bill C-63 would create a new process for individuals and groups to complain to the Canadian Human Rights Commission that online speech directed at them is discriminatory. This process would be extrajudicial, not subject to the same evidentiary standards of a criminal court, and could take years to resolve. Findings would be based on a mere balance of probabilities rather than on the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The subjectivity of defining hate speech would undoubtedly lead to punishments for protected speech. The mere threat of human rights complaints would chill large amounts of protected speech, and the system would undoubtedly be deluged with a landslide of vexatious complaints. There certainly are no provisions in the bill to prevent any of this from happening.

Nearly a decade ago, even the Toronto Star, hardly a bastion of Conservative thought, wrote a scathing opinion piece opposing these types of provisions. The same principle should apply today. When the highly problematic components of the bill are overlaid upon the fact that we are presently living under a government that unlawfully invoked the Emergencies Act and that routinely gaslights Canadians who legitimately question efficacy or the morality of its policies as spreading misinformation, as the Minister of Justice did in his response to my question, saying that I had mis-characterized the bill, it is not a far leap to surmise that the new provision has great potential for abuse. That could be true for any political stripe that is in government.

The government's charter compliance statement, which is long and vague and has only recently been issued, should raise concerns for parliamentarians in this regard, as it relies on this statement: “The effects of the Bill on freedom expression are outweighed by the benefits of protecting members of vulnerable groups”. The government has already been found to have violated the Charter in the case of Bill C-69 for false presumptions on which one benefit outweighs others. I suspect this would be the same case for Bill C-63 should it become law, which I hope it does not.

I believe in the capacity of Canadians to express themselves within the bounds of protected speech and to maintain the rule of law within our vibrant pluralism. Regardless of political stripe, we must value freedom of speech and due process, because they are what prevents violent conflict. Speech already has clearly defined limitations under Canadian law. The provisions in Bill C-63 that I have just described are anathema to these principles. To be clear, Canadians should not be expected to have their right to protected speech chilled or limited in order to be safe online, which is what Bill C-63 would ask of them.

Bill C-63 would also create a new three-headed, yet-to-exist bureaucracy. It would leave much of the actual rules the bill describes to be created and enforced under undefined regulations by said bureaucracy at some much later date in the future. We cannot wait to take action in many circumstances. As one expert described it to me, it is like vaguely creating an outline and expecting bureaucrats, not elected legislators, to colour in the picture behind closed doors without any accountability to the Canadian public.

The government should have learned from the costs associated with failing when it attempted the same approach with Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, but alas, here we are. The new bureaucratic process would be slow, onerous and uncertain. If the government proceeds with it, it means Canadians would be left without protection, and innovators and investors would be left without the regulatory certainty needed to grow their businesses.

It would also be costly. I have asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer to conduct an analysis of the costs associated with the creation of the bureaucracy, and he has agreed to undertake the task. No parliamentarian should even consider supporting the bill without understanding the resources the government intends to allocate to the creation of the new digital safety commission, digital safety ombudsman and digital safety office, particularly since the findings in this week's damning NSICOP report starkly outlined the opportunity cost of the government failing to allocate much needed resources to the RCMP.

Said differently, if the government cannot fund and maintain the critical operations of the RCMP, which already has the mandate to enforce laws related to public safety, then Parliament should have grave, serious doubts about the efficacy of its setting up three new bureaucracies to address issues that could likely be managed by existing regulatory bodies like the CRTC or in the enforcement of the Criminal Code. Also, Canadians should have major qualms about creating new bureaucracies which would give power to well-funded and extremely powerful big tech companies to lobby and manipulate regulations to their benefit behind the scenes and outside the purview of Parliament.

This approach would not necessarily protect Canadians and may create artificial barriers to entry for new innovative industry players. The far better approach would be to adapt and extend long-existing laws and regulatory systems, properly resource their enforcement arms, and require big tech companies and other actors in the digital space to comply with these laws, not the other way around. This approach would provide Canadians with real protections, not what amounts to a new, ineffectual complaints department with a high negative opportunity cost to Canadians.

