Speech on C-10

June 28th 2021

Colleagues, it’s truly unbelievable that we are actually “debating” the need to protect free speech in Canada.

What was supposed to be an update of the Broadcasting act and new rules for big tech has become something else entirely.

As the minister himself said…if you think bill 10 is controversial, wait until you see the next one, meaning bill C36. And we can now clearly see the government’s true intent with the introduction of this companion Bill.

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that members of the current Liberal cabinet quite openly embrace the idea of empowering the federal government to control social media.

Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna said that if social media companies “can’t regulate yourselves, governments will.”

And let me also note that Bills come into force and effect through regulations and in a draft order from Minister Guilbault in April, he stated that rules must be consistent with the “government’s vision….and represents the government’s broad intentions.”

The Minister also said that these regulations should target “the damaging effects of harmful content” that ridicules politicians or “diminish” public institutions.”

Seriously, criticizing politicians should not be allowed…should be censored?

These bills are an affront to what many of us believe to be democratic and Canadian values.

Bill 36 is dangerous. Bill 10 is badly flawed ….and both undermine free speech and impose censorship.

But let me now focus on Bill C10 and the many concerns raised by experts, academics, producers and internet users about what’s in the bill, what was taken out and what’s still missing.

First, let’s remember the process by which C-10 made it to the Senate. The tactics used in the other place to get this bill here before rising for the summer are both an insult to our parliamentary democracy and embarrassing for many.

Big tech lobbyists wanted Section 4.1 of Bill C-10 out. That is a core clause, clearly protecting individual users on social media from being considered online broadcasters and therefore regulated and possibly censored. But the government summarily removed the protection clause from their own bill, against the advice of even their own drafters.

When repeatedly asked to explain, the heritage minister said simply that it “wasn’t necessary.” Well, it is. If you are not explicitly exempted then you are implicitly included.

Of course, this was an alarm bell for experts and the public:  that the bill could give the CRTC the power to regulate free speech online. Even as these concerns were raised at committee and as public opinion soured, the government then invoked  closure – to shut down committee work on the bill –  something that hasn’t been done in 20 years.

  MP’s – even Liberals – overruled their own committee chair – in a mini coup – and introduced sweeping – and secret- amendments.

The Speaker of the House – quite rightly – declared all these secret amendments to be null and void.

You would think colleagues, this would be a message to the government to rethink their approach and re-draft the bill. No law should ‘accidentally’ risk silencing free speech.

And if a bill needs dozens of amendments just to appease an interest group or garner electoral support then it’s time to go back to the drawing board. We saw this same thing happen with Bill C-69.

Instead, the liberals reintroduced all of their secret amendments and forced a marathon session just to get their way.

This bill will not be finally dealt with until the fall given the timetable so there was no need for this shocking authoritarian display.

But here we are. So let’s look at what C-10 will do.

It says that the Canadian Broadcasting system should meet the needs of the Canadian public, with a focus on ethnic and language minority groups. It directs web giants to fund, invest in and produce Canadian content and media. And it grants the CRTC more powers of “oversight and regulation”. …I refer you back to the Ministers words…all this must be in line with the government’s vision of the world!!

The requirement for online services to promote ‘Canadian’ content through new ‘discoverability’ rules is a problem because Section 4.1 that explicitly protected user generated content…your tweets  or FB posts or uploads to YouTube is gone. The government argues that sections 2.1 and 2.2, which exempts some social media users from being considered online broadcasters is enough. I disagree.  You could drive a truck through these loopholes.

So let’s be clear, if this bill becomes law it will change what your internet content looks like, and no doubt how you choose to interact with it.

Sen. Dawson tried the old prop up then knock down the straw man trick, assuring us that the government does not want to censor or regulate cat videos or photos of your lunch.    But that is not the issue.

This is about who gets to decide what a ‘Canadian’ online broadcast undertaking is and it’s about what ‘Canadian’ online content means, and what type of content will, and won’t be pushed onto your screens…and by definition what content will be pushed so far down that it disappears….that is not just regulation, it is censorship.

Of course, there is no explicit language that says ‘free speech will be banned.’ They don’t have to say it. By requiring online platforms to promote “ the government’s vision” and CanCon through discoverability requirements, as directed in Section 2 (6) (r), they are determining which programs are Canadian and which are not.

 We are giving tech platforms and the CRTC the authority to decide what is and isn’t ‘Canadian.’ Some will pass the test, and some will not.

