Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would Senator Plett take a question?

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I will nevertheless ask my question. Why are you so pessimistic about the future of Bill S-210? Do you have any information suggesting that this bill will not pass and that the amendment to Bill C-11 is the only way forward?

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Plett, you have quoted me extensively, and I thank you for supporting my initiative to protect children from pornographic content.

However, since this is a public debate, I would like to set the record straight. As you know, beyond this amendment, Bill S-210 is being introduced today in the House of Commons by Conservative member Karen Vecchio, who you know well. Both of us are hopeful that this bill —

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I think legislation certainly needs to be as clear as possible, but it also needs to send a clear message. What came out in our hearings and, as you know, was very telling, is the fear that content creators have, those who create user-generated content. They are afraid that they are going to be covered under Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, the amendment as it’s currently drafted leaves a huge amount of uncertainty, particularly in terms of who will be covered. Is it anyone who makes money? Everyone knows that user-generated content allows small creators to earn an income.

How do you plan on reassuring those creators, considering they have been very clear about their fears? We’re talking about people who want to make a living. Just like the musicians who are opposed to this amendment, content creators exist and they feel that this amendment is unclear. Personally, I have to tell you that in reading it, I don’t find it particularly clear either.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Like you, Senator Gold, I take my work in the Senate very seriously. I believe in the principle of restraint that you talked about and that you explained in your speech.

As you know, Bill C-11 is very important to me when it comes to defending francophone and Indigenous minorities in Canada. We will see what comes of all this, but the idea is to try to defend minority languages. In that sense, I’m of the opinion that Bill C-11 is more important than my two amendments that were rejected. However, as a former journalist, I care a lot about facts and, quite frankly, I didn’t understand what you were getting at when you criticized the amendment to subsection 4.2(2). I will just mention one point that made my hair stand on end.

You said that sports games that are rebroadcast on platforms like YouTube will not be able to be taxed or used to help fund our culture. However, that isn’t at all the case because when we rewrote the amendment, we specifically kept paragraph (c), which indicates that we can include the fact that the program or a significant part of it has been broadcast by a broadcasting undertaking that is required to be carried on under a licence — as is the case with sports — or is required to be registered with the CRTC but does not provide a social media service.

I simply don’t understand how you can say that a loophole is being created and that we won’t be able to include sports at all in Bill C-11. It’s quite clear that this is part of the amendment.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would Senator Gold agree to take a question?

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Senator Housakos, would you agree to take a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Your amendment is set out in two parts. I want to begin with the second part. You want to get rid of the clause that says that original French-language shows have to be part of what platforms and broadcasters promote. You want to delete that part of the legislation. I imagine that means that you think original French-language shows aren’t important enough to be entitled to some protection. As you know, and you explained it in your presentation, French is still a minority language in Canada and in North America, even though it is the majority language in Quebec.

Generally, when I see you trying to weaken the scope of discoverability — a concept that still needs to be defined — I come back to the comparison that you always make between the private sector and the public sector, as though culture were just another commodity. I absolutely agree with you that private companies can do all sorts of extraordinary things in product development based on what consumers are looking for. However, for very obvious reasons, culture has never been perceived as a commodity to others. That’s why governments have taken it upon themselves to ensure a certain common good.

Are you dropping original French-language shows because they don’t interest you? Do your really believe that culture is just another commodity?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Of course.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Would Senator Manning accept a question?

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Let me start again. Unlike you, I don’t have absolute faith in the free market. Simply promoting a given song, for whatever reason, doesn’t mean it’s normal for that song to always top the others. I think the beauty of our Canadian cultural laws and regulations is that they showcase different Canadian cultural products.

This idea of putting forward a song, whether it’s American, British or Pakistani — I understand that you think that’s what works. You like the free market system. You are happy that the most popular ones are basically the only ones that get any play. However, that greatly reduces cultural diversity. Don’t forget that less than 5% of the songs that Quebecers listen to on Spotify are from Quebec artists. We got to that point because people can’t find these songs — they are tucked away at the back of the closet, as we say. Sometimes, young Quebecers should hear a song and say to themselves: “Oh, look at that! Here is a song by a Quebec artist. I should listen to it.” The idea behind this isn’t to force someone to listen to certain content, but to offer content. That’s the difference.

