On-again-off-again Canada-US trade war off again

The on-again-off-again trade war between Canada and the USA is off again, for the next 30 days. The new peace agreement in a nutshell: Trudeau agreed to do what he has already announced he would do at some point, while Trump agreed to give him a 30-day deadline to do it. 

Trump gives Canada a 30-day pause on 25% tariff threat | Western Standard | Jen Hodgson:

February 3 - In a last-minute deal, Trump has dropped his proposed tariffs on Canadian goods, and Justin Trudeau has dropped his retaliatory tariffs on American products - for 30 days. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apparently had a positive call this afternoon — which culminated in a one-month delay on Trump’s tariff threat. Trump has vowed to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods due to weak border security.... 

"Monday night, ... Trudeau ... posted an announcement to social media outlining Canada’s $1.3 billion border plan.... '"Proposed tariffs will be paused for at least 30 days while we work together,' wrote Trudeau."
Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/breaking-trump-gives-canada-a-30-day-pause-on-25-tariff-threat/61853

Trump tariffs on Canada ‘paused’ for 30 days after border commitments | Global News | Sean Boynton:

February 3, 2025 - "Trudeau added Canada will invest another $200 million to back 'a new intelligence directive on organized crime and fentanyl,' appoint a 'fentanyl czar,' list drug cartels as terrorist organizations, and launch a new Canada-U.S. joint strike force to combat fentanyl, organized crime and money laundering.... 

The deal Trudeau announced ... also includes several border security measures the federal government has already committed to, and that Canadian officials have spent weeks detailing to Trump administration officials and U.S. lawmakers in Washington.... Both Canada and Mexico agreed to deploy roughly 10,000 additional personnel to their respective borders with the U.S. as part of the deals that suspended Trump’s tariffs. Trudeau said Canada’s personnel 'are and will be' in place."
Read more: https://globalnews.ca/news/10995552/tariffs-trudeau-trump-call-canada-us/

Musk Starlink deal with Ontario government back on hours after threat to rip it up | Global News | Aaron D'Andrea & Isaac Callan:  

February 3, 2025 - Ontario Progressive Conservative Party Leader Doug Ford has put his short-lived promise to cancel a $100 million contract with Elon Musk’s Starlink on ice after U.S. President Donald Trump suspended his tariff threat. In a Monday morning statement, Ford had said the Ontario government would be “ripping up” a contract signed to provide high-speed internet to northern and rural communities.... Late on Monday, however, cancelling the Starlink deal was paused....

"Ford’s team said Ontario’s retaliatory measures would also be rolled back.... American alcohol will also no longer be removed from the shelves of Ontario’s liquor stores. The Starlink contract would still be cancelled, and booze removed, if tariffs do come into effect, according to the PCs."
Read more: https://globalnews.ca/news/10995669/doug-ford-elon-musk-starlink/

Online Harms bureaucracy to cost >$200 Million

Canada's Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that staffing the bureaucracy needed to enforce the Trudeau government's Online Harms Act will cost $200 Million over 5 years, a number that can be expected to increase. 

PBO says Liberals’ 'online harms’ act to cost $200 million; Poilievre vows to kill it | Western Standard | Shaun Polczer: 

July 4, 2024 - "An 'opportunity cost.' That’s how Calgary Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel Garner is describing the Trudeau government’s “Online Harms Act” — otherwise known as Bill C-63 — to regulate social media platforms. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) it will cost upwards of $200 million to impose what Rempel Garner is calling a 'censorship bureaucracy' to hire 330 people to enforce “yet-to-be defined” regulations regarding the use and management of social media platforms. 

"The bill would establish three separate entities: 

1. the Digital Safety Commission, which is mandated to enforce the act and has the power to issue monetary penalties and fines; 
2. the Digital Safety Ombudsperson; 
3. and the Digital Safety Office, which would manage the day-to-day operations of all three.

"Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre on Thursday vowed to kill all three on arrival.

"The bill was ostensibly passed to prevent online harassment, persecution and stalking of vulnerable people in society. But Rempel Garner worries it’s morphed into a law focussed on 'banning opinions that contradict Justin Trudeau’s radical ideology'.... Canadian author Margaret Atwood called the bill 'Orwellian.' Noted American progressive news outlet The Atlantic called it 'Canada’s Extremist Attack on Free Speech.'

In her substack page, Rempel Garner noted 'the mind-blowing cost of the bill could grow.' That’s because C-63 doesn’t directly set out any structure that would allow for the recoupment of administrative expenses.... Worse still, the figures included in the PBO report would be in addition to a still-to-be-costed increase to the workload of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), which, under the scope of bill, would be tasked with policing a flood of extra-judicial 'prosecutions' over individual user social media posts.... 

“'It's unconscionable that the Liberal government would consider dumping $200M and over 300 new staff into an ill-defined new bureaucracy that does little to materially protect Canadians from online harassment when Canada's existing law enforcement officials are begging for support to deal with the crime waves sweeping across our nation,' Rempel Garner said....

"The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is [also] criticizing the bill. 'Today’s PBO report shows the online harms bill will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions and further balloon an already bloated bureaucracy,' said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director.... For the cost of the online harms bill, the government could instead pay the salary of about 375 new police officers, according to the RCMP’s website. Instead of hiring hundreds of bureaucrats to snoop around social media, the government could hire hundreds of police officers to actually go after criminals,” Terrazzano said."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/canadian/pbo-says-liberals-online-harms-act-to-cost-200-million/55784 

Liberals to spend $200 million on online censorship office | True North | July 4, 2024:
(Story begins at 6:40)

$42 Billion U.S. broadband program has connected no one to Internet

Three years after Congress authorized $42 billion for Joe Biden's plan to give every American access to high-speed broadband internet, not one American has been connected under the plan. 

Why Has Joe Biden's $42 Billion Broadband Program Not Connected One Single Household? | Reason | Joe Lancaster: 

June 27, 2024 - "One of President Joe Biden's pledges upon entering office in 2021 was to expand Americans' access to high-speed broadband internet.... Contained within the 2021 infrastructure bill, the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program authorized more than $42 billion in grants, to 'connect everyone in America to reliable, affordable high-speed internet by the end of the decade'.... Brendan Carr, the senior Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), wrote in a post on X .. this month [that] 'Years later, it has not connected even 1 person with those funds'.... 

"BEAD is administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the Department of Commerce. NTIA Administrator Alan Davidson told lawmakers in May, 'with BEAD, this is really a 2025, 2026, shovels in the ground project'....

