The most dangerous Canadian internet bill you've never heard of

The Most Dangerous Canadian Internet Bill You’ve Never Heard Of Is a Step Closer to Becoming Law | Michael Geist:

December 14, 2023 - "After years of battles over Bills C-11 and C-18, few Canadians will have the appetite for yet another troubling Internet bill. But given a bill that envisions government-backed censorship, mandates age verification to use search engines or social media sites, and creates a framework for court-ordered website blocking, there is a need to pay attention. Bill S-210, or the Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act, was passed by the Senate in April after Senators were reluctant to reject a bill framed as protecting children from online harm. The same scenario appears to be playing out in the House of Commons, where yesterday a majority of the House voted for the bill at second reading, sending it to the Public Safety committee for review. 

"The bill, which is the brainchild of Senator Julie Miville-Duchêne, is not a government bill. In fact, government ministers voted against it. Instead, the bill is backed by the Conservatives, Bloc and NDP with a smattering of votes from backbench Liberal MPs. Canadians can be forgiven for being confused that after months of championing Internet freedoms, raising fears of censorship, and expressing concern about CRTC overregulation of the Internet, Conservative MPs were quick to call out those who opposed the bill (the House sponsor is Conservative MP Karen Vecchio).... 

"I should preface criticism of the bill by making it clear that underage access to inappropriate content is indeed a legitimate concern.... However, Bill S-210 goes well beyond personal choices to limit underage access to sexually explicit material on Canadian sites. Instead, it envisions government-enforced global website liability for failure to block underage access, backed by website blocking and mandated age verification systems that are likely to include face recognition technologies. The government establishes this regulatory framework and is likely to task the CRTC with providing the necessary administration. While there are surely good intentions with the bill, the risks and potential harms it poses are significant....

"Bill S-210 ... creates an offence for any organization making available sexually explicit material to anyone under the age of 18 for commercial purposes. The penalty for doing so is $250,000 for the first offence and up to $500,000 for any subsequent offences.... The enforcement of the bill is left to the designated regulatory agency, which can issue notifications of violations to websites and ... the steps the agency wants followed to bring the site into compliance. This literally means the government via its regulatory agency will dictate to sites how they must interact with users.... If the site fails to act as instructed within 20 days, the regulator can apply for a court order mandating that Canadian ISPs block the site from their subscribers. The regulator would be required to identify which ISPs are subject to the blocking order. The website blocking provisions are focused on limiting user access and can therefore be applied to websites anywhere in the world with Canadian ISPs required to ensure that the sites are rendered inaccessible.... 

"The bill not only envisions the possibility of blocking lawful content or limiting access to those over 18, it expressly permits it. Section 9(5) states that if the court determines that an order is needed, it may have the effect of preventing access to 'material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization' or limiting access to anyone, not just young people. This raises the prospect of full censorship of lawful content under court order based on notices from a government agency. 

"If that isn’t bad enough, there are two additional serious concerns. First, the bill is not limited to pornography sites. Rather, it applies to any site or service that makes sexually explicit materials available. This would presumably include search engines, social media sites such as Twitter, or chat forums such as Reddit, where access to explicit material is not hard to find. If the bill was limited solely to sites whose primary purpose is the commercial distribution of sexually explicit material, it might be more defensible. As it stands now, the overbroad approach leaves this bill vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

"Second, consider the way sites are supposed to comply with the law, by establishing age verification systems. This effectively means that sites will require their users to register with commercial age verification systems in order to run a search or access some tweets. And the age verification systems raise real privacy concerns, including mandated face recognition as part of the verification process."

"Senate private members bills rarely become law, but this bill is suddenly on the radar screen in a big way. The bill should not have come this far and should not be supported. Creating safeguards for underage access to inappropriate content is a laudable goal, but not at the cost of government-backed censorship, mandated face recognition, and age-approval requirements to use some of the most popular sites and services in the world."

