The motion to demand huge amounts of information from anyone daring to criticize Bill C-18 isn’t sitting well with the business community.
Last week, notorious Liberal MP, Chris Bittle, helped push the latest bullying and intimidation tactics against anyone who criticize the government. In a motion revealed last week, they demanded 3 years of communications, correspondences, and everything else under the sun from Google and Meta. The motion came after Google conducted a test to see if they can block Canadian news links from their Google News service. This was followed up by Facebook making a business decision to block news links altogether from their platform should Bill C-18 be passed without significant changes.
While these are hardly crimes and well within the respective platforms rights to do so, for the government, even hinting at not going along with everything they want is a crime against humanity and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The idea is clear: to try and intimidate anyone who would dare criticize the government into silence. The tactic for this government is nothing new. Bittle already headed up a politically motivated “investigation” into those who would dare criticize Bill C-11. So, intimidation tactics from the government, at this point, is nothing new.
The problem with the motion, something that has been widely described as an abuse of power and a fishing expedition, is that it could sweep up the private communications or many ordinary Canadians. This isn’t sitting well with the Canadian business community. A prominent organization in that community is now fighting back against the government. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has issued an open letter, calling it a threat to Canadian’s right to express themselves on public issues:
Last Thursday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage signaled he would introduce a motion at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage related to the ongoing review of Bill C-18 that, if adopted, would pose a serious threat to the privacy of Canadians and to their rights to hold and express opinions on public issues.
The motion would also put a chill on the legitimate work of thousands of associations, chambers of commerce, unions, social action groups, not-for-profits, and private enterprises across the country, and set a precedent that would make it easier for future governments of any political stripe to attempt to intimidate its opponents.
The letter itself is on that site, and can be viewed here (PDF). The letter reads, in part, the following:
Our concern is not about C-18 itself or the companies currently debating its merits with your committee: it is about the preconditions for free discourse in our democracy. The motion, which was disclosed only last Thursday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, poses a serious threat to the privacy of Canadians and to their rights to hold and express opinions on public issues. In addition, adopting it would put a chill on the legitimate work of thousands of associations, chambers of commerce, unions, social action groups, not-for-profits, and private enterprises across the country. It is impossible to know who the next target of this type of measure will be. We urge the committee to avoid setting a precedent that would make it easier for future governments of any political stripe to attempt to intimidate its opponents in this way.
We have a number of serious concerns related to the substance and handling of the proposed motion:
(1) The motion specifically compels the disclosure of private communications and documents of third parties, without any requirement to inform them, let alone seek their consent. Such a measure contrasts starkly with the treatment of third-party information under Sections 20 and 36.3 of the Access to Information Act. Further, it goes against the principle established in Section 21 that protects the government from disclosure of “advice or recommendations by or for a government institution” or “an account of consultations or deliberations” in which its officials participated.
(2) The motion sets the stage for a major fishing operation that affects the rights, not only of the companies themselves, but of third parties as well. It requires the production of all internal and external communications (including but not limited to emails, texts or other forms of messages) in addition to any internal and external documents, memos and presentations related to actions the companies planned to take or options they considered or are considering in relation to all Canadian regulation since January 1, 2020, including Bill C-18. It also requires a list of all third parties that have received funding for the purposes of advocacy, engagement, awareness campaigns, and research with respect to regulation by Canada since January 1, 2020.
(3) The motion is directed only at the opponents of the bill, whom it accuses of “intimidation and subversion tactics.” Is the government prepared to apply the same disclosure standards to itself and to supporters of the bill, who have a direct and substantial interest in its passage? If it is not prepared to undertake the same disclosures related to its own actions, why will it not do so?
(4) The motion gives the companies only until “5:00 PM EST (sic) on March 31st, 2023” to produce this material. Is the government prepared to abide by similar standards for requests to it for information under the Access to Information Act?
(5) Canadians became aware of the intention to move such a motion only on Thursday. The vast majority of people and organisations whose democratic rights are at stake not only have not had a chance to be heard on its appropriateness but are completely unaware of the motion. Do committee members believe that this combination of stealth and haste on matters affecting privacy and basic freedoms sets an acceptable standard for a free and democratic society?
So, a very public pushback against the government on this motion. Indeed, there has been no investigations launched against news organizations colluding together to push Bill C-11 or Bill C-18. There has been no summons for those who intentionally spread disinformation about the two bills in an effort to support them, yet when someone has a problem with the bills, they are the ones subject to intense “investigations” that are very obviously politically motivated. What’s more, the standards are far and away above the standards for Access to Information requests which often take years only to see redacted documents produced (the one I filed years ago was outright rejected).
Whether or not the government listens to them remains to be seen. As the Bill C-11 process would suggest, the government already has quite the history of ignoring input from Canadians at large in the regulatory process and, instead, pursuing their own agenda backed by a select group of lobbyists and groups regardless of what any of the evidence indicates. So, despite how well grounded in facts the letter itself is, there is that challenge of trying to change things still in front of the business community.
At any rate, the bully tactics are definitely getting increasingly noticed by the public at large. So, there is a silver lining to be had here, albeit a rather small one.
Drew Wilson on Twitter: @icecube85 and Facebook.