A system that suggests songs based on an algorithm has nothing to do with our cultural diversity or Canadian culture. It’s a commercial, for-profit system, and foreign companies are currently controlling our cultural consumption.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

Many things have been said about this bill over the months — before, during and after the review in committee. To some, Bill C-11 is absolutely necessary and should have been passed without amendment several months ago. To others, this is machiavellian legislation that jeopardizes the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I’d like to state from the outset what this bill does and what it doesn’t do.

[English]

First, the bill does not censor or restrict Canadians’ freedom of expression in any way. Once the bill is passed, all Canadian residents will continue to publish and consume all the cultural content they want, just as before. Whatever is available today will continue to be there. Anything you want to publish today can be published tomorrow. As such, nothing changes. With all due respect, those who denounce Bill C-11 as an evil act of censorship and infringement on our rights and freedoms are out to lunch.

What Bill C-11 does seek to do, however, is offer some support to our creators and, in particular, to Canadian creators in a minority situation. This support takes two forms: money and increased visibility. Under the bill, the major streaming platforms will have to contribute financially to Canadian culture and they will have to promote and recommend the works of our creators.

[Translation]

This bill is especially important to me as a Quebecer and particularly as a francophone because French is a minority language in a cultural ecosystem where discovery occurs first and foremost on foreign platforms where English is the dominant language.

Let’s be clear. Bill C-11 won’t provide a miracle solution. However, this bill with its rather imperfect regulatory tools constitutes a first step toward giving our creators a chance to make a name for themselves in the flood of global content.

Many unknowns remain, even after a lengthy study in committee. What specific criteria will determine what constitutes Canadian content? How will the visibility of Canadian content be measured? How can we promote Canadian content without making undue changes to the user experience? What does the word “discoverability” even mean? It is rather central to this bill, but it has yet to be defined. It will be up to the CRTC to answer these complex questions, which some people say will just open a can of worms.

Since Bill C-11 was introduced, some critics have found that the discoverability measures in particular constitute an inexcusable violation of consumer preferences and platform algorithms. I don’t see it that way. The market is not a god, and even in the internet age, it is still appropriate for countries to support their culture and defend their cultural sovereignty.

Despite the limitations of Bill C-11, I believe it is essential that Canada deploy legislative and regulatory tools to support its film, music and digital works in the context of globalization. Historically, Canada has taken the necessary steps to ensure that its cultures — particularly its minority cultures — have a voice, exist and are known and appreciated. Of course, with the evolution of technological platforms, it makes sense that our means of intervention should adapt, but the political and cultural imperative remains. Canadian culture, particularly minority and francophone culture, is not a commodity like any other.

I note, however, that Bill C-11 has shone a light on a generational conflict that we must consider. In Quebec in particular, nostalgic people praise the 65% francophone music quota on Quebec radio, which certainly allowed several generations, like mine, to get to know Quebec classics such as Robert Charlebois, Beau Dommage and Harmonium. However, younger people don’t listen to much radio or watch much TV anymore. They are on Spotify or YouTube and they value that freedom, which has increased their listening possibilities tenfold and opened new markets. These are real benefits that no one, even older people, would want to do without now.

The trade-off, however, is that young Quebecers no longer know their local artists, they listen to them less and less, so I’m worried about the sustainability of my culture.

This is a sensitive but crucial issue. We have to strike a balance between wanting to expose users to new Canadian cultural content while protecting their freedom and media consumption experience. I admit that is a major challenge.

In terms of legislation, the internet is still a new subject area that raises a number of issues. Bill C-11 is a first attempt at legislating in favour of Canadian culture, but it is certainly not the end of the line. There are bound to be mistakes and adjustments that have to be made as platforms evolve. This bill actually gives the CRTC a lot of flexibility.

As the committee wrapped up its study, some were still questioning the validity of Bill C-11, but what’s the alternative? I think the status quo isn’t viable for our creators, especially francophone creators. It is magical thinking to believe that market forces will miraculously enable Canada’s francophone creators to survive and have an impact despite being a drop in the ocean. Right now, that francophone content is being drowned out.

