Bill C-11 a new bill with no new ideas, and a ‘legal pretzel’ for censorship: CPC

For the second time in the span of a year, the Liberal government has introduced a new bill to update Canada’s broadcasting act but “what it doesn't bring is new ideas,” according to one Conservative member of parliament. Ziad Aboultaif made the comments Monday at a House of Commons debate on Bill C-11 (also known as the Online Streaming Act) introduced last month, while the House of Commons Heritage committee held a simultaneous meeting on Canada’s cultural industry. Aboultaif argued that regulated programming made sense in the 1930s when broadcasters relied on the limited airwaves. “You and I both know that on the internet there is no relation to traditional broadcasting. There's no frequency limitation online,” he said. Aboultaif said the government has no understanding of the nature of broadcasting nor does it properly define the term in its bill. Broadcasting in Bill C-11 is defined as “any transmission of programs — regardless of whether the transmission is scheduled or on demand or whether the programs are encrypted or not — by radio waves or other means of telecommunication for reception by the public by means of broadcasting receiving apparatus, but does not include any such transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place.” The definition of broadcasting was also updated to include online undertakings which are meant to bring services like Netflix Inc., and Walt Disney Co.’s Disney+ – and certain types of content found on Alphabet Inc.‘s Youtube and Facebook – under the regulatory remit of the CRTC. “This definition is not about broadcasting, but instead it is about extending the reach of the government in an attempt to control the internet and free speech. It may be clogged in technical language and amended in ‘this paragraph here and that paragraph there’, but make no doubt that this is the intent – the limitations on the choices of Canadians,” Aboultaif said. At the Heritage committee meeting Conservative MP Rachael Thomas asked Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez to also clarify what the definition of “programs” meant in the bill, noting that any piece of digital content that has composition music has a grid code attached to it (such as a TikTok video). The MP raised concern that the bill would regulate user-generated content based on that criteria. “But still there's other criterias it's not only the code. It's one of the things that the CRTC will be looking at,” Rodriguez responded. Thomas retorted that those criteria – if the content is monetized, if the content exists on another non-social media platform such as Spotify AB, the radio, or television, and if it has a unique international standard code – are very subjective. It will be left up to the CRTC to determine to what extent those criteria are being considered, she said. “I'm wondering since you're placing such emphasis on the criteria, if you would be willing to change the legislation to make it very clear so that the waters are no longer muddied and the CRTC knows exactly how to apply those criteria,” Thomas asked. Rodriguez said the legislation is “quite clear” and “does the job,” pointing to Section 2.1 of the bill, which he said “clearly” exempts users. The bill defines a user as “a person who uses a social media service to upload programs for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service — and who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — does not, by the fact of that use, carry on a broadcasting undertaking for the purposes of this act.” During the House of Commons debate, Conservative MP Rick Perkins argued that Section 4.2 of the bill – which outlines the three criteria the CRTC should take into account when making regulation in respect to the act – gives the government a “legal pretzel'' to infringe on freedom of speech. “What the government giveth, the government takes away in Section 4.2 where the government can regulate an individual's internet content, if it generates any sort of revenue. Without knowing or seeing these regulations this is a broad power to censor the individual. The government is asking Canadians ‘don't worry, just trust us,'" Perkins said "Well, we don't trust this government." Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux responded that the bill is about protecting Canadian culture and not about freedom of speech. Lamoureux said that when listening to the Conservatives, "one gets the opinion that this is all about freedom of speech and that right wing reform concept that you don't need to have anything, you don't even need CBC,” he said. “You know we need to recognise that the government needs to step up to the plate to ensure, whether it's Canadian content or the art industry in Canada, that these are all very critical important aspects of our society.” Liberal MP Mark Gerretsen also accused the opposition of using the same criticisms of Bill C-10, the last update to the broadcasting act, and the language “of trying to suggest to Canadians that the Government of Canada sits behind a desk and decides what people can watch and what they can't watch.” – Reporting by Jenna Cocullo at jcocullo@thewirereport.ca and editing by Michael Lee-Murphy at mleemurphy@thewirereport.ca

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Bill C-11 a new bill with no new ideas, and a ‘legal pretzel’ for censorship: CPC

News | March 1, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Meta considers blocking Facebook news in Australia

CMPA accuses Corus of non-compliance, seeks appeal of regulatory relief

Streamers ‘disappointed’ in five per cent base contribution requirement

CRTC grants Corus, TVA CanCon relief; other BDUs must wait

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us