OTTAWA, Ontario, June 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Canada’s House of Commons has passed a controversial internet regulation bill which would force websites, including YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, to remove content deemed “harmful” within 24 hours, and also compel sites such as Netflix to have more Canadian content.
Bill C-10, known as “An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act,” has drawn fire for its targeting of user-generated content on social media platforms, and made it through the house with 196 votes in favor, and 112 votes against. The bill passed while most Canadians were asleep just after 1:30 a.m. Tuesday morning.
The bill had the full support of Liberal, NDP, and Bloc Québécois MPs. Only Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) MPs voted against the bill. Two independent MPs also voted against the bill, Derek Sloan, and former Liberal Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.
The bill is now before Canada’s Senate where it has already gone through first reading. Extra calendar days were added to the senate’s schedule to allow debate on it next week.
Bill C-10 was introduced by Minister of Canadian Heritage Steven Guilbeault last year and aims to regulate certain online media services through the creation of a new class of broadcaster called “online undertakings.” This would be done through amendments to Canada’s Broadcasting Act.
If eventually passed by the Senate and given Royal Assent, Bill C-10 would let the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulate the internet and social media in line with their regulations for broadcasting services, with the goal of promoting more Canadian content. The CRTC has kept a hands-off approach to regulating the internet thus far.
According to a National Post report, Bill C-10 is not expected to be rubber-stamped by the Senate, however.
“There doesn’t seem to be any momentum to pass this and rubber-stamp this without thorough review,” said Conservative Senator Leo Housakos.
CPC leader Erin O’Toole earlier called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to withdraw Bill C-10, and promised if to withdraw the bill should he be elected prime minister.
Recently, CPC MP Rachael Harder said during a Heritage committee meeting that “to put the CRTC in control of such a thing is not only daunting for them, by their own admission, but crazy. Like, it’s just ludicrous. This bill is under the guise of ‘modernizing the Broadcasting Act,’ but the Broadcasting Act actually shouldn’t be applied to the Internet.”
“The Internet is this incredible place that is limitless. So, you don’t actually need the CRTC to step in and pick winners and losers, show favouritism to some and harm others … what’s going on here without that (safeguarding user content) is actually the extreme censorship of material posted online, and therefore an attack on the concept of net neutrality.”
Bill C-10 has also come under fire from the former head of the CRTC, Peter Menzies, who said, “Putting the CRTC in charge of the entire internet, I mean, that’s like putting a logging company in charge of the Great Bear Rainforest … it’s not going to end well.”
The original draft of Bill C-10 had a Section 4.1 exemption clause for “user content” posted on social media by individuals, meaning such posts would originally have not fallen under CRTC regulations.
However, a recent amendment to Bill C-10 removed the provision, which means the federal government could regulate what people post online.
The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc party members also rejected a CPC amendment to Bill C-10, which would have brought back safeguards for user-generated social media content during a clause-by-clause review of Bill C-10 by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
On June 15, the Speaker of the House of Commons ruled that the proposed amendments to Bill C-10 were “null and void,” according to Dr. Michael Geist, law professor at University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law.
The Christian baker, Jack Phillips, needs your support as he is again being targeted by LGBT activists, despite the fact that his stand against compelled speech and being forced to bake a "wedding" cake for homosexuals was vindicated by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Now, a gender-confused man, "Autumn" Scardina, has succeeded in getting Mr. Phillips fined $500 by Denver District Court judge, A. Bruce Jones, for refusing to make a cake celebrating the man's attempted "transition."
The LGBT mob just won’t leave this Christian baker make his living in peace!
But, Phillips and his legal counsel say they will appeal this ruling.
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which sends moral support and prayers to Mr. Phillips after this latest assault on his right to free speech and not to be forced, in his work, to promote an ideology with which he disagrees.
The fact that the court pursued the complaint by this gender-confused man, after Phillips' right to reject such compelled speech was confirmed by the Supreme Court, is nothing short of targeting by LGBT activists and harassment by the District Court.
In 2018, the Supreme Court overruled an earlier District Court ruling and determined that forcing Phillips to create a homosexual "wedding" cake was a violation of the First Amendment.
But, just before the Supreme Court's ruling, Scardina (the LGBT-activist-plaintiff in this latest miscarriage of justice) demanded that Phillips create a cake celebrating his “transition.” Upon being refused, Scardina sued Phillips.
"The request was for a custom-designed cake, pink on the inside and blue on the outside, to reflect and celebrate a gender transition," Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal organization protecting religious freedom and Phillips' legal counsel, said in a statement on Wednesday.
"Phillips’ shop declined the request because the customer specifically requested that the cake express messages and celebrate an event in conflict with Phillips’ religious beliefs," ADF continued.
"Jack Phillips serves all people but shouldn’t be forced to create custom cakes with messages that violate his conscience," ADF stated. "The harassment of people like Jack … has been occurring for nearly a decade and must stop."
Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which supports Jack Phillips against the latest LGBT efforts to persecute him because of this sincerely held religious beliefs.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'Court forces Christian baker to make cakes celebrating a transgender ‘transition’' - www.lifesitenews.com/news/court-forces-christian-baker-to-make-cakes-celebrating-a-transgender-transition
'Jack Phillips back in court over refusal to bake transgender cake' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/jack-phillips-back-in-court-over-refusal-to-bake-transgender-cake
ADF Statement - https://adfmedia.org/case/scardina-v-masterpiece-cakeshop
**Photo Credit: YouTube screen grab
However, during late night debate of Bill C-10 Monday, Geist commented on the passing of it that the “Liberal government strategy of multiple gag orders and a ‘super motion’ to limit debate bore fruit last night.”
“The Parliamentary process took hours as the government passed multiple motions to cut short debate, re-inserted amendments that had been previously ruled null and void, and rejected a last-ditch attempt to restore the Section 4.1 safeguards for user generated content,” wrote Geist.
Recently, the Heritage Committee tasked with looking at Bill C-10 put a hold on it until the Department of Justice had time to determine whether or not the recent amendments violate one’s free speech, which are granted in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
After a review, the government said in an explanatory note on the bill that it does not impede Canadians’ freedom of speech when it comes to posts made online.
The passing of Bill C-10 came only a few days before Canada’s Justice Minister David Lametti snuck in a “hate speech” bill which, if passed, would allow a tribunal to judge those who are found to be in violation of the new law, simply by someone complaining they are a target of “online” hate.
Bill C-36 was introduced by Canada’s Justice Minister David Lametti and is titled “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act and to make related amendments to another Act (hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech).” It was officially tabled in the House of Commons Wednesday.
Just recently, Guilbeault said he would soon be introducing new internet “content moderation” legislation to “address categories of online harms” in Canada.
Lametti’s new bill will not proceed far in the House due to the summer break, but most likely will be used by Trudeau as a showpiece form of legislation to campaign on come a possible late summer or fall election.
As for Guilbeault, last year he had to walk back comments after saying the Trudeau government was considering making all news websites and social media platforms have a government license if they wanted to operate in Canada.
Guilbeault clarified that there was “no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations.”
The Honourable Steven Guilbeault – Minister of Canadian Heritage
15 Eddy Street, 12th Floor
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0M5
Email: [email protected]
MP Michelle Rempel Garner
Conservative shadow minister for industry and economic development
Suite 115, 70 Country Hills Landing NW
Calgary, AB T3K 2L2
Email: [email protected]
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
Email: [email protected]
Use online contact form here.
To contact your member of parliament (MP), click here.
To contact members of Canada’s senate, click here.