Read more: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/the-most-dangerous-canadian-internet-bill-youve-never-heard-of-is-a-step-closer-to-becoming-law/

The End Of Online Privacy In Canada? A Lawyer Explains Bill S-210 | Runkle Of The Bailey | December 14, 2023:

CRTC kicks open door to podcasting regulation

The CRTC said it would leave podcasts alone. Turns out that was a myth: Peter Menzies in the Hub | McDonald-Laurier Institute | Peter Menzies:

October 4, 2023 - "The CRTC [Canadian Radio-Television Commission] has backtracked on its promise to leave podcasts alone. On May 12, the federal regulator stated in its 'Myths and Facts' release that concerns it would regulate content such as podcasts were a 'myth' and the 'fact' of the matter was that 'a person who creates audio or video content or creates a podcast, is not a broadcaster under' the Online Streaming Act (Bill C-11). That 'fact' didn’t live long. It expired September 29 when, in its first decisions since being granted authority over the internet, the CRTC changed lanes.

"While it was careful to state that podcasters themselves don’t have to register with the Commission, the web-based platforms that make podcasts available must do so. Indeed, podcasters may not be broadcasters, but very much as predicted by the legislation’s critics, the CRTC has found ways to bring them into scope anyway. It decided that podcasts constitute 'programs under the Broadcasting Act, given that they are comprised of sounds intended to inform, enlighten or entertain.'

"The regulator’s decision further explains that while podcasters may not be broadcasters, the transmission of podcasts over the internet most definitely 'constitutes broadcasting' which makes those entities that platform podcasts into cable companies. So while the CRTC concedes that while 'the Broadcasting Act does not give the Commission a mandate to regulate creators of programs' it nevertheless makes clear that its powers do cover 'those services that are involved in the broadcasting of programs, which are referred to as broadcasting undertakings'....?

"The legal contortions continue throughout the decision, but the clear takeaway, the bottom line, is that, while it keeps insisting it doesn’t intend to regulate the content of podcasts, it is very concerned about the content of podcasts and if it can’t legally regulate them, it’ll make sure someone else does it for them. Paragraph 223 of its decision makes it clear the CRTC is about to draw podcasts into its warm embrace.

Without information about online undertakings that transmit or retransmit podcasts, it would be more difficult for the Commission to ensure the achievement of the objectives of … the Broadcasting Act, which relate to, among other things, providing a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and (that) the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of all ages, interests and tastes.

"In other words, what the CRTC denounced as 'myth' in the spring has become a 'fact' in the fall. It has kicked open the door to the regulation of online content, if not directly then by proxy through the platforms that deliver the work of podcasters to their audiences....

"Here’s what will follow. The list of intervenors presenting at the CRTC’s public hearing coming up in late November indicates the panel of commissioners will hear from a number of groups that will explain the extent to which they are under-represented and funded. So, a possible outcome of this will be that services that carry podcasts will have to fund podcasters who, on their own, haven’t been able to find an audience. Just as likely is that platforms will be regulated to ensure podcasts designated by the CRTC are given priority visibility/discoverability online over undesignated podcasts through the manipulation of algorithms. These are likely to be podcasts by Indigenous, BIPOC and LGBTQ2S creators....

"The CRTC has now confirmed what it denied mere months ago when it was parroting then-Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez’s talking points. It will make sure podcasts and any other internet content it can capture is regulated."

Peter Menzies is a Senior Fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a former newspaper executive, and past vice chair of the CRTC.

Read more: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/crtc-said-it-would-leave-podcasts-alone/

Yes, the CRTC is regulating online content | True North | The Andrew Lawton Show | October 3, 2023:

Liberals reject Bill C-11 user content protection

Canada's Senate has passed Bill C-11, which allows the CRTC to regulate internet platforms, but with an amendment that would protect user-generated content from regulation. However, the Liberal government has rejected that amendment. 

Government Rejection of Key Senate Bill C-11 Amendment Reveals Its True Intent: Retain Power to Regulate User Content | Michael Geist blog: 

March 8, 2023 - "For more than a year, Canadian Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez has clung to the Bill C-11 mantra of 'platforms in, users out'. When presented with clear evidence from thousands of digital creators, the former chair of the CRTC, and numerous experts that that wasn’t true, the Senate passed compromise language to ensure that platforms such as Youtube would be caught by the legislation consistent with the government’s stated objective, but that user content would not. 

