Controversial Internet regulation bill C-10 has passed in the House of Commons, but it still has to pass through the Senate before a predicted future election will effectively kill it.
The bill covers audio and audiovisual material distributed over the Internet by digital platforms under the Broadcast Act, a move that some fear could lead to censoring of everyday Canadians for social media postings. However, the billof The main objective is to enforce Canadian content and production requirements on streaming services and social media platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and YouTube, as it has been doing for traditional broadcasters.
Dennis Dawson, a former Liberal MP who is a member of progressive senate group, sponsored the bill in the Senate and still stands behind it.
“Basically, there are hundreds of millions of dollars leeching out of the system where Canadian artists, which were to be covered on traditional broadcast systems, would receive their share of revenue under the current Broadcasting Act that was written … before They were the Internet,” Dawson told The Epoch Times.
“The politicization of the bill in the House of Commons … became a debate on free speech, and it was a complete distortion of the real reasons for the bill. The government did not put up a bill because they wanted to stop people from putting their cat videos on the internet wanted.
On June 22, the House passed Bill C-10 by a vote of 196–112, which was strongly opposed by Conservative MPs.
Manitoba Conservative and Senate opposition leader Don Pellett called the C-10 a “terrible bill.”
“Liberals are moving to fundamentally change how Canadians use the Internet properly when the Internet is the most important thing we have. There is nothing we are more dependent on. I really like freedom, freedom of expression. “I value freedom of speech, and in my opinion, the C-10 leaves the door open for large-scale abuses of power over the rights of Canadians,” Platt said in an interview.
“I actually use freedom of opinion very strongly because we have a prime minister and a cabinet that doesn’t even believe that if we differ from their opinion that we should have an opinion as well, it should be made public. Leave it alone to express it. [gone] Almost to the point where we thought the police would act with a complete cancellation culture.”
On the day the House passed C-10, the government gave formal notice that Justice Minister David Lametti would soon introduce legislation to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to “hate propaganda, hate crimes and hate speech” . Pellet fears the government is “opening the door to jailing half of Canada.”
‘Very bad condition’
In April, the Liberal-dominated Heritage Committee removed a clause from the bill that exempted user-generated online content such as videos posted by individuals on social media platforms.
Several other amendments were introduced in the spring, but some were never debated. On 7 June, with the support of Block Québécois, the Heritage Committee passed a resolution limiting the debate in the committee to just five more hours. And then on June 10, the committee dismissed its own chair and went ahead to allow dozens of amendments to be voted on without discussion or debate and without revealing their contents to the public. The committee continued voting even after the time for debate was over.
Finally, on June 15, Speaker of the House Anthony Rota declared dozens of amendments “null and void”, ruling that the committee exceeded his authority, and ordered a reprint of the bill without those amendments.
Intrepid, the Liberals reintroduced their amendments as the House began its final week on June 21. Conservative MP Alain Reyes, for her part, moved to reintroduce protections removed by the Heritage Committee for those posting on social media, but was voted down. Liberals argue that the proposed law has enough safeguards to ensure that people’s rights are not infringed, a claim that conservatives reject. Bill C-10 passed the third reading at about 1:30 on June 22 after a 14-hour session.
Pellet said there is no precedent for a “shameless” approach he can think of.
“Speaker [Rota, a Liberal] They have brought very strict rules against their own government. And how do you do it in the 11th hour? you suddenly slap [many] Revision, and hopefully everyone will just say, ‘Yeah, well, okay. Let’s pass it on.’ It just doesn’t work that way,” he said.
Dawson, who is part of a 12-member group of progressives in the Senate, acknowledges that senators will have to “clean up a very dirty position because these amendments, as you know, were debated on some of them, Some of the ones weren’t debated. They were voted on; they were divided on. That’s why we have a Senate. So we have a chamber of quiet second thoughts.”
‘We must not defeat government law’
The Senate rarely dismisses the House of Commons. Nevertheless, David E. Professor Emeritus of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. Smith stated that the founding fathers of Canada clearly thought that the Senate should exercise its powers under certain circumstances or they would never be granted.
“The fathers of the Confederation probably thought there was a possibility, and that they had to. And I think, especially in the 19th century, regional concerns, in particular, [senators] Made sure they were properly considered,” Smith said in an interview.
“The argument against the Senate is, of course, that it is not elected, and so they are overturning the decision of the people’s representative. … and that [point]Obviously, this is a powerful one, but I think this discussion won’t end there.”
Pellet says that senators must respect the wishes of the House.
“I naturally believe that because we have been appointed, we must not defeat government law,” he said, but as for the C-10, he also believes that “absolutely zealously it is our job.” to amend that law.”
Whatever amendments the Senate proposes after a thorough study of the bill, Pellett does not expect a long-and-forth process between the upper house of parliament and the lower house.
“Many senators also believe … we should take a step on the amendment, send it back to the House. If the House rejects our amendments, we lay down the carpet and say, ‘Okay, that’s yours. There is work, and you may have to suffer for it in elections, but we are not going to impose our will on a democratically elected house.'”
There are rare instances where the Senate has rejected House bills in the past, such as when it struck down legislation proposed in 1996 that would have limited liability for the privatized Pearson International Airport. Pellet says a sequel to C-10 is doubtful, but possible.
“I don’t think we’ll have the support for the bill to kill the C-10, but I think this bill may be an exception, because the bill at Toronto airport was an anomaly.”