The temperature over the government’s Internet legislation has increased this week as many Canadians wake up to the consequences of Bills C-11 and C-18. CRTC regulations on mandated registration requirements arising from the Online Streaming Act and the possibility that Google will follow Meta’s lead and remove news links for search results in Canada due to the Online News Act have placed the spotlight on harmful effects of the government’s approach. In response, Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge has become more vocal on both social media and mainstream media in defence of the government’s approach. Unfortunately, her comments included repeated errors (suggesting that independent media has not reached any deals with Internet platforms which is not remotely accurate), maligned digital creators (saying that Bill C-11 wasn’t about them), were contradicted by the CRTC, or featured outright misinformation. I posted a pair of threads fact-checking the Minister, which are posted below. There can obviously be different views on the Internet regulation, but the Minister ought to know her file and stick to the facts.
Post Tagged with: "canadian heritage"
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 179: Peter Menzies on Why the CRTC Feels Broken Right Now
Last week, the CRTC issued the first two of what are likely to be at least a dozen decisions involving the Online Streaming Act. Those decisions are already sparking controversy, but as the Commission focuses on Bill C-11 and perhaps soon Bill C-18, there is mounting concern that its other responsibilities are falling by the wayside that its independence from the government is starting to show cracks. Peter Menzies is a former Vice-Chair of the CRTC and frequently commentator on broadcast, telecom and Internet regulatory issues. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the current state of the Commission, which has never seemed more important but also seemed more out of touch and incapable of meeting its duties.
The Documents Don’t Lie, Even If It Appears Pablo Rodriguez Does: ATIP Reveals His Office Was Informed Within Minutes of CMAC/Marouf Termination Notice
When national concern broke out over Canadian Heritage funding an anti-semite as part of its anti-hate program in August 2022, then Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez was nowhere to be found. While specific responsibility for the program lay with cabinet colleague Ahmed Hussen, internal documents obtained under the Access to Information Act reveal that Rodriguez’s office was well aware of the issue. But when Rodriguez appeared before the Canadian Heritage committee last fall and was asked about the issue, he said he knew nothing about it until August 22, 2022. As I posted yesterday, that testimony appears to be false as his chief of staff, deputy minister, and office personnel raised concerns nearly a week before that date.
In fact, additional documents obtained under ATIP indicate that Rodriguez’s office was kept abreast of major developments for days, including immediately being informed on August 19th that Canadian Heritage legal personnel had served Marouf’s organization with notice that it was terminating the contribution contract.
The Need for Truthful Accountability: What ATIP Records Tell Us About Pablo Rodriguez and Canadian Heritage Funding an Anti-Semite
The past few days have been painful to watch as Canadian politicians grapple with the aftermath of recognizing and applauding a Nazi in the House of Commons. The episode and its response brings back memories from last year’s discouraging response to revelations that Canadian Heritage’s anti-hate program had provided funding to Laith Marouf, a known anti-semite. While there are obvious differences, the commonality lies in the pain to the Jewish community and the reticence for full-throated apologies and public engagement, misplaced hope that the issue will just recede from public attention, slow commitments to ensure it does not happen again, and reluctanc
Why the Government’s Draft Bill C-18 Regulations Don’t Work: The 4% Link Tax is Not a Cap. It’s a Floor.
The Online News Act has quickly emerged as one of the government’s biggest policy failures with Canadian news outlets facing lost traffic, lost revenues, and lost competition. The source of the Bill C-18 failure was the government’s seeming inability or unwillingness to game plan the potential outcomes of the law, rejecting criticisms and calls for a “Plan B” by instead relying on the hope that the policy measures would simply unfold as they did in Australia. That obviously has not happened, leading to the growing realization that Meta’s blocking of news links, which has already gone on far longer than it did in Australia, is not a bluff. With Meta out of news in Canada, the government is hoping to salvage the law by convincing Google to pay at least $172 million for news links. Unfortunately, the draft regulations released by Canadian Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge suffer from the same failures as the law, namely an inability to game plan the potential outcomes of the regulations.
I’ve already written about how the draft regulations will do little to ensure more spending on journalism and how they are stacked against small, independent and digital first news outlets. But as I read analysis that suggests that Google got what it wanted – a cap on liability – I fear that the regulations are badly misunderstood. In fact, if you assess the competing policy objectives in the regulations and consider how they might actually play out, it becomes hard to avoid the conclusion that they don’t work and may well lead Google to walk away from news in Canada.
Recent Posts
The Lessons of 9/11 We Forgot After October 7th 
Named to Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers 
Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Asking Google Maps to Defy the U.S. on Lake Ontario Would Undermine Canadian Digital Sovereignty 
Big Money, Bigger Design Changes: What the Meta Settlement Means for Canada, Bill C-34, and the Age Verification and Privacy Risks That Remain 
Unleashing the Trolls: Ontario Court Opens the Door to Liability for Influencers Who Weaponize Their Audiences