When singer David Bussières appeared before the committee, he neatly summed up the situation as follows:

 . . . the longer it takes, the greater the hegemonic effect of the Big Tech oligopoly in distancing audiences from local content. Our cultural identity is ultimately at stake, with all its diversity . . . and the fact that it is home to the only francophone communities in America.

During the study in committee, the senators from the Independent Senators Group, of which I am a member, got the 18 amendments that they moved adopted. Some of those were major amendments.

In my opinion, the most important amendment, which was prepared in cooperation with Senator Paula Simons, strikes to the heart of the debates on Bill C-11, namely, the scope of the exception for content generated by social media users.

The adopted amendment curbs the CRTC’s discretionary power and basically limits the bill’s application to professional music content. This further guarantees that YouTubers will not be targeted by Bill C-11, even if they generate revenue. This amendment also recognizes the fact that the world of cultural creation has changed. Individual creators have flooded social media with special content. They aren’t subsidized. They don’t have money. They manage on their own and they use their own business model. Our amendment helps to better maintain their autonomy.

I personally moved two other amendments, which were adopted. The first was in keeping with the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, who was of the opinion that Bill C-11 should better respect consumers’ and creators’ right to privacy. That is a significant addition given the considerable exchange of personal information resulting from the regulations.

The other amendment is the result of my long-standing commitment to protecting children from exposure to online pornography — or what is called adult content, which is regularly consumed by millions of children around the world — which causes obvious harm. The objective of Bill C-11 is to give the CRTC the power to regulate online platforms in the same way that it can regulate traditional broadcasters. The CRTC already has the ability to regulate access to sexually explicit content in traditional broadcasting, through cable or satellite, and my amendment only transfers that ability to online content.

The amendment reads as follows:

 . . . online undertakings shall implement methods, such as age-verification methods, to prevent children from accessing programs on the Internet that are devoted to depicting, for a sexual purpose, explicit sexual activity;

This is simply a statement of principle. The regulations and consultations should be carried out before these age verifications go into effect. The objective is simple. We will apply to the internet precautions that exist in the physical world to protect children from adult content.

[English]

I will conclude with a few words about algorithms, which were discussed at length during our committee hearings. These algorithms are, in a way, the secret sauce that determines what content is recommended and put forward for a given user. I say “secret sauce,” because we know almost nothing about these formulas which are closely guarded by the platforms. These algorithms incorporate several variables and data with the goal of attracting and retaining users for as long as possible. Yet, for some, these algorithms are not only confidential but sacrosanct — any attempt to intervene in favour of Canadian content thus constitutes a form of crime against the free market.

Here is what Brock University Professor Blayne Haggart told the committee about algorithms:

Algorithms become one of those magic and scary words that intimidate people, but all they really are is a set of rules that are repeated over and over again. . . . It is a form of regulation.

These privatized discoverability regulations are not designed simply to surface the most popular content or the content that you, the viewer, or reader, are most interested in. These companies do not just tell us what content is popular; they define what popular means. They already create winners and losers and they define popular to fit their own interests, however they decide to define them.

Personally, between private and opaque discoverability rules and public and transparent discoverability norms, I prefer the latter. That being said, I have no doubt that the platforms will adapt intelligently to the new requirements, and that they will continue to offer their Canadian users the content they like and are looking for, in addition to showcasing our creators.

Of course, this is not about censoring anything, or limiting access or distribution of any content. And it’s certainly not about destroying the engaging, modern platforms that we all use every day. It is about updating our means to implement our essential cultural policy. I simply do not see why a country like Canada should accept that private, foreign platforms be the only ones to decide what priority to give to Canadian, Quebec and Indigenous culture.

Adapting our policies and laws to the evolution of technology is not easy. Acting always involves risks. It is always easier to wait or to do nothing. But in this case, as in others, I believe that inaction would be fatal, and that boldness is necessary.

[Translation]

In conclusion, I will resolutely vote in favour of Bill C-11. Thank you.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I completely disagree with you.

Neither you nor I have the formula for the algorithms on the platforms. You say that it’s the most popular content that’s promoted. Frankly, senator, we know nothing about that. For example, is there an agreement with an advertising company that would ask to promote a certain singer or a certain product? We don’t know.