And so, who might not pass this test? Well, according to the Minister….perhaps  those posting content critical of the government of the day would be deemed ‘unCanadian?’

How about content that reveals tough or controversial truths about the country’s history. What happens to Canadians who regularly upload critical political content?

Again, in the minister’s own words….. the government  intends to introduce  several pieces of legislation that are designed – and I quote: to “support democracy and social cohesion in Canada by building citizen resilience against online disinformation and building partnerships to support a healthy information ecosystem.”

Translation: if you disagree with what qualifies as disinformation, then be very careful what you post!!!

You can see here why so many are saying this is an infringement on free speech.

And if Canada tries to impose these broadcasting requirements, we would be the only democratic country to do so. It will meet great resistance…And it serves to undermine our ability to claim the adjective “democratic.”

So, again, should we be granting the power to decide what is and isn’t Canadian to the CRTC or some new commission of appointees if or to big tech media companies themselves?

Our online media activity is already easy prey to the secretive, discriminatory and sometimes politically-biased algorithms of tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon – and they are not afraid to use their power to silence critics.

 We have seen this play out stateside.

And we have heard the threats here.

Indeed, C-10  and now Bill 36 have been cheered by proponents specifically for their powers to silence online voices with which they disagree.

I am reminded of the words of Noam Chomsky: “if we don’t believe in free expression for people or ideas we despise, then we don’t believe in it at all.”

So why doesn’t this bill make sure these algorithms are more transparent….?

And as Senator Simons pointed out last week,  “You cannot accurately regulate digital forms with analogue tools.”    I agree.

The Broadcasting Act needs to be, to use the buzzword  “reimagined” to reflect the reality of the internet.  

Domestically produced content shouldn’t need to be  unduly promoted or mandated on streaming platforms… if its good, people will seek it out and watch it. And they do!!

Wasn’t that the whole point of the internet in the first place – to be an open platform for ALL content?

 To give us choices? Any changes to the Broadcasting act should protect these freedoms for consumers, in line – of course – with the criminal code.

Colleagues, are we so insecure about our cultural identity that we need to forfeit our right to free expression and diversity of opinions in exchange for government defined Canadian content??

Let’s promote Canadian talent and creativity and Canadian success in international markets.

Shouldn’t we be modernizing the Broadcasting act to empower Canadian content creators, whether or not they produce Canadian content.

Imagine if we asked Canadian actors to star only in films shot on Canadian soil…or movies featuring only mounties, maple syrup or mountains!

 Shouldn’t we ask Canadians if they even want the internet to be regulated in this way?  I think it’s clear from what happened with C-10 what their answer is: a resounding no thank you.

Most young Canadian get their news and entertainment online. It’s even a career choice for some. Most people want to be free to choose what they watch, free to say what they want. 

And yes, let’s make big tech algorithms more transparent, not just more Canadian, whatever that might mean. And let’s not stifle free speech in the process.

And yes, there is a clear solution to the issue of Canadian cultural producers not getting their fair share of revenue from big tech- just tax them for it.

 Our colleague and CSG leader Scott Tannas used an old Western saying to describe what the Senate’s response is to the government’s disrespectful attitude toward this place:  “Your bad planning is not my emergency.”

Let’s do this right. Consult, seek some consensus and make changes that support creative Canadians….

 I ask the government to go back to the drawing board and present us with well-considered legislation. Then let us properly study  a better Bill C-10 and other related bills.

It is our job to employ sober second thought. However, the track record of the government accepting Senate amendments is poor.

We receive far too many bills that do not just need amendment, they need a re-think and a re-write before they ever come to us.

The bills must respect the charter, not leave it to the courts to do the heavy lifting that governments should do before they present legislation. Its lazy – but it also usurps our rights and responsibilities as parliamentarians.

The late Liberal MP and a former President of the Treasury Board Reg Alcock was perhaps the canary in the coal mine, warning that politicians are always wary of the internet’s impact.

“Information technology changes the balance of power,” he said. “It changes the balance of power in society and it changes the power balance in Ottawa, and Ottawa is all about power.”

Then he added: “….. what you can’t change you desperately try to control.”

That is what these bills are all about. Control.

 Please reconsider. It’s reckless.

 And think of the consequences when it is someone else’s turn in power…when those you don’t agree with are the ones making the judgment calls.

Thank you colleagues.