In no scenario should Parliament allow the government to entrench in legislation a power for social media companies to be arbiters of speech, which Bill C-63 risks doing. If the government wishes to further impose restrictions on Canadians' rights to speech, that should be a debate for Parliament to consider, not for regulators and tech giants to decide behind closed doors and with limited accountability to the public.

In short, this bill is completely flawed and should be abandoned, particularly given the minister's announcement this morning that he is unwilling to proceed with any sort of change to it in scope.

However, there is a better way. There is an alternative, which would be a more effective and more quickly implementable plan to protect Canadians' safety in the digital age. It would modernize existing laws and processes to align with digital advancements. It would protect speech not already limited in the Criminal Code, and would foster an environment for innovation and investment in digital technologies. It would propose adequately resourcing agencies with existing responsibilities for enforcing the law, not creating extrajudicial bureaucracies that would amount to a complaints department.

To begin, the RCMP and many law enforcement agencies across the country are under-resourced after certain flavours of politicians have given much more than a wink and a nod to the “defund the police” movement for over a decade. This trend must immediately be reversed. Well-resourced and well-respected law enforcement is critical to a free and just society.

Second, the government must also reform its watered-down bail policies, which allow repeat offenders to commit crimes over and over again. Criminals in the digital space will never face justice, no matter what laws are passed, if the Liberal government's catch-and-release policies are not reversed. I think of a woman in my city of Calgary who was murdered in broad daylight in front of an elementary school because her spouse was subject to the catch-and-release Liberal bail policy, in spite of his online harassment of her for a very long time.

Third, the government must actually enforce—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In fact, it has hardly any impact on the current consultation process. All it really does is demonstrate the CRTC's awareness of Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and its unique broadcasting system, which is different in many respects from broadcasting in the rest of Canada.

As I was saying earlier to our colleague Mr. Noormohamed, all it does is require the CRTC to send a little signal to Quebec to say that it's about to begin conducting a study on broadcasting and that Quebec will no doubt have something to say about it. The CRTC would then ask Quebec to comment on the issue.

It's an effort to avoid what happened with Bill C-11, when Quebec's expectations were only received when the bill had almost got to the royal assent stage. There was, quite rightly, considerable disappointment and frustration.

The Bloc Québécois simply wants to take the initiative to prevent a situation like that from recurring. Bill C‑354 therefore has no real impact on the CRTC's consultation process. In fact, I think it would even facilitate it.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to share my speaking time with my colleague Ms. Thomas.

Well done, Mr. Champoux, in consideration of the fact that in February 2023, when Bill C-11 was being studied, the Conservative Party, like the Bloc Québécois, had acknowledged the asymmetry of Quebec with respect to the other provinces and territories of Canada. We know something about how the Liberals feel about the situation today. All that's needed is a look at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, of which I am the vice-chair, where we have had to deal with some witnesses in a special way. One MP mentioned that Quebec ought to be bilingual and another said that French was not really on the decline in Quebec. I don't know where the Liberals want to go with this.

Now, Mr. Champoux, I'd like to know the intent behind this bill. There should, of course, be prior consultation in Quebec, to protect the distinctiveness of Quebec, which I often call “the Gaulish village”.

Why were the other provinces and territories included in the bill? Your argument is based on representations by the Quebec Minister of Culture and Communications, Mr. Lacombe, and two Liberal Quebec ministers, who said that it was important. A distinction needs to be made between the two parties, because they are not the same, at least to my knowledge.

I'd like to hear your comments on that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's an honour for me to speak to the members of the committee today about Bill C-354, which was sponsored in the House of Commons by my colleague the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, Mario Beaulieu.

As my colleague could not be here today, I'm happy to be able to speak on his behalf about our bill, which is very straightforward.

Subsection 12(1) under the heading “In relation to broadcasting” in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act, states: “The objects and powers of the Commission in relation to broadcasting are as set out in the Broadcasting Act”.

We propose the addition of a “Consultation” section and a new subsection 12(1.1):

Consultation (1.1) The Commission shall consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about the French-speaking markets in those provinces before furthering the objects and exercising the powers referred to in subsection (1) in respect of the aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that concern those matters.