"In an April 2023 letter to Davidson, 11 Republican U.S. senators warned that 'NTIA's bureaucratic red tape and far-left mandates undermine Congress' intent and would discourage participation from broadband providers while increasing the overall cost of building out broadband networks.' Among several examples, the senators noted that NTIA's BEAD proposal 'requires subgrantees to prioritize certain segments of the workforce, such as "individuals with past criminal records" and "justice-impacted […] participants."' The infrastructure law that authorized the program merely required contractors to be 'in compliance with Federal labor and employment laws.'

"The previous year, in a letter to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, Republican senators warned that the NTIA's proposed BEAD rollout 'creates a complex, nine-step, "iterative" structure and review process that is likely to mire State broadband offices in excessive bureaucracy and delay connecting unserved and underserved Americans as quickly as possible.' In practice, this is exactly what's happening: 

"Multiple representatives from the telecommunications industry told MinnPost this week that they had no interest in applying for a piece of Minnesota's $652 million in BEAD grants. Brent Christensen, president and CEO of Minnesota Telecom Alliance, which represents 70 Minnesota telecom companies, said, 'None of them would bid for the federal grants because of the regulations that would come with it — especially the requirement to provide low-cost services to low-income households in exchange for grants that would allow internet providers to build out their networks.'

"MinnPost noted that new state laws also 'requir[e] companies who receive state grants to pay workers a "prevailing wage," a basic hourly rate paid on public works projects to a majority of workers in a particular occupation'.... 'It's becoming clear that it might be too risky to participate in the program,' Melissa Wolf, executive director of the Minnesota Cable Communications Association, told the outlet.

"Fortunately, the private sector is expanding access to broadband on its own: This year, the FCC raised the standard for which it considers 'broadband' to 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds, up from its previous standard of 25Mbps download and three Mbps upload. 'Nearly 88 percent of households already live where at least two competitors offer 25/3 Mbps service, and 85 percent lived where at least one operator offers 100/20 Mbps service and a competitor offers 25/3 Mbps service,' Reason's Ronald Bailey wrote last year, citing an industry group report.... ' According to the OpenVault Broadband Insights report for the first quarter of 2024, 90 percent of all current broadband subscribers have download speeds of at least 100 Mbps already.... 

"These advances came from the private sector, without the added expense of $42 billion in taxpayer money. Satellite internet provider Starlink, which is part of SpaceX, claims that its users 'typically experience download speeds between 25 and 220 Mbps, with a majority of users experiencing speeds over 100 Mbps.' SpaceX CEO Elon Musk approvingly reposted an X user who claimed that "for $42 billion they could have bought Starlink dishes for 140 million people.'"

Read more: https://reason.com/2024/06/27/why-has-joe-bidens-42-billion-broadband-program-not-connected-one-single-household/

Biden's $42.5 billion rural high-speed internet plan gets stuck in red tape | Washington Times | June 20, 2024:

Trudeau regime's extremist attack on free speech

Canada's Online Harms Bill C-63 would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop crimes they haven’t yet committed.

Canada’s Extremist Attack on Free Speech | The Atlantic | Conor Friedersdorf:

June 6, 2024 - "In 1984, George Orwell coined the term thoughtcrime. In the short story 'The Minority Report,' the science-fiction author Philip K. Dick gave us the concept of 'precrime,' describing a society where would-be criminals were arrested before they could act. Now Canada is combining the concepts in a work of dystopian nonfiction: A bill making its way through Parliament would impose draconian criminal penalties on hate speech and curtail people’s liberty in order to stop future crimes they haven’t yet committed.

"The Online Harms Act [Bill C-63] states that any person who advocates for or promotes genocide is 'liable to imprisonment for life.' It defines lesser 'hate crimes' as including online speech that is 'likely to foment detestation or vilification' on the basis of race, religion, gender, or other protected categories.  And if someone 'fears' they may become a victim of a hate crime, they can go before a judge, who may summon the preemptively accused for a sort of precrime trial. If the judge finds 'reasonable grounds' for the fear, the ... judge may put the defendant under house arrest or electronic surveillance and order them to abstain from alcohol and drugs. Refusal to 'enter the recognizance' for one year results in 12 months in prison. This is madness.

"The proposed law ... does many other things too. One section concerns the obligations of online platforms to police content. Another bears on the worthy goal of protecting children from viewing pornography and stopping the distribution of child-sexual-abuse material, raising the odds that the bill will pass with too little attention to its worst provisions. (In February, it passed its first reading in the House of Commons. Becoming law would require a second and third reading in that body, where amendments can be proposed; passage in the national Senate; and approval by the governor general.)... 

"Arif Virani, Canada’s minister of justice and attorney general, is championing it. 'We need the ability to stop an anticipated hate crime from occurring,' he declared last week. 'The Conservatives need to get on board. Now.' According to The New York Times, some version of the bill is likely to pass, because 'Trudeau’s Liberal Party has an agreement with an opposition party to support government legislation.'

"Just countries do not punish mere speech with imprisonment, let alone life imprisonment. Just countries do not order people who have not committed and are not even accused of a crime to be confined to their home or tracked with an ankle bracelet. I have reasonable grounds to fear that the Trudeau government is going to trample on the civil rights of Canadians. That is hardly sufficient to secure the house arrest of its officials.

"Earlier this year, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association urged substantial amendments to the legislation. 'The broad criminal prohibitions on speech in the bill risk stifling public discourse and criminalizing political activism,' it warned. 'The bill imposes draconian penalties for certain types of expression, including life imprisonment for a very broad and vaguely defined offence of "incitement to genocide," and 5 years of jail time for other broadly defined speech acts. This not only chills free speech but also undermines the principles of proportionality and fairness in our legal system.'

"But amendments would not go far enough. No one who favors allowing the state to imprison people for mere speech, or severely constraining a person’s liberty in anticipation of alleged hate speech they have yet to utter, is fit for leadership in a liberal democracy. Every elected official who has supported the unamended bill should be ousted at the next opportunity by voters who grasp the fraught, authoritarian folly of this extremist proposal."

Read more: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/canada-online-harms-act/678605/

Trudeau's new online censorship law - Problems with Bill C-63 / the Online Harms Law | Canadian Constitution Foundation | March 4, 2024:

Governor-General's symposium promoted Bill C63

Canada's Governor-General is officially non-partisan and apolitical, but hosted a symposium where Liberal cabinet minister Arif Virani promoted his Online Harms Bill C-63 to a selected group of influencers. 