"Last night, Rodriguez rejected the compromise amendment, turning his back on digital creators and a Senate process lauded as one of the most comprehensive ever. In doing so, he has left no doubt about the government’s true intent with Bill C-11: retain power and flexibility to regulate user content.

"While the decision does not come as a total shock – Rodriguez suggested last month that he would reject any substantive amendments – it still stings. The Senate amendment crafted by Trudeau-appointed Senators Simons and Miville-Duchêne took the government at its word that their objective was to ensure sound recordings on services such as Youtube were caught by the bill. Their amendment did that, while scoping out user content on sites such as TikTok.... 

"The government’s official response to the Senate amendments, posted as a motion that will be voted on by the House before heading back again to the Senate, accepted some amendments, rejected others (notably new age verification requirements), and even amended some amendments. But on the issue of user content regulation, Rodriguez offered a flat rejection of an amendment narrowly tailored to meet his stated objectives:

respectfully disagrees with amendment 3 because this would affect the Governor in Council’s ability to publicly consult on, and issue, a policy direction to the CRTC to appropriately scope the regulation of social media services with respect to their distribution of commercial programs, as well as prevent the broadcasting system from adapting to technological changes over time;

"The rationale behind the rejection finally removes any pretense of the government’s true Bill C-11 intent. Rather than citing misleading lobbying claims opposed to the change, it calls it like it is: the government wants the power to direct the CRTC on user content today and the power to exert further regulation tomorrow. Regulatory power over user content today is confirmed by a bill that covers user TikToks, many Youtube videos, podcasts, and other content and future regulation is plainly framed as 'adapting to technological changes'.

"While the government may seek to provide assurances that it will issue a policy direction that addresses some of these concerns, that is neither strictly binding on the CRTC nor a substitute for providing legislative certainty that user content regulation falls outside of the bill. 

"There are still several steps left for the bill including a House vote that will likely make the NDP and Bloc complicit in making Canada the only country in the democratic world to engage in this form of user content regulation and a return to the Senate for a final review. But regardless of the upcoming legislative steps, the government has left no doubt about its position. On its way to rejecting the concerns of thousands of Canadian creators and dismissing the fears of authors such as Margaret Atwood and Senator David Adams Richards, its real mantra is platforms are in and user content regulation is in."

Read more: https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/03/government-response-to-senate-bill-c-11-amendments-reveals-its-true-intent-retain-power-and-flexibility-to-regulate-user-content/

Anthony Furey, "Bill C-11 is closer to becoming law — here’s what’s at stake," True North, February 5, 2023:

Canadian gov't moves to regulate online content

 'Full-blown assault' on free expression: Inside the comprehensive Liberal bill to regulate the internet |National Post - Tristin Hopper:

April 29, 2021 - "After more than 25 years of Canadian governments pursuing a hands-off approach to the online world, the government of Justin Trudeau is now pushing Bill C-10, a law that would see Canadians subjected to the most regulated internet in the free world. 

"Although pitched as a way to expand Canadian content provisions to the online sphere, the powers of Bill C-10 have expanded considerably in committee, including a provision introduced last week that could conceivably allow the federal government to order the deletion of any Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or Twitter upload made by a Canadian. In comments this week, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh indicated his party was open to providing the votes needed to pass C-10, seeing the bill as a means to combat online hate....

"Former CRTC commissioner Peter Menzies said in an interview that Bill C-10 'doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy'....

"The draft text of Bill C-10 specifically included a clause exempting social media. While the government was looking to regulate the internet, it didn’t want to bother with anything 'uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service.' Indeed, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has repeatedly framed C-10 as a way to regulate streaming services such as Netflix and Crave while leaving social media alone.... 

"But in a House of Commons Heritage committee meeting Friday the social media clause was deleted.... What the deletion means is that every single Canadian who posts to Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter or YouTube could be treated like a broadcaster subject to CRTC oversight and sanction. The users themselves may not necessarily be subject to direct CRTC regulation, but social media providers would have to answer to every post on their platforms as if it were a TV show or radio program....