This bill is not really very complicated. It constitutes a response to the express request submitted on February 4, 2023 by Quebec's Minister of Culture and Communications, Mathieu Lacombe, in a letter he had sent to Mr. Pablo Rodriguez, the then Minister of Canadian Heritage.

At the time, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage had completed its study of Bill C-11, whose purpose was to amend the Broadcasting Act. Following study in the Senate, the bill was referred back to the House to obtain approval for the final amendments proposed by the Senate.

The recommendations in the letter to Mr. Rodriguez included the Quebec minister's demand, or firm suggestion, that Quebec be consulted systematically when the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, was developing regulations and decisions that could have an impact on Quebec and francophone culture, and on the Quebec broadcasting system.

The Bloc Québécois is convinced that telecommunications and broadcasting are extremely important for the vitality of Quebec's culture. Broadcasting has a direct impact on our language and culture. Bill C-354 is a modest attempt at a minimal response to the expectations and concerns of Quebeckers with respect to the culture and management of their broadcasting ecosystem.

Quebec has always developed its own rules for the broadcasting sector and has always striven for more autonomy. I would like to take you back to 1929, when the premier of Quebec at the time was Louis‑Alexandre Taschereau, who adopted the first “law respecting broadcasting in this province”. That was the actual name of the act. Later, in the 1930s, the federal government followed his lead and adopted a broadcasting act, which led to the establishment of the CRTC as we know it today.

However, over the years, various successive Quebec governments—and they were certainly not all sovereignists—with several federalist Liberal governments among others, working towards more autonomy and more power for the Government of Quebec with respect to broadcasting. In 2008, Christine St‑Pierre and Benoît Pelletier, both Liberal ministers in the Quebec government, sent the following letter:

This letter is written to inform the federal government of Quebec's desire to begin talks, as soon as possible, with a view to concluding a Canada-Quebec agreement for the broadcasting and telecommunications sector and an agreement relating to culture. Considering the distinct culture of Quebec, the only French-speaking state in North America, we feel that concluding such an administrative agreement would make it possible to better reflect the specific characteristics of Quebec content in broadcasting and telecommunications, and would serve as recognition of the importance of protecting and promoting Quebec's specific culture.

CRTC decisions have an impact on francophone and Quebec culture. CRTC decisions have an impact on Quebec broadcasting, and we think that it is important for Quebec to automatically be consulted in advance by the CRTC when it is undertaking work on Quebec and francophone broadcasting and culture.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

During the entire study of Bill C‑11, it seems to me that for just about every witness from the cultural and broadcasting industries, the most urgent concern was for web giants to pay their fair share, to contribute to the broadcasting system and cultural industry for the content they use, and for them to produce content that meets the criteria.

That said, we’re nowhere near close to that. Currently, it’s not even being studied. Right now, the CRTC is studying the Indigenous broadcasting policy. I’m not setting the priorities. I know that for some it’s a priority, even an urgent one. However, it seems to me that the biggest priority should be to finalize the definition of Canadian audiovisual content. It was discussed at length around this table, as well as the issue of consultations on structural relationships.

In short, it seems to me that we’re currently studying a little chunk of business over here, a little chunk of business over there, and at the end of the day, we could have been more effective and more efficient in implementing the regulations. Meanwhile, the cultural industry and broadcasters are wondering when it’s all going to wrap up.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, Ms. Mondou, Mr. Ripley, good afternoon.

I’m going to talk to you about the Online Streaming Act, which flows from Bill C‑11. The committee worked on this bill, in good times and bad, for several months. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, is still trying to fine-tune its regulations regarding this legislation.

Are you closely following the CRTC’s work on the broadcasting regulations?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The comments about the CRTC being comparable, to me, are erroneous, because there is no body making a decision before that which then gets appealed to the CRTC. It's a single-issue commission making a decision. It's actually more relative to what we're proposing than what officials are proposing, but what's interesting.... I'm not surprised that the officials who drafted the bill are defending the bill.

