Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Ripley, you raised a good point here. With regard to the regulatory framework, clause 2 talks about the commission and the commission's involvement in terms of the digital news intermediaries and how this bill will be applied.

For further clarification, I'm curious, because there have been some concerns raised by various witnesses with regard to the expansion of power that is being granted to the CRTC. A number of criticisms have been raised with regard to that expansion of power. One of them has been that the CRTC, based on this legislation, is going to be able to demand any information. There is no scope to that; it's any information that it wishes from an online platform or a DNI in order to decide whether or not the platform is within scope.

Can you help me understand why the department granted oversight of this regime to the CRTC? What was the motivation behind that?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

In identifying a regulator for the purposes of this act, we considered what regulators out there are best suited to oversee and administer this kind of regime. The assessment was that the CRTC was best placed to do so, in part because it is an independent regulator, at arm's length from the government, that has expertise and experience in dealing with, overseeing and interacting with the media sector. Obviously, there is a desire to have a degree of independence and an arm's-length relationship in that instance.

They also have experience in overseeing bargaining frameworks and final offer arbitration. That is something they do under the existing Broadcasting Act. They're a regulator that already has expertise in that area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'll let this be my final question for now. I do have more with regard to this clause, but I recognize that there may be others with their hands up, so I'll let you go to them next.

My follow-up question to that one with regard to the CRTC is this. Given that they have minimal experience or expertise with regard to the news sector.... Certainly, concerning print media, I don't know that they've really regulated print media in the past in any way. Perhaps you could comment on that and correct the record if I'm wrong. My question is, are they equipped to play this role, and, if so, what equips them?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

The CRTC has experience and expertise in interacting with and overseeing media companies. You are right that they do not oversee the print sector. Broadcasters, however, are in the business of news, and that is not something that is foreign to the CRTC. In fact, the question of local news and the question of supporting smaller, independent broadcasters through interventions like the independent local news fund are things that the CRTC has experience with.

I would clarify, though, that the framework is one that is focused on the online communications platforms that we talked about earlier, the digital news intermediaries. This is not a framework that seeks to regulate the news sector. This is a framework that imposes an obligation on large, dominant platforms to bargain with news businesses. It is not a question of subjecting news businesses to regulation under this framework.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Tolmie, go ahead.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just asking for a bit of grace because obviously I am filling in for someone, and so far I've found this conversation fascinating because of the potential issues that could surround it.

Mr. Ripley, I'm looking for a couple of answers to two questions that I have. Number one is based on clarity. When Mrs. Thomas asked about Facebook, you said that in your opinion Facebook was exempt from this. Is that correct?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

No, Mr. Tolmie. I believe Mrs. Thomas asked about Facebook Messenger, which is one of the messaging services that Meta offers that permits communication between individuals. I believe the answer I gave her was to specify that the private messaging services—again, WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger come to mind—are excluded from the concept of digital news intermediary.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Okay, so for clarity, a conversation between two individuals that is considered a private message is exempt, but something like Facebook and Twitter, something that's public, would fall under—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

This question has already been asked and an answer was given earlier. We are going around in circles here. If the Conservatives only take the floor to hamper our work, and this is one of their known tactics, they may as well say so right away so that we know what to expect. Otherwise, perhaps they could ask new and more constructive questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's my understanding that at the beginning of this meeting we were told there would not be a filibuster, Mr. Champoux, and I take people at their word.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Sorry, Madam Speaker, the first question was for clarity. I just wanted to make sure that I understand this. As I said, I am new and I do apologize.

The second question I have for Mr. Ripley is on the matrix in which this will be going forward. Basically, you've answered my first question, which is that it's a messenger to messenger, a communication between two individuals, but something that is public.... Would I be correct in assuming that, sir?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Yes, that's correct. A public social media service like Facebook and Twitter, again, would fall within the definition of digital news intermediary and could be subject to the framework if it meets the designation criteria set out in clause 6.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Okay, there's just one thing I want to make sure of before I hand the floor over. Is a group chat...? So it's not going to be based on numbers, because you could have five or six people on your Facebook page. If you have a group chat where there are five or six, is that exempt?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mr. Tolmie.

If I come back to what is the core objective of the bill, it is to require dominant digital platforms that exercise a strategic market advantage over news businesses to bargain with those news businesses. For the most part, right now in 2022, where we see that strategic market advantage is in the advertising market. That's why, at the end of the day, what we're talking about here is, again, large search engines and large social media services, which exercise that strategic market advantage over news businesses.

That's a long way of saying to you that we're not in the space of.... This isn't a question about whether having six or eight individuals talking to each other suddenly subjects that service to the framework. The answer is no, because, again, it hinges on the question of whether there is a strategic market advantage over news businesses.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Ripley, thank you very much for clarifying that for me.

For those in the room, obviously, as I said, I'm filling in for someone, so if we're going to be doing this here, in this room, because it's going to be a public document, then everybody should have a little bit of grace to allow for someone like myself to have the time to understand.

Thank you very much.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I respect Mr. Tolmie lecturing us on how the committee is run. He hasn't been here. It's clear that we're into a filibuster, which the Conservatives promised they wouldn't do.

They claimed at the last meeting that they respected journalists. I guess that was transitory in their belief after receiving some bad press in Postmedia. However, it seems they've forgotten about that after the week.

I'm hoping and pleading with them that perhaps we can move on. We've spent 40 minutes on this one point, including providing questions to an individual who hasn't been to any of our meetings, who's asking us for a grace period, who hasn't done his homework, and who is coming and just delaying the whole process.

I hope they stick to their word. I took Mr. Waugh at his word when he said they weren't going to filibuster. He hasn't engaged in it, but maybe the rest of the Conservatives didn't get the memo from Mr. Waugh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

That was actually not a point of order. I shall go back to the question now.

Shall CPC-01 carry?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, am I allowed to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, your hand is up again.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, Mr. Shields has had his hand up for quite some time now.