"When he introduced Bill C-10 in November, Guilbeault assured the House of Commons that 'user-generated content, news content and video games' would not be subject to the new regulations. Guilbeault’s 180-degree turn on social media ... [means that] if your Canadian website isn’t a text-only GeoCities blog from 1996, Bill C-10 thinks it’s a program deserving of CRTC regulation. This covers news sites, podcasts, blogs, the websites of political parties or activist groups and even foreign websites that might be seen in Canada. In a Monday meeting of the Canadian Heritage committee, smartphone apps were also thrown under the Bill C-10 rubric, although the complete text has not been released to the public.

"Passage of Bill C-10 would not subject Canadian content creators to a top-down China-style censorship regime.... But the ultimate effect of C-10 would be to plunge whole realms of independent media — from YouTubers to podcasters to bloggers — into an environment where they could face both a requirement for government registration as well as any number of CRTC content strictures drawn up without the need for additional legislation or oversight. As the bill’s official FAQ states, only after it becomes law will the CRTC decide 'how it should implement the new powers afforded by the Bill.'

"Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa professor and the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, has been among one of the most persistent critics of Bill C-10, calling it 'dangerous,' and 'inexcusable.' In a February blog post, Geist noted that aside from C-10’s infringements on free expression, it could spark blowback.... Geist cites the experience of Facebook in Australia.... [After]  Australia passed legislation requiring the social media giant to compensate news companies whenever a link was shared on its platform ... Facebook simply banned the sharing of news content by Australian users, restoring it only after Australian legislation was amended.

"The penalties prescribed by Bill C-10 are substantial. For corporations, a first offence can yield penalties of up to $10 million, while subsequent offences could be up to $15 million apiece. If TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are suddenly put in a situation where their millions of users must follow the same rules as a Canadian cable channel or radio station, it’s not unreasonable to assume they may just follow Facebook’s example and take the nuclear option." 

Read more: https://nationalpost.com/news/full-blown-assault-on-free-expression-inside-the-comprehensive-liberal-bill-to-regulate-the-internet

Canada's CRTC wants a 'not a tax' on internet

 CRTC Wants to Tax Internet Users to Subsidize Content Creators | Frontier Centre For Public Policy:

November 17, 2018 - "Ian Scott, chair of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), told a conference of international regulators last month that he wants to add a one per cent surcharge on stand-alone Internet subscriptions and have the money go to those who create Canadian programming. Claiming it’s 'not a tax,' he insists that Internet service providers benefit from the nation’s beloved Canadian content and therefore should contribute to the cost of its creation.

"Noting that the average monthly Internet bill in the country is a mere $46 a month (yes, who knew?), he told the Financial Post: 'Is 46 cents worth it per month in order to support the future of viable Canadian programming? The answer is yes.'

"Actually, the answer is no.... What does and doesn’t stream over the Internet is none of the CRTC’s business. Its job should be upholding and not violating the principle of net neutrality that insists upon regulators and providers remaining agnostic regarding its content. This, and not taxing it based on its content, is what should be enshrined in any new legislation.

"The Federal Court of Canada has already determined that the Internet doesn’t constitute broadcasting. The fact that carrying video is among its numerous utilities doesn’t make it television any more than carrying audio makes it radio or disseminating the printed word makes it a newspaper or posting images of art makes it a gallery. It’s the Internet – an actual thing that money-grubbers incapable of weaning themselves from the succour structures of the 1980s need to keep their lips off.

"Then of course there’s the fact that the entire world has changed due to the current technological revolution.... The Internet has disrupted everything. Entire businesses and companies (think Blockbuster) have disappeared. Others such as newspapers that were once robust and healthy are now emaciated waifs as their revenue streams have been swept away. So why not another 'not a tax' for them?

"Yes and one to help those bankrupt video store operators.... And another over here for my friends in the travel agency business. Oh, and one for that fella over there? Yeah – the musician who can’t make money selling music anymore and has to hit the road constantly. How about funds for everyone – each supported by just a teeny weeny 'not a tax' – who has had their business model disrupted by the Internet?

"Apart from music, the CRTC is unlikely to get involved in most of these areas – although others will certainly be tempted. That it’s going down this road at all, however, and at a time of robust investment in Canadian film and television, displays an unseemly willingness to kowtow to the creative lobby."

Read more: https://fcpp.org/2018/11/17/crtc-wants-to-tax-internet-users-to-subsidize-content-creators/
'via Blog this'