For the two new members on the committee who, perhaps, didn't attend the 21 meetings with witnesses and the 10 meetings here.... We've now had six meetings over two clauses in which the Liberals have filled the air with two clauses.

I'll take my guidance from the current and former privacy commissioners on this issue. To help you, because you haven't heard the testimony, I'll read what they said. There was a bill that was essentially identical to this with regard to privacy and the tribunal in the last Parliament, called Bill C-11. The then-privacy commissioner, in his submission, said:

In our opinion, the design of the decision-making system proposed in the CPPA goes in the wrong direction. By adding an administrative appeals Tribunal and reserving the power to impose monetary penalties at that level, the CPPA encourages organizations to use the appeal process rather than seek common ground with the OPC when it is about to render an unfavorable decision. While the drafters of the legislation wanted to have informal resolution of cases, they removed an important persuasive tool...

That was about the last bill. To refresh your memory, this is what the Privacy Commissioner said in his testimony on this bill in meeting 90 on October 19, 2023:

Third, there remains the proposed addition of a new tribunal, which would become a fourth layer of review in the complaints process. As indicated in our submission to the committee, this would make the process longer....

Unlike MP Badawey, who thinks it would make it shorter, the Privacy Commissioner thinks it would make it longer and, by the way, more expensive. If you care about fairness and you care about the people, and you want it to be less expensive and quicker, I would rely on the Privacy Commissioner's testimony for fairness and people. He says this process will actually make it longer and more expensive.

Now, not to be outdone, I'll give you a little more from meeting 91, when the former privacy commissioner said:

The goal of these provisions should provide quick and effective remedies for citizens. In no other jurisdiction that I know of is there a tribunal such as that proposed in this legislation. In all other privacy jurisdictions, the original decision-maker, including with the power to make orders and set fines, is the data protection authority that is the equivalent of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

I hear concerns about the difficulty for the OPC to work with different roles.

We have an issue here with the government continuing to put the proposition out that, somehow, creating a privacy tribunal will speed it up, when that's not actually what the experts say. I would rely on the privacy commissioners.

I would also say that in the case of the Competition Tribunal, which is probably the most comparable to this, you have a Competition Bureau, which does an investigation, and a Competition Tribunal, which doesn't have to follow evidentiary rules and only has two minor things that you can appeal. It's almost, but not quite, a final decision-making process. It actually makes for a very long and very expensive process, and it has actually never rejected anything that's been done in a merger.

I'm just trying to help our new members understand that, if they believe this makes it faster, the testimony we heard from privacy commissioners, both provincial and federal, over 21 meetings of witnesses, says the opposite. That's all I wanted to say.

Opposition Motion—Federal Intrusions in the Exclusive Jurisdictions of Quebec and the Provinces

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with that idea. I heard those arguments when we were debating Bill C‑11, but I truly believe that there are advantages to having the provinces, the Quebec nation, first nations and every other group of Canadians work together to act as a counterbalance to this power south of the border that I am just as wary of as the member. It takes a counterbalance. If we are divided in 10, each with their own communications regulator, I think that will weaken us in the long term. Honestly, I very sincerely believe that.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank him for putting something into each sentence of his speech that would provoke questions or reactions from me and other members from the Bloc Québécois. I would need 15 minutes to ask all my questions and challenge my colleague on some of his claims, but I will try to be more constructive.

First, I would tell him that 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March want the federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions to be respected. Whether it is about health care or anything else, 82% say that everybody should mind their own business. That is clear.

I particularly liked the example my colleague gave about the success of centralization when he mentioned the CRTC. This example is of particular interest to me because, first of all, I worked closely with the government to improve the Broadcasting Act with Bill C-11, and because I am a strong supporter of culture, language and all that.

However, I was taken aback to hear the CRTC characterized as a centralization success story. Without the intervention of the Bloc Québécois, almost no protections for francophone culture and Quebec broadcasters would have been included in Bill C‑11, which the CRTC is currently looking at.

I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of the idea that the Bloc Québécois has been promoting for years: to create what would essentially be a Quebec version of the CRTC to manage more to benefit—