‘NON-PARTISAN, APOLITICAL’: Governor General hosts event in support of Online Harms bill | Western Standard | Jen Hodgson:

April 16, 2024 - "Governor General Mary Simon’s office insists she is 'non-partisan and apolitical' after she personally hosted a symposium in support of the Trudeau Liberals' Online Harms bill. The guest list was limited to Attorney General Arif Virani and supporters of internet regulation, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. No opposition members or critics of Bill C-63: An Act To Enact The Online Harms Act were invited.... 

Read thread on X.

"Simon’s office would not disclose the names of all invitees or explain why others were excluded from the April 11 event. Nor did Rideau Hall justify the pro-government event. 

"Further, it refused to release any video or audio recordings of the conference or a transcript of speakers’ remarks. 

"Some guests did include former CTV News anchor Lisa LaFlamme, Le Devoir columnist Emilie Nicolas, former Global News reporter Rachel Gilmore, Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam, gender activist Fae Johnstone and Ottawa school trustee Nili Kaplan-Myrth....

"Simon supported the bill publicly on her social media as well. 'Let’s transform these conversations into action,' the governor general posted to Twitter ('X'). 'Help us create a safer online world.' Virani on social media confirmed Simon’s private conference was intended to support Bill C-63. 'We know online harms have real world consequences,' Virani wrote. 'With industry experts at the Governor General’s symposium we discussed this and our Online Harms Act.'

"Bill C-63 would require that Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms 'mitigate the risk that users will be exposed to harmful comment' with compliance monitored by a five-member Digital Safety Commission. The bill would also appoint a federal ombudsman to 'provide support to users of social media services.” The proposal follows a failed 2021 measure C-36 An Act To Amend The Criminal Code that went further in granting a 'digital safety commissioner' powers to block websites containing legal content deemed hurtful. Hate speech is already prohibited under 1970 amendments to the Criminal Code."
Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/non-partisan-apolitical-governor-general-hosts-event-in-support-of-online-harms-bill/53842

The Governor General deserves better, but we deserve impartiality  | Macdonald-Laurier Institute | Philippe Lagassé for Inside Policy:

April 16, 2024 - "As well-intentioned as the Governor General’s symposium was, she should never have hosted it in this context, a conclusion that’s reinforced by the Minister of Justice publicly tying the event to bill C-63. As soon as the government tabled the bill, Her Excellency should have understood that the symposium was no longer appropriate and would present a risk to her office’s impartiality.... As the King’s vice-regal representative, the Governor General performs core constitutional functions. These demand that the Governor General not only act impartially but be perceived to be impartial. This isn’t just good form, it’s a fundamental part of the job....

"Turning back to the symposium, it’s important to clarify why it undermined her impartiality, or at least perceptions of it.... A full-on violation of constitutional norms isn’t the standard here. Instead, we should be asking why the Minister of Justice was even there, and why the Governor General decided to host the symposium, considering how contentious Bill C-63 has been already. Hosting the event allowed Her Excellency to get pulled into the partisan fray, a predictable outcome that she shouldn’t have risked.

"Those who participated in the symposium will counter that it was the Minister of Justice who made the connection with Bill C-63, not the Governor General. Her Excellency’s motives, and the importance of the cause addressed by the symposium, shouldn’t be impugned by a careless, partisan tweet. Alas, partisans are going to partisan and politicians are going to politick. This is precisely why vice-regal representatives should avoid wading into politically charged topics.... Defenders of the symposium offer another argument: as the sovereign’s representative, the Governor General should address important social problems that affect Canadians.... This is a fair point, though Governors General need to be careful about what causes they take up.... Anything that’s the subject of notable partisan and parliamentary debate, is ideologically fraught, or might be fought over during an election should raise red flags.

"Thankfully for the Governor General, the controversy surrounding her symposium hasn’t extended beyond the Ottawa bubble yet. She should keep it that way by abandoning her 'We Deserve Better' campaign while partisans battle it out over Bill C-63 and the courts review the Online Harms Act if it becomes law. This isn’t because the Governor General doesn’t deserve better; she does, as do all those who suffer online abuse. It’s because Canadians deserve impartiality from the Governor General, both real and perceived."

Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor at Carleton University. He’s the co-editor of Canada and the Crown: Essays on Constitutional Monarchy (2014) and The Crown and Parliament (2015).
Read more: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/the-governor-general-deserves-better-but-we-deserve-impartiality-philippe-lagasse-for-inside-policy/

Bill C-63 gives Commissions too much power

The Trudeau government's new Online Harms legislation Bill C-63, while less of an overreach than its predecessor Bill C-36, concentrates too much unchecked power in the Canadian Human Rights Commission and  a new Digital Safety Commission. 

Peter Menzies: New Online Harms Act Gives Appointed Commissioners Too Much Power | MacDonald-Laurier Institute | Peter Menzies:

Februay 27, 2024 - "Canada has launched  legislation reining in social media and reducing its citizens’ freedom to express themselves online. And while supporters of the Online Harms Act (Bill C-63) believe tighter control of speech and images by government is necessary to make platforms such as X and Facebook 'safer,' it’s unclear if that will be the case.... 

"There will be a Digital Safety Commission led by a chair, vice-chair, and commissioners supported by a staff of public servants. Its job will be to oversee social media companies, each of which will have to satisfy the commission that it has policies and practices in place that protect users from seven distinct online harms. Those are: sexually victimizing children, bullying, inducing children to harm themselves, extremism/terrorism, inciting violence, fomenting hatred, and sharing intimate content without consent, including deepfakes. The platforms will have three 'duties of care' ... to act responsibly, ensure content in those seven categories is inaccessible, and to otherwise protect children. In addition, platforms will have to inform police if, while patrolling users’ content, they come across incidents of child sexual exploitation.

"The good news is that just about everything this new five-person commission of cabinet appointees will be 'imposing' is already covered in the Criminal Code and has been blocked or removed by the companies for years. And given that early drafts of the legislation envisioned a government commission empowered to directly patrol and order the removal of 'lawful but awful' online content, the duty of care approach is a welcome relief that signals a significant retreat....