You don’t know the algorithms. I don’t know them either. It is a private company that decides what is going to be promoted. In our culture, in our cultural policies, we have thus far given subsidies to Canadian companies. We have asked broadcasters to broadcast Canadian culture. This isn’t about censorship here, as I’ve mentioned several times. These private companies simply need to leave some room for our Canadian culture. The algorithms certainly don’t provide this freedom that you talk about, which allows only the best to be promoted.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I wanted to ask you a question about users who shouldn’t be covered and platforms that should be covered by the bill. Isn’t it true that users include content creators and also many Quebec musicians and artists who are promoted on YouTube by record labels? Those people are also covered by Bill C-11. We can’t put all YouTube users in the same basket.

Senator Dawson: Those people, as you call them, support Bill C-11.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: That’s right.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Housakos, I’m not denying that the platforms give us a great deal of choice and that we can listen to a lot more cultural products from outside Canada. I’m someone who really enjoys this diversity.

The problem is that Canadian cultural products are not being seen. They’re hidden, especially products from minority groups, whether it’s francophone minorities or Indigenous minorities, because it’s all about clicks — not only clicks, but clicks are part of it.

Yes, I have faith in Canadians, but Canada is sparsely populated and has always relied on cultural policies for its culture to survive and flourish. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, and many countries do the same thing. We are not the United States, of course. We are a smaller culture that has the right to survive. Every country has the right to promote its culture. That’s part of the cultural exemptions in free trade agreements.

[English]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I am a bit surprised by your proposal because the reason Bill C-11 is so vague on some very specific issues is that the internet is constantly changing. The $10-million threshold is not particularly low, but we have no way of knowing how the internet will change in the future and who will become a major broadcaster in the Canadian context.

How did you come up with this $10-million threshold? Is it really a good idea to include this factor in the bill rather than allow the market to determine it? Again, you will say this is a matter for the CRTC, which already has a lot to rule on.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your answer, Senator Manning. I am trying to reconcile your amendment with the fact that Senator Simons and I removed anything to do with revenue from the amendment that we proposed and that was adopted.

When one reads the amendment, it is very clear that this woman, Ms. Roy, who roller skates and supports her family with her content, will not be affected in any way by Bill C-11. This amendment already guarantees that small content creators will be protected.

I am trying to understand how your amendment would be useful. Basically, what you are saying is that there is a chance that our amendment will be rejected by the government and so yours should be adopted.

I would like to know why your amendment is more likely to be accepted by the government than ours.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise at second reading of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is currently studying. Some 30 witnesses have already been heard.

In the time that I have been a senator, I have never seen a bill elicit such passionate reactions and divergent views.

On the one hand, many representatives of the cultural sector are urging us to pass the bill as written or to strengthen it. On the other, as my colleague Donna Dasko stated, our inboxes are full of form letters from citizens who fear for their freedom of expression and their freedom to listen to and watch whatever they want on the internet.

As for me, I do not believe that Canadians’ rights and freedoms are threatened by this bill. However, I do recognize that in a polarized social and political context, where some people do not hesitate to demonize their opponents and twist their words to whip up their supporters, some words have become radioactive. The word “algorithm” is one of them.

There are also concerns about some grey areas in the bill and the regulations that are to follow.

The more I hear the objections of stakeholders regarding Bill C-11, the more I realize that there are several interrelated debates. It is not just about being for or against the bill, as is the case with simpler legislation.

Bill C-11 is basically an adjustment exercise. It adjusts Canada’s broadcasting policy to bring it in line with the new technological environment.

In the past, music and audiovisual programs were broadcast via radio and traditional television networks that held licences and were subject to many rules, including the well-known quotas. The government was thus able to ensure that our country’s artists and cultural diversity were supported and showcased.

As we know, today, a significant portion of Canadians access music and programs via online platforms, often foreign platforms, that are not subject to any regulations. For the first time last year in Quebec, subscriptions to online platforms exceeded traditional cable subscriptions, with 71% of adult Quebecers having paid subscriptions to online streaming sites. That is a lot. We are seeing the same trend with music, where people are increasingly turning toward streaming platforms on which only 8% of the music listened to by Quebecers is French music.

