Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

DAN ALBAS -- The Liberal Government has removed a critical exemption to Bill C-10 that will create serious setbacks to our Charter protected right of free expression


 
I will begin this weeks report by sharing part of a conversation I once had with a now retired provincial cabinet minister.

The former Minister shared an observation that one of the challenges in government, when attempting to try and resolve a problem, is the need to be very careful to ensure that the proposed solution does not create more new, unanticipated problems.

I am reminded of this as the Liberal Government has tabled, and recently amended, Bill C-10: “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts”.

Few would dispute that in an age of increased digital steaming, and various online media platforms, that the Broadcasting Act and the oversight regulation with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is badly in need of updating. The challenge, as the now retired former cabinet minister would remind us, is how make these much-needed updates without inadvertently creating new problems?

Recently the Liberal Government removed a critical exemption to Bill C-10, that in my view, and the view of many other experts and stakeholders, will create serious setbacks to our Charter protected right of free expression.

When Bill C-10 was first proposed it exempted 'unique user generated content' from the bill. For example, if a Canadian created and posted their own video on YouTube, Facebook, Tik Tok or any other online social media platforms, their content was exempted by the changes proposed in Bill C-10. However, during clause by clause examination of Bill C-10 in the Industry, Science and Technology committee, the Liberals removed this exemption.

Removing this exemption means that the unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the CRTC could have the power to regulate, remove and censor what Canadians post to their own social media. This in turn can also limit what Canadians are able to see online in Canada.

Instead of Canadians having the choice, the choices could be limited based on a yet to be announced criteria set and enforced by the CRTC.

The Liberals so far defend this amendment stating that the intent is to limit the broadcast of unlicensed content online to protect copyright holders, who have lobbied for these changes. That ultimately is the problem with the Liberal approach in Bill C-10.

Rather than resolving the unlicensed content issue through copyright law, the government proposes to cut it off at the broadcasting level, allowing Canadian's content to be sacrificed in the process.

In a statement on the bill’s Charter compliance, justice officials argued that the original exemption, removed by the Liberals, alleviated potential concerns of breaching section 2 (b) of the Charter on free expression.

With the exemption's removal, many are speculating on what impacts this bill will have.

This approach by the Liberals, according to one of Canada’s foremost law professors, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa,  is a “shocking and likely unconstitutional speech regulation.”

Professor Michael Geist further notes:
We would never think of subjecting the content of the letters, emails or blog posts to CRTC regulation, yet Canadian Heritage Minister, Steven Guilbeault, and the Liberal government believe it is appropriate to regulate a new generation’s form of speech – TikTok videos, Instagram posts, Facebook feeds, and YouTube videos – as if they are the equivalent of broadcast programs.”

For the record I share the concerns of Professor Geist.

My question this week:
Do you support or oppose this amendment to Bill C-10?

I can be reached at:
Email: Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca
Toll Free: 1-800-665-8711

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

It seems the call for blood donors is being responded to, however ... “This effort is a marathon, not a sprint” says Canadian Blood Services

A week and a half ago I wrote the commentary ... “ While the national inventory is currently strong, an increase in blood donor cancellations is a warning sign of potential challenges to maintaining a health inventory of blood ” It was written as a result of talk about a potential blood shortage that would occur if people stopped donating due to the COVID-19 virus. It seems the call to Canadians was responded to, however, as I was told this afternoon ... “ T his effort is a marathon, not a sprint ”. As it now stands now, donors are able to attend clinics which are held in Vancouver (2), Victoria, Surrey, and in Kelowna, so I asked if there any plans to re-establish traveling clinics to others communities - for example in Kamloops, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Revelstoke or Cranbrook, and perhaps further north at perhaps Ft. St. John? According to Communications Lead Regional Public Affairs Specialist Marcelo Dominguez, Canadian Blood Services is still on

FEDLSTED -- Rules will have to relax-- the question is how and when

The media has created a fervour over the mathematical models that allegedly help governments predict the future of Coronavirus infections in the general population. Mathematical modelling has limited use and value. We need to understand is that the data available on Coronavirus (COVID-19) infections in Canada is far too small for statistical reliability. The data available for the whole world is useless due to variables in how nations responded to Coronavirus infections. There is no commonality in steps taken to combat virus spread and no similarity in the age demographics of world nations, so the numbers you see on the daily tracking of world infections are not useful in developing a model of infection rates that can be relied on. Mathematical models of the future spread of Coronavirus are better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.  Mathematical models must include assumptions on virus spreads, and various factors involved. As they are used in projections, a small erro

AARON GUNN -- He is, at his core, an ideologue, meaning the facts of any particular issue don’t actually matter

Ben Isitt - City Councillor and Regional Director Victoria City Council and its resident-genius Ben Isitt is back with another dumb idea. Introducing a motion to ban the horse-drawn carriages that have coloured Victoria’s downtown streets for decades, calling them “an outdated mode of transportation”. Are you serious?   No one is actually commuting by horse and carriage. They are here for tourists and residents alike to interact with world-class animals and discover the magic and history of our provincial capital. It’s part of what gives Victoria its charm. And the truth is these horses are treated better than anywhere else in the world. They probably live better lives than many British Columbians.   And talk to anyone who works with these horses and they’ll all tell you the exact same thing: this is what the horses love to do. This is what they were bred for and trained for. This is what gives their lives purpose and meaning. But maybe we shouldn’t be su

Labels

Show more