"In addition, the government is creating a Digital Safety Ombudsman (also a cabinet appointee) whose job will involve duties such as supporting victims of the online harms outlined, offering advice to the companies, and educating the public in navigating the social media landscape. Seems a little heavy on the bureaucratic overkill if you ask me, but ... again, in terms of having a lot for the average person to worry about... not a lot to see here. Not much about your experience is likely to change, at least not at this stage, given that the behaviours demanded are already being performed.

"But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to worry about. As internet expert and University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist pointed out, the powers of the Digital Safety Commission are immense. 'It can issue rulings on making content inaccessible, conduct investigations, demand any information it wants from regulated services (and) hold hearings that under certain circumstances can be closed to the public,' Geist wrote. 'The Commission is not subject to any legal or technical rules of evidence, as the law speaks to acting informally and expeditiously, an approach that seems inconsistent with its many powers.'

"Another legal expert, Halifax lawyer David Fraser, put it this way on X: 

"I 100% expected it to be much worse" doesn’t make it automatically good. Take a close note of the repeated use of the phrase 'reasonable grounds to believe' and 'suspect", which set a very low bar and always err on the side of removal,' he wrote.'The content must be removed or made inaccessible permanently if there are reasonable grounds to believe that there are reasonable grounds to suspect.... Not even actually believe or actually suspect.

"Alarming, in my view, is the Online Harms’ provision to define racist and homophobic comments as discrimination and give the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) the power to take complaints on that basis, levy fines up to $20,000 against those it deems guilty, and order them to remove their posts. This stands a very good chance of flooding the human rights commission ... with complaints from organizations and individuals seeking to embarrass and impoverish their ideological foes.... It is entirely conceivable that everything from religious texts to statements such as 'a person with a penis cannot be a woman' will be subject to fines and takedown orders by the CHRC, where the usual rules of evidence don’t apply, guilt is the de facto default position, and the term 'kangaroo court' is often applied.

"Lastly, it was disappointing not to see one more duty imposed on X and Facebook, specifically the duty to preserve freedom of expression and apply their content moderation rules in an objective fashion, favouring neither progressives nor conservatives. But, given the road we’re now going down, that’s probably not the government’s preferred outcome."

Read more: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/new-online-harms-act-gives-appointed-commissioners-too-much-power-peter-menzies-in-the-epoch-times/

Trudeau's Online Harms Act is WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT | Northern Perspective | March 1, 2024:

Trudeau gov't tables Online Harms Bill C-63

Any Good in Ottawa’s Online Harms Bill Is Overshadowed by Its ‘Hate Speech’ Provisions | Epoch Times | Cory Morgan:

Feruary 26, 2024 - "It’s been a long time in coming and now the government has finally tabled a new version of its Online Harms Act (Bill C-63).... The full title of Bill C-63 is: 'An Act to enact the Online Harms Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.' It’s quite a mouthful and it reflects a bill that’s trying to take on many issues at once....

"There is a lot to unpack in the bill and there are some good regulations within it.... Child pornography is a scourge that must be pursued and prosecuted with the utmost vigour. The internet has offered a platform that has allowed the production and distribution of child pornography to flourish. We need to give law enforcement, government agencies, and internet providers tools to try and protect children and hold those exploiting children to account.... That said, the world has changed.... On websites that have hundreds of thousands if not millions of interactions per day, it can be tough to keep up with what’s being posted. The legislation must give providers reasonable timelines and means to keep inappropriate content under control....

"As always, the devil will be in the details. The bill calls for the establishment of a 'Digital Safety Office of Canada' to administer the whole thing. Forming a new bureaucracy rarely leads to a more efficient administration of laws or regulations no matter how well-intentioned the action was. It also raises the scary prospect that a few bureaucrats can decide what content is harmful.

"The bill also calls for revisions to the Criminal Code to increase the maximum sentences for hate propaganda. It specifies increasing the sentence for promoting genocide from a maximum of five years to a life sentence. This is where this bill is going to get into trouble. For one, the nation can’t even settle on what the definition of genocide is anymore. It can range from calling for the extermination of a race to opposing the changing of gender pronouns in schools. Secondly, while the promotion of real genocide is odious and could indeed earn criminal sanction, offering a penalty of a life sentence is beyond reasonable. Even murderers in Canada often don’t get life sentences. This is just inviting legal challenges.

"The bill delves into hate speech and further empowerment of the Human Rights Commission. It is returning restrictions on expression and speech that went too far in the past which is why the Harper government rescinded Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. Speech was being unduly infringed upon and the commission was overstepping its bounds. The new definitions of criminal hate speech will surely land in our courts, too.

"Bill C-63 has some merit but the bill may be lost due to the government’s zeal in trying to pack hate speech provisions into it. If the child protection section could be broken free into a bill of its own, it could be a fine piece of legislation." 

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/cory-morgan-any-good-in-ottawas-online-harms-bill-is-overshadowed-by-its-hate-speech-provisions-5595592

Bill to combat harmful online content | CBC News: The National | February 26, 2024: 

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:

Canadian government reaches deal with Google

Examining the Canadian government's deal with Google over the Online News Act.

Google to pay Canada news publishers $73m a year to keep news in search | The Guardian | Blake Montgomery and agencies:

November 30, 2023 - "Canada and Google have reached a deal to keep links to news stories in search results and for the tech giant to pay $73.6m annually, or C$100m, to news publishers in the country. The deal resolves Alphabet-owned Google’s concerns over Canada’s Online News Act, which seeks to make large internet companies share advertising revenue with news publishers in the country.... The Online News Act, part of a global trend to make internet giants pay for news, passed in June and the government is finalizing rules that are expected to be released by a 19 December deadline..... 

"As part of the agreement with Canada, Google will annually contribute C$100m, indexed to inflation, to news businesses, and the company will have the option to work with a single collective to distribute the funds. Google had previously threatened to block news on its search engine, a major source of traffic for nearly all websites on the internet.... The company said it was concerned it would be exposed to potentially uncapped liability....

"The legislation came after complaints from Canada’s media industry, which wants tighter regulation of tech companies to prevent them from elbowing news businesses out of the online advertising market. Paul Deegan, the chief executive officer of industry body News Media Canada, welcomed the agreement and thanked the government for ensuring cash compensation for publishers. The Canadian Broadcasting Corp broke the news of the deal earlier. 'We commend Google for their good faith, socially responsible approach,' Deegan added in a statement."