The result is that our artists are losing visibility and the government no longer has the means of showcasing Canadian culture and content, including that of French and Indigenous people and other minority groups. In the wild west of digital platforms, the biggest players make the rules and, as we know, the biggest players are American companies.

There are two possible ways to deal with this new reality. The first is to do nothing and pretend that, in the internet era, the government has no role to play. The government could stop regulating altogether. The regulatory framework would have to be phased out gradually as the public moves to digital platforms. In the end, within a few years, all programs and music consumed by Canadians would be determined solely by market forces. The problem with this approach is that it means giving up on defending the values of Canada’s cultural identity, to the benefit of the web giants.

Officials from YouTube and TikTok appeared before the committee to reaffirm that the business model that has made them successful is working just fine. Their message was simple. What they call their secret recipe works, as evidenced by the success of Canadian YouTubers and singers.

Beyond these generalities, however, there is little information. What percentage of audiences do these Canadian artists get? How is this distributed between artists, content types and across the country? YouTube doesn’t have any precise statistics to share. In fact, YouTube officials don’t really care where the creators are from, because according to them, we live in a global world, so we should take their word for it and hope for the best.

However, the survival of our francophone culture cannot depend on only one or two successful artists like Charlotte Cardin and Coeur de pirate, whose names we hear over and over. People need to be able to discover and listen to others.

The second option proposed in Bill C-11 is a compromise. It involves bringing new platforms into the Canadian regulatory framework, but not in the same way as traditional broadcasters. The platforms will have to help fund production of Canadian content and will have to showcase Canadian content while continuing to offer a rich and diverse menu of program options. The CRTC will have the complex task of tailoring the rules to each foreign player. At least, that is the promise. I’ll be frank; it will be a mammoth undertaking, and I fear the CRTC will be overwhelmed.

I personally support the broad strokes of Bill C-11. Canadians will retain the best of digital platforms, that is, the freedom to listen to and watch what they want, based on their preferences, while giving our artists a chance to carve out a place for themselves and find their audience in this new broadcasting ecosystem.

However, as is often the case, the devil is in the details. Here are some of the main issues. The bill delegates a lot of power to the CRTC to make the rules for online platforms and implement Canada’s broadcasting and cultural policy. Many of us think it would have been better for the government to give the CRTC its instructions right now. This kind of feels like handing over a blank cheque.

One of the central issues the CRTC will have to consider is Canadian content. How should we define it now? Are some criteria more important than others? Should the focus be on subject matter, artists or intellectual property in productions? It will be up to the CRTC to review this crucial definition.

Much ink has been spilled about discoverability; it has taken up a lot of bandwidth. The term “discoverability” appears only twice in the legislation, which does not provide further details.

How will discoverability work for Canadian content on digital platforms? Is promoting that content without influencing algorithms and viewers’ or listeners’ choices enough? How will new content requirements differ from the old quota system? A lot of questions remain.

For example, at our brief hearings in June, I asked the chair of the CRTC how he would ensure the discoverability of Canadian content without involving the algorithms. He answered that the platforms themselves would have to change their algorithms to achieve the desired result of having Canadian users consume more Canadian music and shows.

As you can imagine, this answer shocked those who were closely following the hearings. For them, it was proof that algorithms must be changed even if the bill states that the CRTC does not have that authority. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC, and I quote, “shall not make an order . . . that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm.”

I believe that the debate on this specific point is so polarized that it is difficult to come to a conclusion. For example, YouTube and TikTok state that, without changing their algorithms, they go to great lengths to promote Canadian creators, whether through subsidies, programs or revenue sharing. They boast about their efforts and the success of certain Canadian artists.

Why are they worried about Bill C-11 when they will be able to choose how to get results in terms of the Canadian music that is listened to? Is it because only algorithms really have the power to influence the habits of the users of these platforms?

The logic of algorithms is simple. The only content suggested to the customer is similar to what they have watched before in order to keep them watching. How then can we hope for minority cultural content, whether it be French or Indigenous, to be automatically recommended to customers in a predominantly anglophone North America? How can we trust the mathematical algorithms to point to the exception rather than the rule?

