In terms of the comments you made about the way the telecom act is scoped for targeting infrastructure, it doesn't get into the same detail in this, because we're talking about amendments as opposed to the act as a whole. That is indeed already the scope of the act. You can read the Supreme Court's Capital Cities case from 2003 or the ISP reference case from 2012.
Telecommunications in the modern world touches pretty much any activity that exists in Canada. If someone is engaged in online commerce, like Rogers, which has a banking activity, that is subject to the Bank Act. It's not subject to the Telecommunications Act just because it happens to be online. The Telecommunications Act is specifically about the physical transmission between equipment. That is the definition of “telecommunications” in the Telecommunications Act. That's what it speaks to.
In the ISP reference case I mentioned, the Supreme Court got into what it means, for instance, to be a broadcaster engaging in expressive speech versus what it means to be a telecommunications operator. There, the ruling was quite clear: When you're just providing the raw transmission, you're acting as a neutral conduit. That's just the focus of the bill and the infrastructure there. Certainly, the amendment that was adopted this evening added for greater certainty that expressive speech cannot be controlled.
Thank you.