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/29/google-canada-online-news-act-agreement-publishers

Google reaches deal with Canada, will compensate news outlets $100 million annually | Global News | November 30, 2023:

The Feds Have Surrendered to Google Over Online News Act. Now What? | Epoch Times | Peter Menzies: 

November 30, 2023 - "Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge, as expected, termed the deal “historic” and insisted there were “absolutely no concessions” on the government’s part. How her nose did not grow at least two feet longer while saying this is quite beyond me. Because the facts of the matter are that for the past two months, the government and the news industry lobbyists who promoted the act (Bill C-18) have been desperately trying to placate Google in order to prevent it from doing what Meta had already done — block news links in Canada.... Google had indicated it would ... unless the government manipulated the regulations supporting Bill C-18 to address its concerns. It ... needed a cap on its financial liability and ... couldn’t possibly comply with the expectation that it engage in what would have been multiple negotiations and arbitrations.... 

"But ... the bureaucrats at Canadian Heritage were able to get the regulations to say what Google needed them to say to agree to disarm and pay the amount of money it was always willing to pay — $100 million. What that means is that the news industry will now form itself into a single collective consisting of broadcasters, legacy print media, digital startups, and assorted others. Who will determine membership and how remains unclear.... The next step for the collective will be defining what roles qualify as 'journalism\ jobs.... That will be necessary because when it comes to dividing up the $100 million, it will be done purely on a per journalism employee basis. (I am assuming this because that is the sort of arrangement Google was looking for and it is relatively non-contentious.)...

"But here’s the rub. Prior to the introduction of the Online News Act, Google already had deals in place with publishers such as the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, Postmedia, and others, including broadcasters. It is extremely likely that the amount of money that once was flowing from Google through those agreements (they are private so we don’t know their value) will now be diverted to the $100 million 'collective' pot. That means the net benefit of St-Onge’s 'historic' deal is probably considerably less than $100 million.... 

"It gets worse. The Online News Act was originally promoted by legacy newspaper publishers — the group hardest hit by the invention of the internet and its plethora of alternative advertising and information platforms. Then the broadcasters, including CBC, muscled their way into the conversation. So now, with the $100 million being divided up on a per-journo basis, guess who has the most journalists? The CBC/Societé Radio Canada of course. Next up is Bellmedia with its TV, radio, and online reporters, probably followed by Rogers. In fact, preliminary estimates were that 75 percent of the cash produced by Bill C-18 would go to broadcasters. That leaves $25 million for the far more financially desperate legacy print publishers who, as noted, already had deals with Google.

"Don’t get me wrong. It is a good thing the government found a way to surrender to Google and avoid the nuclear option of it de-indexing news from its search engine. That would have been catastrophic. But there is no amount of lipstick that can pretty up the Bill C-18 pig."

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/peter-menzies-the-feds-have-surrendered-to-google-over-online-news-act-now-what-5538869

Chinese gov't allegedly using bots to defame MPs

Global Affairs Canada has accused the Chinese government of using online bot accounts on social media  to defame and discredit Canadian Members of Parliament. 

China allegedly continues online campaign to bully MPs | Western Standard | Christopher Oldcorn:

October 24 2023 - "The department of [Global] Affairs announced on Monday that China is likely behind another online defamation campaign aimed at MPs. This is the second attack in four months. According to Blacklock’s Reporter, the department ... stated that China swamped the social media accounts of MPs with defamatory comments. 

"'It likely seeks to discredit and denigrate the targeted MPs through seemingly organic posts alleging impropriety by posting waves of social media posts and videos that call into question the political and ethical standards of the MPs,' the department said in a statement. 'It likely seeks to silence criticism of the Chinese Communist Party by getting MPs to distance themselves from the critic and discouraging wider online communities from engaging with them'.... Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre were among those targeted.

"Analysts said that beginning in early August and continuing through Labour Day, Chinese agents flooded MPs’ Facebook and Twitter accounts with 'thousands of comments' alleging criminal or unethical conduct. 

"'The same bot networks involved in this campaign were engaged in the spreading of disinformation claiming the Hawaiian wildfires were caused by a secret U.S. military weather weapon,' wrote analysts. 'The bot network is part of the well-known spamouflage network,' said the department. 'Spamouflage has been publicly reported by technology companies and threat intelligence experts who have connected the activity to the People’s Republic of China.'

"The slander campaign was intended to 'discourage and make it difficult for MPs to carry out their duties and may dissuade MPs and diaspora communities in Canada from speaking out,' it said. The department did not elaborate.

"On August 9, federal researchers revealed another slander campaign on the Chinese-language WeChat platform directed at Conservative MP Michael Chong (Wellington-Halton Hills, ON). Chong had been consistently criticized after successfully putting forward a motion in the House of Commons condemning China for its human rights abuses. 'Between May 4 and 13, a coordinated network of WeChat news accounts featured, shared and amplified a large volume false or misleading narratives about Mr. Chong,' said the department of Foreign Affairs. 'Most of the activity was targeted at spreading false narratives about his identity including commentary and claims about his background, political stances and family heritage.'

"Former Conservative MP Kenny Chiu (Steveston-Richmond East, BC) attributed his defeat in the 2021 general election to a negative social media campaign against him. Chiu lost his riding by 3,477 votes to Liberal MP Parm Bains after facing continuous accusations that he was a Chinese traitor. 'There was a coordinated attack against me and my Party,' Chiu testified at the House Affairs committee on May 10."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/chinas-allegedly-continues-online-campaign-to-bully-mps/49660

Read Global Affairs Canada statement here
https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2023/10/rapid-response-mechanism-canada-detects-spamouflage-campaign-targeting-members-of-parliament.html
Canada uncovers alleged Chinese 'spamouflage' | WION | October 24, 2023: 

Locked up for tweets in 2015, NL man still seeking a hearing

Andrew Abbass, who was wrongfully detained by the Newfoundland police in 2015 due to his social media posts, and confined to a psychiatric unit against his will, is still seeking a public hearing eight years later.  

He was detained by police after sending a tweet. 8 years later, he's fighting for a public hearing | CBC News | Ariana Kelland:

October 16 -"A man who was illegally detained by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and housed for six days at a psychiatric unit against his will in 2015 is determined to bring his case to a public hearing. But the police officers at the centre of the complaints have gone to court to stop that from happening.

"Andrew Abbass filed public complaints against the now-retired Staff Sgt. Tim Buckle and Const. Joe Smyth in 2017, when new information surfaced during an unrelated police shooting inquiry. After numerous years, reports and appeals, the acting commissioner with the RNC police complaints commission has sent the matter to a public hearing. However, even that is in limbo, as both officers have applied to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador for judicial review.

