"Shut Up or Else!" They Explained

E-mails simply will not do:

Liberal MPs voted Friday to shut down debate on a Conservative motion to review whether an amendment to broadcasting Bill C-10 violates charter rights.

The controversial amendment would allow regulation of social media content and critics say it amounts to an attack on free speech. ...

Liberal MPs said that the committee is in the process of amending the legislation clause-by-clause, and it wouldn’t make sense to send the legislation for another review in the middle of that process.

Under the legislation, “charter statements reflect the bill at the time of introduction and are not updated,” Liberal MP Anthony Housefather said. He added that if that charter statement “were to be updated at any point, for whatever reason if that was permissible, it would only make sense to do so at the end of debate of the bill, when all the amendments had been adopted, and one knew what the legislation would look like.”

 

(Sidebar: bullsh--. What does Housefeather think shutting down the debate is?)

 

Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin proposed a motion to adjourn debate on the bill, effectively stopping the discussion. The five Liberal MPs on the committee and the sole NDP MP voted in favour of stopping the debate. The four Conservative committee members and one Bloc Québécois member voted against.

On Twitter following the Friday afternoon meeting, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault accused the Conservatives of delaying work on the bill and “putting the interests of big foreign streamers over those of Canadian creators.”

(Sidebar: the committee's names here. They should be reminded which country they really serve.) 

To wit:

But if the exclusion is removed – if 4.1 is struck down – the programming we upload to Youtube, that programming that we place on that service would be subject to regulation moving forward, but would be the responsibility of Youtube or whatever the sharing service is. The programming that is uploaded could be subject to discoverability requirements or certain obligations like that.

If the way forward to is maintain the exclusion for individual users but to strike down the exclusion for social media companies, that means that all the programming that is on those services would be subject to the Act regardless of whether it was put there by an affiliate or a mandatary of the company.

** 

During today’s hearing, Liberal MP Marci Ien inadvertently let slip that the government will be introducing a motion to regulate apps. Speaking about the wrong amendment (which is presumably forthcoming at the next meeting), Ien stated:

Yes, a new clause, Mr. Chair, because we live in a new world and it is a digital one. This clause is adding apps. Right now, the CRTC can regulate conventional channels. This would make sure that apps are regulated as well. Things like Crave and other apps. This clause is also about discoverability and for more on that I’d like to go to the department for why that’s important.

The department gently responded that Ian was talking about the wrong amendment.

However, in letting it slip that the government now wants the CRTC to regulate apps, the scope of Bill C-10 expands even further by potentially covering hundreds of thousands of apps that include audio or video that might qualify under the definition of programs. The previous assurances that video games are off the table is apparently gone with plans to have the CRTC regulate practically anything digital including user generated content and apps.

 

Yes, tyranny does not stop at a certain point.