Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 18th, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, please speak.

We're in the middle of voting on a clause, but go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, my hand has been up since the moment this amendment was brought forward, and I believe, if I'm not mistaken—perhaps you could check with the clerk—that each of us has an opportunity to speak, and until we've all spoken it's not your call for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, I understand that. I don't know if your hand ever went down. That's my problem. If your hand is up fresh, then I will allow you to speak.

Go ahead.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, can I make a kind request? If my hand is up, perhaps you can consider calling on me and I could clarify whether or not it's a legacy hand or a new hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mrs. Thomas.

Go ahead, please.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wish to ask a few clarifying questions with regard to this.

My first question for the officials would be.... I'm curious to know whether Parliament has jurisdiction over the Internet and if so, which legislation would offer this jurisdiction.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Madam Chair, may I respond?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, indeed. Go ahead.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

As I responded to Mr. Bittle, activity on the Internet, depending on the nature of the activity, would fall either under federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction.

The basis for this piece of legislation is regulating.... Again, the key definitional concept here is online communications platforms, which would be platforms that are integral to the functioning of the Internet or permit person-to-person communication, and those are under federal jurisdiction, so the definition here is clarifying the scope of what digital platforms would be subject to this piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

My clarifying question, then, for the officials is this. It has been brought to our attention by a number of legal experts that perhaps this is setting Bill C‑18 up for a constitutional challenge. I'm wondering if you can comment on the constitutionality of this bill and whether or not that has been weighed, and what that process of evaluation looked like if it did in fact happen.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Indeed, the constitutionality of the bill was weighed before it was tabled. That is part of our normal assessment to make sure that any bill that's being brought forward by the government does fall under the federal government's jurisdiction.

Again, the way that this bill has been crafted focuses on those entities subject to federal government jurisdiction in a way that respects provincial jurisdiction in terms of activities that may fall under their sphere of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

Is your hand still up? Are you still wanting to speak?

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

I'm just curious, then, as to why the decision was reached that this does, in fact, fall under constitutionality.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas, for the question.

At the end of the day, the assessment was that this is an appropriate extension of the constitutional heads of power that fall to the federal government and that a bargaining framework targeting online communications services, including search engines and social media services, is within the federal government's heads of power under the Constitution Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

My next question is just for further clarification around this definition of “digital news intermediary”. It's defined as an “online communications platform”, but it doesn't define what an online communications platform is.

It would seem to me that in order to have jurisdiction over something, it would need to be clearly defined. I am just curious as to how you might describe an online communications platform. What would that definition be?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

In short, it would be a communications platform that facilitates communication between individual Canadians—that point-to-point communication—or is integral to the functioning of the Internet.

We have sought to provide greater clarity in terms of what it applies to by making the reference to “a search engine or social media service” as part of that definition of digital news intermediary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

You said a “point-to-point communication”, so I have a few questions.

First off, does that include text messaging?

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas.

The definition of “digital news intermediary” specifies that it does not include an online communications platform that is a messaging service, the primary purpose of which is to allow persons to communicate with each other privately. Text messaging, for example, is excluded from the definition of “digital news intermediary”.

Perhaps a different way to understand what I am trying to communicate is that an online communications platform is a recognition of interprovincial communication undertakings, but in a digital context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm curious, then, as to whether or not Twitter would be defined as a digital intermediary.

[Thomas Owen Ripley]

Thank you for the question, Mrs. Thomas.

For the purposes of this framework, our view would be that a platform like Twitter would be potentially a digital news intermediary and subject to the legislation if, as you likely know, it met the thresholds outlined in clause 6, which are to be set out in Governor in Council regulations.