Canada’s governing Liberals have proposed a number of laws that pose a threat to press freedom, freedom of expression, and democracy as we know it. Here's where these Bills stand right now.
Starting in 2020, a number of Bills relating to privacy, information, news, social media, and cyber-security have been initiated by the governing Liberals. If these become law—and one controversial piece of legislation already has—the pitfalls, risks, and unintended consequences could change Canada’s information ecosystem and inevitably, democracy itself.
Officially four laws have been proposed since 2020, but each contains “consequential amendments” to other Acts, and in the case of Bill C-27, encompasses three additional new laws.1
Critics argue, that unless significant and substantive changes are made to these Bills, there will be a stark and disturbing transformation in the digital information landscape. Meanwhile, few Canadians are even aware of what’s happening.
Screen grab from question period showing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, House of Commons, May 1, 2023 (CPAC).
Bill C-11: The Online Streaming Act, is now law
Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act is an Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related consequential amendments to other Acts. It was first introduced by the governing Liberals in December 2020 and received Royal Assent on April 27, 2023.
The law dictates that streaming platforms have to contribute to new Canadian content standards or face steep financial penalties. The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) will be drafting the regulations for the new law.
While the Bill made its way through the House of Commons in less than four months, it hit a few snags in Second Reading in the Senate, where eventually Senators voted 52-16 to approve the amendments considered by the House of Commons.
It is now law.
Surprisingly, despite its approval, the Senate acknowledges that little is known about exactly how the law will affect broadcasting in Canada. It provides the following example:
The bill sets out a revised broadcasting policy for Canada, which includes an expanded list of things the Canadian broadcasting system “should” do. One of the new additions to the list is that the Canadian broadcasting system ‘should … serve the needs and interests of all Canadians — including Canadians from racialized communities and Canadians of diverse ethnocultural backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, abilities and disabilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions, and ages.’ But precisely what this would mean in concrete terms for broadcasters is not yet known.
The Senate also noted that the law will give the CRTC new powers, “but exactly how or even if the CRTC would make use of them cannot be determined through an analysis of the bill alone.”
“Aspects of this bill may have a sweeping effect on broadcasting in Canada—or modest effect, depending on future CRTC decisions,” says the Senate.
Before the Bill was passed by the Senate, it was amended to include a requirement that the CRTC consult with the public on the regulations it is tasked with drafting.
Michael Geist is a professor of law and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa. Geist has been scathing in his critique and points to the contentious retention of the user content regulation. He says it was “evident to anyone who took the time to read [the bill], that user content is subject to potential regulation.” Geist says that when the bill was first introduced (as Bill C-10), the user content regulation was not included, but this changed, and the federal government was not willing to compromise on it. Geist writes:
That leaves either the prospect that the government wants to retain the power to regulate user content (a real possibility) or that, egged on by a handful of largely Quebec-based culture groups, it was unwilling to admit that it had made a legislative mistake.
According to Geist, the government narrative that the law was necessary to protect the future of the Canadian film and television production doesn’t seem to be borne out in fact. He points out—drawing on recently released industry data—over the past decade, as streaming services have grown in popularity, Canadian film and television production has more than doubled.
Michael Geist, professor of law and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa
Senator David Richards, an acclaimed Canadian novelist, essayist, poet, and screenwriter, and co-winner of the 2000 Giller Prize for his book, Mercy Among the Children, denounced the bill on the Senate floor. He said he would “always and forever stand against any bill that subjects freedom of expression to the doldrums of governmental oversight, and I implore others to do the same. I don’t think this bill needs amendments; I think, however, it needs a stake through the heart.”
Renowned Canadian author Margaret Atwood also weighed into the debate on the bill, saying “bureaucrats should not be telling creators what to write” or deciding what is Canadian.
In an interview she says: “All you have to do is read some biographies of writers writing in the Soviet Union and the degrees of censorship they had to go through government bureaucrats. So it is creeping totalitarianism if governments are telling creators what to write.”
Screen grab of Margaret Atwood, taken from this video interview with Silver Donald Cameron.
Bill C-18: The Online News Act, is now in Second Reading in the Senate
Bill C-18: The Online News Act is an Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to people in Canada. This bill was passed in the House of Commons and is currently in consideration in Committee in the Senate, where it has gone through Second Reading.
In an article that recently appeared in Canadian Dimension titled, “Is this the end of press freedom in Canada?” journalist Marc Edge lays out how “the ruling Liberals are seemingly doing all they can to bring the Internet under their thumb.” He says the Online News Act will force Google and Facebook to do what Ottawa has been doing for years: subsidize our country’s news media.
Edge says Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications (CRTC), an independent public authority that currently regulates and supervises Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications, “would be put in charge of negotiations between the digital platforms and media outlets, expanding its authority from audio and video to written news content online.”
Edge points to Michael Geist’s appearance before the Senate, where Geist told them that the proposed legislation “raises significant concerns involving the free flow of information online [and] freedom of expression.” Geist also warned that Bill C-18 “is likely to cause far more harm than good including the possibility of blocked news sharing” if Google and Facebook don’t play along with the feds.
Edge also reports on a “disturbing new initiative” coming from the Liberal Party’s British Columbia branch, which is calling for the government to “hold on-line information services accountable for the veracity of material published on their platforms and to limit publication only to material whose sources can be traced.”
Edge writes:
The proposal passed by the [Liberal] party’s biennial policy convention in Ottawa is designed to combat disinformation, but it takes the elephant gun approach to fly swatting and so makes the cure worse than the disease. Limiting publication would of course entail censorship, while “material whose sources can be traced” would require official vetting. As for veracity, who’s to say what is true? The government itself is one of the biggest purveyors of disinformation these days. The Orwellian implication would require the censoring of all but government-approved information.
