The new iteration of Bill C-11 has emerged from the secret lawmaking process largely unchanged. It shows how creators were ignored.
Bill C-11 recently went into a secret rushed lawmaking process after the government voted to shut down all debate. As a result, amendments were not discussed or debated. Instead, they were voted on by number. Footage of this undemocratic lawmaking process was posted online:
It really is a sight to behold because nothing about this process is normal by any means. Yet, here we are with a government bent on a “pass now at all costs” mission with an artificially imposed deadline. It’s as if they couldn’t end people’s online careers and eviscerate free speech fast enough. What’s more is that the Green Party actually proposed an amendment that would actually fix the worst part of the bill. The member proposed to remove user generated content from regulation – something that almost everyone, including digital first creators and the music industry had been calling for from the very beginning. The government, however, used the legislative sledge hammer to vote against this, making it clear that their core objective is to murder those Canadian careers.
Before, as we noted, the biggest problematic section was this:
Non-application — programs on social media service
4.1 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of a program that is uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.Application — certain programs
(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program
(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or
(b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.2.Non-application — social media service
(3) This Act does not apply in respect of online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of programs in respect of which this Act does not apply under this section.
For greater certainty
(4) For greater certainty, this section does not exclude the application of this Act in respect of a program that, except for the fact that it is not uploaded as described in subsection (1), is the same as a program in respect of which this Act does not apply under this section.
Regulations — programs to which this Act applies
4.2 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 4.1(2)(b), the Commission may make regulations prescribing programs in respect of which this Act applies.
This was before the committee work. After the committee work, the section now reads as follows:
Non-application — programs on social media service
4.1 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of a program that is uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.
Application — certain programs(2) Despite subsection (1), this Act applies in respect of a program that is uploaded as described in that subsection if the program
(a) is uploaded to the social media service by the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or by the agent or mandatary of either of them; or
(b) is prescribed by regulations made under section 4.2.Non-application — social media service
(3) This Act does not apply in respect of online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of programs in respect of which this Act does not apply under this section.
For greater certainty
(4) For greater certainty, this section does not exclude the application of this Act in respect of a program that, except for the fact that it is not uploaded as described in subsection (1), is the same as a program in respect of which this Act does not apply under this section.
Regulations — programs to which this Act applies
4.2 (1) For the purposes of paragraph 4.1(2)(b), the Commission may make regulations prescribing programs in respect of which this Act applies, in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression.
Can you spot the difference? It’s at the end where the bill pays lip service to freedom of expression by tacking on “in a manner that is consistent with freedom of expression.” That’s it. It ultimately changes nothing about the bill in the end.
Ultimately, despite numerous witnesses saying that regulating user generated content is highly problematic and a threat to their online careers, the Canadian government actively chose to ignore those voices. It’s probably not a surprise to many of these creators. After all, some were emerging from the committee meetings feeling disillusioned about it all. It’s not a surprise they would feel this way given that they were largely ignored during the meetings. When they weren’t actively ignored, they were openly attacked by the Canadian government – even actively chased down and harassed online after on top of it all. These deplorable actions were ultimately backed up by these latest legislative actions.
As to where things go from here, we do know that the Canadian Senate is already posting meetings and calling witnesses to testify:
Senate Transport and Communications committee has posted two meetings for the “pre-study” of Bill C-11 next week. Witness list to come, but I’ve been invited to appear on June 21st.
The hope is that, at minimum, the Senate will ultimately run out the clock before the Summer break. These meetings do certainly run up against the end of the schedule, so there is certainly hope that things will, at least, get delayed anyway. It’s still not a certainty at this point, but as the days tick by, it is looking more and more promising that a Summer delay could very easily happen.
Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.
