Justice Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

I want to ask the same question of Mr. Hatfield.

Mr. Hatfield, you mentioned that Bill C-63, part 1, accomplishes more than a bill that has been raised around this table—Bill C-412—so you've resolved that for us. It's very clear that we should be putting the focus on Bill C-63, part 1.

To what extent do you believe that algorithm transparency is also important to achieve, and to what extent would you like to see some of the provisions of Bill C-292 incorporated into Bill C-63, part 1?

[Matthew Hatfield]

Yes, it would be healthy for Bill C-63 to go a bit further into looking into what algorithms are doing, from the framework of providing more transparency, giving researchers good access to study algorithms and determining how they're impacting the public. If MPs could agree on some language there, could get it done and could move on to the rest of the bill, then that would be healthy. I wouldn't hinge the bill's future on it, but I think that would be the appropriate approach.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'll ask both of you this question. What are the international examples that we need to be considering as we deal with the bill, part 1, to ensure that we not only get the best possible bill coming out of committee, but also get one that does what needs to be done at this critical time?

I'll start with you, Ms. Laidlaw.

[Dr. Emily Laidlaw]

I recommend that the committee first study the Digital Services Act. The one thing to keep in mind is that these types of European legislation tend to be a lot shorter and leave a lot until later. I think that Bill C-63 is a little more fulsome, but especially for the algorithmic accountability, with the way it's been addressed there, it could be helpful here.

The other thing to consider for some aspects of it would be the U.K.'s Online Safety Act. We have also drawn certain aspects from Australia's eSafety Commissioner structure. I can't remember the name of the legislation at the moment.

Those are the three that I would recommend that you look at.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

We can learn from all of that. Essentially, as we look at international examples, hopefully they'll look at what we put forward. We're hopefully raising a higher standard, not impacting on freedom of expression, but putting in place the protections that are so important.

I'll go to you, Mr. Hatfield, with the same question on the international examples that we need to consider as we work through this bill to get the best possible result.

[Matthew Hatfield]

For the international examples, I have to mirror what Ms. Laidlaw said. I think it is the DSA first and then looking at what some of what our Commonwealth peers have done in Australia and the U.K.

From the perspective of partisanship, in the U.K., it was a Conservative government that moved through a bill that had some of the same parameters as Canada's bill. I would encourage everyone to remember that.

If we were simply stacking Bill C-412 with no changes onto Bill C-63 with no changes—every part, with parts 2 and 3 included against each other—in that contest, OpenMedia would prefer Bill C-412. The exciting opportunity you have here, given that we're looking at just parts 1 and 4 potentially, is to strengthen and pass a version of Bill C-63, which, I think, of the Canadian examples, provides the best overall protection.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

You've been very clear that in terms of limiting the regulator, you believe we need to ensure that there are mandatory impacts on freedom of expression and privacy that are part and parcel of every decision that is made. On a scale of one to 10, how important is that to you, with 10 being...?

[Matthew Hatfield]

It's necessary for the bill to function. We would have concerns if it weren't dealt with.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I continue?

[The Vice-Chair (Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin), Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I would have liked to let you continue, Mr. Julian, but your time was up 10 seconds ago. Thank you.

It is now 5:57 p.m., and we have to end the meeting at no later than 6:00 p.m.

I would therefore like to thank all the witnesses for being with us.

I would also like to thank our colleagues from the House who ensured that this meeting was held properly.

We'll see each other soon.

The meeting is adjourned.