The proposed Liberal policy on “disinformation”notes that a recent poll found 44% of Canadians believe that much of the information from news organizations is false, and 71% believe official government accounts of events is untrustworthy.
Sadly, there is no recognition that at least some of this mistrust could actually be justified.
In a recent CBC article in response to the Liberal policy out of BC, Trudeau was quoted as saying, “That policy is not a policy we would ever implement.” Since the policy is considered “non-binding,” the government can choose to ignore it.
Bill C-26: An Act respecting cyber-security, completed Second Reading in the House of Commons
Bill C-26: An Act respecting cyber-security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts. It reached Second Reading in the House of Commons and is currently in Committee. This bill was tabled in the House of Commons on December 14, 2022, not long after the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) concluded its hearings.
As I’ve previously reported, the Bill currently sets out serious financial penalties for providers to ensure compliance, and gives government ministers the discretion to prohibit a telecom service provider from providing any service to a specified person in the name of national security. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has been participating in publicizing the many serious and worrying flaws in the Bill, including that it opens the door to new surveillance obligations, allows for the termination of essential services, undermines privacy, allows for secretive new powers, and has no safeguards against abuse.
The CCLA call for “sober second thought” on the Bill and significant amendments to ensure it actually does provide cybersecurity protection that protects our rights and also protects us from overreach from government security agencies.
The civil liberties advocacy group writes:
Security vs freedom is a false dichotomy. Genuine security and safety require individuals to be safe from malicious actors and safe from unreasonable intrusion by the state, and while it’s a tough balance, it’s the balance democracy requires.
You can read more about the problems with Bill C-26 here and the Joint Letter of Concern, signed by the CCLA as well as the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Leadnow, Ligue des droits et libertés, OpenMedia, and the Privacy & Access Council of Canada.
Bill C-27: The Digital Charter Implementation Act (includes multiple laws) is in Second Reading in House of Commons
Bill C-27: The Digital Charter Implementation Act is an Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act, and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. It has completed Second Reading in the House of Commons, and is currently in Committee.
Introduced by the government in June 2022, the Digital Charter Implementation Act will, according to the federal government, “modernize the framework for the protection of personal information in the private sector and introduce new rules for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI). This legislation takes a number of important steps to ensure that Canadians have confidence that their privacy is respected and that AI is used responsibly, while unlocking innovation that promotes a strong economy.”
The Bill was introduced prior to the last election, and was called Bill C-11, but should not be confused with the more recent Bill C-11, discussed above.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who critiqued the Bill (when it was referred to as Bill C-11) have little good to say about the proposed law.
The group states that while the Bill does include some privacy features that advocates want, there are also a number of serious shortcomings. There are issues around de-identifying data and consent and questions about the power imbalance between corporate data collectors and individuals. The CCLA argue that the Bill, as is, would not provide greater privacy protections for Canadians or address this power imbalance.
In my 2016 book, About Canada: The Environment (Fernwood Publishing), I outlined how in 2012 Stephen Harper’s Conservative government dismantled more than 70 laws in two Omnibus budget bills. The changes systematically undid decades of environmental protection to clear the way for the liquidation of Canada’s natural assets and to fast-track oil and gas projects and the building of pipelines. In what I referred to as “Canada’s Dark Age,” Harper also closed down a number of federal science libraries and culled their collections, muzzled federal scientists in a campaign to control their messages and to limit the media’s access to them. Much of this continued in the Trudeau years, despite the official spin that things were going to be different.
I would argue we are on the cusp of another dark age. Should these Bills—proposed by the Trudeau Liberals and currently at various stages of becoming legislation—become law, we will witness transformative changes respecting press freedom and freedom of expression, and a ramping up of the cyber-security state. Hard won freedoms Canadians have taken for granted are being eroded in the name of safety and protection from mis-dis-and-mal-information.2
As Marc Edge points out above—and it’s an irony worth repeating here—the government itself is one of the biggest purveyors of disinformation. Should it or tech companies be put at the helm of deciding what is true?
Edge has just written a book in which he discusses how Canada’s newsrooms have been hollowed out, undermining citizens’ trust in what’s reported to them. I ask him why he thinks so few journalists in Canada are raising alarm bells about the recent spate of worrying proposed legislation, such as Bill C-18, the Online News Act?
Edge replies:
There is a great deal of insecurity among journalists. Most seem to be looking to the government to help secure their future, which is dangerous. I find it curious that media bailouts and the Liberal initiative to regulate the Internet became an issue in neither the 2019 nor 2021 federal elections despite the Conservative leader promising to cancel the $595 million bailout.
…
I think that so few journalists in Canada are raising alarm bells about this because they are either being constrained from doing so by their employers, who are hoping to hop on the gravy train, or they are hoping to hop on the gravy train themselves.
Against an ever-growing backdrop of falsely labelled misinformation and official disinformation, the Canadian government (and other governments around the world) are now trying to make a compelling case that increased surveillance and the policing of information is justified.
If there was a time to push back, it’s now.
[If your interested in reading more about policing information and the surveillance state, you might want to check out my 3-part series, Remote Control. You can access all three parts from here.]
For a list of all the Bills introduced by the governing Liberals in the 44th Session of Parliament (in order of date introduced) you can go here.
Essentially, misinformation is defined as both real and distorted information, disinformation is exaggerated facts and fabricated news, and mal-information is news or information that is actually true and factual, but is conveyed to “inflict harm” on a person, organization or country.