Another distinction needs to be made. For artists from English Canada, the playing field is global, whereas for French-speaking Quebec artists, the main market is Quebec. These artists create in a beautiful language, but it is a minority language.

By making the algorithms off limits, as the platforms want, are we giving in on the main issue and allowing Canadian culture and artists to be steamrolled by American giants? However, if we tinker with the algorithms, we risk harming the lesser-known artists that we want to support, since they could be downgraded by the existing system if customers do not accept the recommendation in question. It is quite the dilemma.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the foreign players in our market should be responsible for finding innovative solutions so that we can see ourselves in this flood of global content. I understand that they feel rushed and that they do not want to lose users, but let’s remember that Canadian broadcasters are subject to much heavier and rigid regulations regarding Canadian content.

We also have to be mindful not to rely on what other countries are doing. This specific aspect of the bill, in other words the idea of requiring platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and others to showcase Canadian works, is a world first; it has never been done anywhere else. Many have thought about it, but Canada is the first to try. This is uncharted territory.

Another issue that raises debate has to do with social media, YouTube in particular, which offers both content for users to download and commercial content. I believe it is possible to further clarify in the text of this legislation what commercial content is in order to reassure content creators.

Obviously, although the purpose of Bill C-11 is to develop Canadian culture and artistic expression, it has several economic dimensions.

At the heart of these debates are Canadian organizations such as producers, broadcasters and unions. There is a mix of corporate, protectionist and other interests behind the requests to amend the bill.

For example, independent producers want to keep the advantage they’ve had for the past 30 years under the Broadcasting Act. They want to be given priority. On the other hand, broadcasters want their own production companies to be treated as independent businesses.

It’s not necessarily a matter of promoting more or less Canadian content; it’s a matter of promoting certain players and changing the power dynamic. This bickering among the players in Canada ultimately undermines efforts to come together.

Beyond these more specific issues, Bill C-11 also brings out different political, cultural and economic views and sometimes pits them against one another.

As I look at my colleague, Senator Housakos, I can see that division here.

In this new global cultural market in which Canadian creators have access to the entire world but are also competing with the entire world, should we be trying to protect our creators from this competition or finding ways to help them stand out? Is it possible to give our creators, artists and tradespeople a chance without needlessly restricting the Canadian public’s options and preferences?

Clearly, I don’t have all the answers. While I agree that Canada must protect its cultural sovereignty, including francophone culture, my duty is to assess whether this bill can be improved and, if so, how.

My personal belief is still that culture is not just another commodity. It deserves substantial support from governments, particularly in cases of a minority culture, such as French in North America.

I’m extremely concerned about the underlying trends in Quebec, particularly in terms of the music people listen to. We can’t surrender all of our cultural sovereignty and national identity to algorithms and market forces. It would be akin to cultural suicide in the medium term, the result of a voluntary blindness to the reality of the power imbalance that is at play. In that regard, I believe that Bill C-11 has a legitimate political objective.

That said, we need to find compromises and modern solutions that also respond to the desire of Canadians and Quebecers to participate in and consume cultural products from around the world, without unduly limiting their choices. Defending and promoting our distinct identity is more valid and timely than ever, but we can’t expect a return to the past, to a time when the availability of cultural content was strictly controlled.

Our challenge is to strike the right balance.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: As you know, Senator Simons and I are both members of the Transport and Communications Committee. We have discussed this bill at length. We received witnesses together — or should I say, lobbyists — to try to understand the situation a bit better. I subscribe to your analysis and I totally agree that it is complicated, that there are not just two parties, but many parties. However, I believe that the issues are very important. It is, in part, about the survival of the Canadian culture as we know it. Yes, we must change things; yes, we must innovate, but we nevertheless have a duty to protect this Canadian culture. How can we do that in an environment that is completely different?

How does starting a pre-study next week, when we could begin to receive witnesses who would give us a comprehensive view and people who are knowledgeable about the technology, prevent us from conducting a study that would no longer be a pre-study when the bill comes to the Senate? I do not see how that changes anything at all. We are seated in a room, we receive witnesses, we listen to them, we ask questions. What is the difference between a pre-study and a study we could do at that stage, which would be an extension of the other?