"'At the end of the day, no one has been found to be fully accountable in any meaningful way,' said Abbass, 42, in a recent interview at his home in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. It's been eight years since the alleged misconduct happened. Both Abbass and an expert in police discipline say the process against the two officers has dragged on far too long and speaks to the need for deep reform on police complaints procedures....

"Abbass first came to the RNC's attention in Corner Brook in 2014, when he attempted to charge then prime minister Stephen Harper and his foreign affairs minister for 'inciting genocide by the state of Israel against the Palestinian people.' Abbass had applied to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador to hear his argument. The federal government issued a response, but a judge ultimately declined to hear the case in 2017....

"Then, on April 5, 2015 — Easter Sunday —  Smyth, a member of the premier's security detail, shot and killed Don Dunphy in his home in Mitchell's Brook, about 45 minutes outside St. John's. Dunphy was an injured worker who often strongly criticized the province's workers' compensation system online. Smyth, investigating a tweet sent by Dunphy that was interpreted as a threat, said Dunphy pointed a firearm at him. Abbass saw the two incidents as interconnected examples of government overreach, and made his feelings known on social media the following day.... 

"Abbass said he heard an interview with the premier on CBC Radio, in which he said there would be a cracking down of social media monitoring in the wake of Dunphy's shooting. He saw that as Davis doubling down, and considered it an affront to free speech. Abbass tweeted: 'How about this, premier of N.L.: I'm going to bring down Confederation and have politicians executed. Ready to have me shot, coward?' The tweet, he admits, was meant to antagonize.... 'I figured they would arrest me.'

"Four RNC officers came to Abbass's home in Corner Brook where he was living with his pregnant girlfriend and detained him under the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act. Despite spending the next six days in the psychiatric ward of the Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook, Abbass was never charged with a crime. Nor was he certified as suffering from any psychiatric condition.... 

"In the wake of Abbass's arrest, the RCMP got a warrant to search his home over a tweet they viewed as potentially threatening against Stephen Harper. The tweet was sent before the Dunphy shooting, but the Mounties moved in only after he was detained by the RNC. He was charged with uttering threats but it was dropped soon after, at his first court appearance. However, once inside his home, they discovered marijuana and charged Abbass and his pregnant partner with cultivation. Abbass said he used it for medical reasons but didn't have a licence at the time. A judge gave him an absolute discharge."

Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/andrew-abbass-rnc-complaints-1.6967702

 What happened to Andrew Abbass? An 8-year police complaints odyssey, explained | CBC NL - Newfoundland and Labrador | October 19, 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:

Appeals court upholds Missouri v. Biden injunction

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a limited injunction against the federal government censoring social media. 

The Government Censored Me and Other Scientists. We Fought Back—and Won | The Free Press | Jay Bhattacharya:

September 11, 2023 - "When I was 19, I became an American citizen. It was one of the happiest days of my young life. The immigration officer gave me a civics test, including a question about the First Amendment. It was an easy test because I knew it in my heart. The American civic religion has the right to free speech as the core of its liturgy.... My parents had taught me that people here could criticize the government, even over matters of life and death, without worry that the government would censor or suppress us. But over the past three years, I have been robbed of that conviction. American government officials, working in concert with big tech companies, have attacked and suppressed my speech and that of my colleagues for criticizing official pandemic policies—criticism that has been proven prescient. 

"On Friday, at long last, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that ... that the Biden administration did indeed strong-arm social media companies into doing its bidding. The court found that the Biden White House, the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General’s office, and the FBI 'engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints'.... According to the judges, 'the officials’ campaign succeeded. The platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies'....

"The trouble began on October 4, 2020, when my colleagues and I — Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a professor of medicine at Harvard University, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford — published the Great Barrington Declaration. The Declaration called for an end to economic lockdowns, school shutdowns, and similar restrictive policies on the grounds that they disproportionately harm the young and economically disadvantaged while conferring limited benefits to society as a whole. The Declaration endorsed a “focused protection” approach that called for strong measures to protect high-risk populations while allowing lower-risk individuals to return to normal life with reasonable precautions. Tens of thousands of doctors and public health scientists signed our statement....

"Four days after the Declaration’s publication, then-director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, emailed Fauci to organize a 'devastating takedown' of it. Almost immediately, social media companies such as Google/YouTube, Reddit, and Facebook censored mentions of the Declaration.... [I]n 2021 Twitter blacklisted me for posting a link to the Great Barrington Declaration. YouTube censored a video of a public policy roundtable of me with Florida governor Ron DeSantis.... I am not a political person; I am not registered with either party.... Yet at the height of the pandemic, I found myself smeared for my supposed political views, and my views about Covid policy and epidemiology were removed from the public square on all manner of social networks....

"In August 2022, my colleagues and I finally had a chance to fight back. The Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general asked me to join as a plaintiff in their case, represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, against the Biden administration. The aim of the suit was to end the government's role in this censorship—and restore the free speech rights of all Americans in the digital town square.... The case revealed that a dozen federal agencies — including the CDC, the Office of the Surgeon General, and the Biden White House — pressured social media companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter to censor and suppress even true speech contradicting federal pandemic priorities. For instance, in 2021, the White House threatened social media companies with damaging regulatory action unless it censored scientists who shared the demonstrable fact that the Covid vaccines do not prevent people from getting Covid.... 

"On Independence Day this year, federal Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction in the case, ordering the federal government to immediately stop coercing social media companies to censor protected free speech.... The government appealed, convinced it should have the power to censor scientific speech. An administrative stay followed and lasted much of the summer. But on Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously restored a modified version of the preliminary injunction, telling the government to stop using social media companies to do its censorship dirty work: 

Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social media companies’ decision-making processes....

"The decision isn’t perfect. Some entities at the heart of the government’s censorship enterprise can still organize to suppress speech..... But ... the federal government can no longer threaten social media companies with destruction if they don’t censor on behalf of the government. The Biden administration, which has proven itself to be an enemy of free speech, will surely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. But I am hopeful that we will win there, just as we have at every venue in this litigation. I am grateful for the resilience of the U.S. Constitution, which has withstood this challenge."

Read more: https://www.thefp.com/p/i-fought-government-censorship-and-won

Was Biden's social media meddling illegal? | ReasonTV | August 18, 2023: 

Trudeau gov't fast-tracks Online News Act

Canada's Liberal government has adopted an "accelerated" and "aggressive" timetable to roll out enforcement of the Online News Act (Bill C-18), cancelling a promised public consultation process.

Fed gov’t fast-tracks Online News Act, scrapping public input | Western Standard |  Christopher Oldcorn:

September 5, 2023 - "Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge unexpectedly announced that the Online News Act would start being enforced by the end of the year, which skips months of planned public consultations. In a legal notice released on Saturday, St-Onge admitted that the schedule for making these changes was 'aggressive' and 'accelerated.'

"'The Act will come into force on December 19, 2023,' said a Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement by St-Onge’s department. 'This aggressive implementation timeline requires the department of Canadian Heritage to seek pre-publication of the regulatory proposal as soon as possible.'  

"On June 22, Parliament passed Bill C-18 the Online News Act.... Bill C-18 requires Google and Facebook to give back some of the money they make from ads on linked news stories to Canadian news organizations. The CRTC, as late as August 24, said it intended to 'launch a public consultation this fall to gather views,' publish draft regulations in the summer of 2024 and begin enforcing the Act as late as 2025.

"'There is going to be a consultation process around regulations,' Minister St-Onge told reporters on August 21. 'Facebook and Google and all the other media and the public are invited to comment on these regulations when they come out.' No explanation was provided for why the Act would be enforced so quickly. 

"On June 23, Facebook started blocking all free links to news stories from Canada to avoid paying for them. On June 29, Google Canada announced it would stop providing free links to news stories. This move collapsed any plans of revenue sharing. 'Bill C-18 has become law and remains unworkable,' the company said in a statement.

"In a technical briefing with reporters on Friday, the department of Canadian Heritage said full compliance would see Google and Facebook pay publishers $234 million a year.... The Budget Office last October 22 in a report Cost Estimate for Bill C-18 put revenue sharing at $329 million. 'Those are estimates,' said Thomas Owen Ripley, associate assistant deputy Heritage minister.

"'How do you compel a company to pay this?' asked a reporter. 'Companies have been vocal about some of their criticisms of the legislation,' replied Ripley. 'As we have seen, there is a question of whether platforms remove themselves entirely from the digital news marketplace to avoid being subject to the Act. The government remains focused through this regulatory process on putting forward what it sees as a reasonable, viable framework.'

"Many independent news organizations spoke against the Online News Act at the Senate Transport and Communications committee. According to the Heritage department, the CBC would benefit the most from this new law."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/business/fed-gov-t-fast-tracks-online-news-act-scrapping-public-input/article_1edba2a4-4be7-11ee-8b30-37c5b9a43a06.html

The Online News Act Is Now Law in Canada. But Is the Response From Google and Meta Justified? | The News Forum | August 3, 2023: 

Will Online News Act kill the independent media?

Will the Online News Act wipe out Canada's independent media?

How long can independent media survive Ottawa's attempts to kill it? | Western Standard | Derek Fildebrandt, Publisher: 

June 23, 2023 - "The bastards did it. The Liberal-NDP bloc of the House of Commons passed Bill C-18, the Online News Act, disregarding thoughtful amendments made to it by the Senate. For those not following every twist and turn of Big Media's latest shakedown, the Online News Act was designed to pilfer money from Facebook and Google for those companies making news content available to readers.... 

"Facebook's parent company, Meta has warned for over a year that if the bill passed (in its original, and final form), that they would 'turn off the news' in Canada. And hours after Parliament passed the bill they doubled down, confirming that in the coming months — before the bill comes into force — that is exactly what they will be doing. The Liberals and Big Media bosses were shocked. SHOCKED I tell you, that Meta is doing what they said they would do. 

"Now the Canadian media — big Eastern/US corporations and small independents alike — face a readership apocalypse. Most Canadians find their news through Facebook and Google. Without these two sources, readership is going to dry up fast. That will mean less money from subscriptions, and from advertising. 

"For the grifters at News Media Canada — which falsely claim to represent the news industry in Canada — this is bad. Their readership will shrink considerably. But it's not that bad. They can always go back ... and ask the federal government for even more bailout money to cover off the shortfall. They will be made whole by Ottawa. But the big silver lining for them is that their competing independent online upstarts — like the Western Standard — will see their readership drop off without the buckets of federal cash. 

"This raises the very uncomfortable question for independent publishers like the Western Standard: how long can we continue to see our tax dollars used against us while the federal government passes laws to cut off even our readership? Our refusal to accept the federal money is admittedly a bit self-righteous, but it has been the right thing to do. Government funding the media is just wrong. If you need to be told why, you probably don't belong in a free country. 

"But at some point, we will just not be able to compete against our own tax dollars. We have thus far, but now we are seeing our readership about to be hacked by federal legislation (Online News Act,) our broadcast reach hurt (Online Streaming Act) and our voices censored (Online Harms Act.) Taken together, this is an existential threat to the free press. 

"So what's a publisher to do? Continue to refuse, go out of business, and leave the media to the Eastern and American owned corporations that control nearly everything else? Just let the CBC and Postmedia have the field to themselves? Or do we swallow our pride, get with the program and continue providing Westerners with a professional independent media? 

"I honestly don't know, and the decision chokes me.... It's not a decision we should have to make. We should be allowed to compete in a free market of ideas and media in Canada, striving to make a better product than our competitors every day. But we're not. We're throttled at every turn by federal legislation and we see our tax dollars weaponized against us as subsidies for our much larger competitors.... 

"I want your feedback as to how the Western Standard should deal with this going forward. Please send me your thoughts at dfildebrandt@westernstandard.news." 

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/fildebrandt-how-long-can-independent-media-survive-ottawas-attempts-to-kill-it/article_02812bda-11f7-11ee-82b2-8754f5d9d979.html

Bill C-18: The Online News Act - Really, really bad tech public policy in action. | PrivacyLawyer | David Fraser | January 1, 2023::

Rand Paul opposes U.S. TikTok ban

Republican Senator Rand Paul blocks bid to ban TikTok in US | Al Jazeera:

March 30, 2023 - "US Senator Rand Paul has blocked a bid to fast-track a ban of TikTok, citing concerns about free speech and uneven treatment of social media companies. The app, which was founded by Chinese entrepreneurs, has more than 150 million monthly users in the United States, mostly young people.... Republican Senator Josh Hawley had sought unanimous consent for a TikTok ban bill....

"TikTok says it has spent more than $1.5bn on rigorous data security efforts and rejects spying allegations. Last week, its chief executive officer, Shou Zi Chew, appeared before Congress and faced tough questions about national security concerns over the app. At the hearing, Chew attempted to dispel concerns over TikTok’s ties to the Chinese government and its alleged inability to stem 'harmful' content. He also sought to portray the app as 'a place where people can be creative and curious' and said the company was taking actions that go beyond industry standards in terms of data protection and transparency....

"A small but growing number of Democrats and Republicans have raised concerns, citing free speech and other issues, and have objected to legislation targeting TikTok as overly broad.... On Friday, Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a TikTok video had also opposed a ban, as do free-speech groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union."

Read more: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/30/republican-senator-blocks-bid-to-ban-tiktok-in-us

‘Do we really want to emulate China?’: Rand Paul calls out GOP hypocrisy on proposed TikTok ban | Based Politics - Jack Hunter:

March 29, 2023 - "As many members of both parties seem to be in favor of a potential ban on the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok in the United States, one prominent Republican senator is voicing his dissent. In an op-ed on Wednesday, Rand Paul said such a ban would not only be unconstitutional, but un-American and unpopular....

"The Republican senator noted the hypocrisy on the part of conservatives. 'The banning TikTok strategy also comes while the GOP simultaneously complains of liberal U.S. social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives,' Paul wrote in Louisville, Kentucky’s Courier-Journal. 'So, without a hint of irony, many of these same "conservatives" now agitate to ban a platform owned by an international group that includes several American investors.... So, on the one hand, Republicans complain about censorship, while with the other hand, these same Republicans advocate to censor social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese.'

"Congressional members on both sides of the aisle have expressed worries about China’s government having access to U.S. data because TikTok is owned by a Chinese company. But Paul said implementing such a ban would actually make America more like authoritarian China. 'Before banning TikTok, these censors might want to discover that China’s government already bans TikTok. Hmmm ... do we really want to emulate China’s speech bans?' he asked.

"The libertarian-leaning senator questioned the constitutionality of such a ban. 'If you don’t like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don’t use them,' he wrote. 'But don’t think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them. The First Amendment isn’t really necessary to protect speech that everybody accepts. The First Amendment is precisely there to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial. U.S. courts struck down the Trump Administration’s ban and, I believe, will strike down any Congressional ban'....

"Opposition to the TikTok ban has brought together staunch Right and Left who fear such legislation is merely a recipe for more government control on speech. Far-left ‘Squad’ members like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, and Jamaal Bowman have expressed their opposition as well.

Read more: https://www.based-politics.com/2023/03/29/do-we-really-want-to-emulate-china-rand-paul-calls-out-gop-hypocrisy-on-proposed-tiktok-ban/

The potential personal and political fallout of a TikTok ban | PBS Newshour, March 25, 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:

Bipartisan bill in U.S. Congress to ban TikTok

Bipartisan Bill To Ban TikTok Is Unworkable and Unnecessary | Reason - Elizabeth Nolan Brown:

December 14, 2022 - "There are several problems with a bipartisan proposal in Congress to ban TikTok, the popular video-sharing app that originated in China. For one thing, it's technologically infeasible. It's also pointless. Fears about TikTok are overblown, and any real threats can be mitigated by way less drastic measures than banning ByteDance (TikTok's parent company) from doing business here....

"Some suggest that since the app is based in China, it must be a tool of Chinese propaganda. This is probably the silliest fear, since if there were a widespread pro-China or anti-American video campaign circulating on TikTok, it would not fly under the radar. But even if this is going on: so what? There's nothing stopping Americans from offering their own propaganda on the app. Most people on TikTok aren't even engaging with political content in the first place.... Besides, Chinese propagandists can set up accounts on any social media platform and spread propaganda (probably much more covertly) that way. They don't need to rely on an app owned by a Chinese company.

"The more prevalent fear seems to be that TikTok will be a tool of Chinese surveillance. The company's U.S. operations have strenuously denied this, noting that they store U.S. user data in the U.S. and that China-based employees won't have access to U.S. data, among other measures meant to safeguard user privacy. This means that, theoretically, U.S. user data is not going to the Chinese government, nor is TikTok letting the Chinese government use it to spy on U.S. users.

"There may be reason to be skeptical that this never happens. Forbes recently reported that ByteDance's Internal Audit and Risk Control department "planned to collect TikTok data about the location of a U.S. citizen." However, Forbes would not report on the reason for the proposed surveillance, and does not know if it actually came to fruition. So it's hard to say whether this is a real reason for concern. Sure, this could be a super-creepy situation in which the Chinese communist government asked ByteDance to spy on someone for political reasons. But, for all we know, the user in question was a violent criminal and had a court order or a request from U.S. authorities to find their location.

"In any event, we needn't be naive about the Chinese government to realize that the risk for ordinary TikTok users is negligible. If you're a U.S.-based Chinese national critical of the Communist Party of China, you might think twice about using TikTok. And the same goes if you're a U.S. government official or a journalist reporting on highly sensitive subjects or something like that. Basically, anyone who has reason to think the Chinese government could want to spy on them might want to exercise caution. But the idea that the Chinese government would want to surveil the location of random American citizens is silly.... 

"Anyone who suggests otherwise just wants to drum up fear and anti-Chinese sentiment. Which is to say: Americans should be more fearful of the propaganda being put out by anti-TikTok crusaders like this bill's sponsors, and of their authoritarian impulses, than of ByteDance using TikTok to target them in nefarious ways. 

"In enforcing this plan, the U.S. would be engaging in the very sort of behavior we pan countries like China and Russia for doing. They're attempting to capriciously limit citizen access to tools of communication and entertainment and stop law-abiding businesses from operating here, all based on vague anti-foreign sentiment."
Read more: https://reason.com/2022/12/14/bipartisan-bill-to-ban-tiktok-is-unworkable-and-unnecessary/

Should we ban TikTok in Canada? | True North - Anthony Furey: 

December 18, 2022 - "In the US, there is a bi-partisan effort to ban China’s popular social media app TikTok over fears that the app could be used to spy on users and that it could pose a serious threat to national security.... In Canada, the Trudeau government indicated that they are monitoring the Chinese app for security threats. What do you think? Is it time to ban TikTok in Canada?

"Anthony Furey discusses."

Read more: https://tnc.news/2022/12/18/furey-tiktok/