Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Marc Saint-Pierre, and I am the director general of government information services at Public Services and Procurement Canada, or PSPC for short. I am accompanied this morning by Louise de Jourdan, director of advertising coordination and partnerships at PSPC.
It's our pleasure to be here with you today to explain our department's roles and responsibilities to you as defined in the Treasury Board's new policy on communication and federal identity published last May, which relates to your important work.
As the main service provider for the federal government's departments and agencies, our department has two major functions that directly affect the media: first, advertising: and second, buying Canadian media sources.
As defined in Treasury Board's new Policy on Communications and Federal Identity, our main role with respect to advertising is fulfilled by the advertising coordination and partnerships directorate Ms. Jourdan is responsible for. These resources are available to hundreds of advertising and marketing specialists in the Canadian government. We advise and guide departments and agencies on the efficient implementation and management of advertising activities that comply with the government's laws, policies, and procedures.
Ms. Jourdan's directorate has regular discussions with associations and stakeholders in the industry about current practices and new trends. It also produces the Government of Canada's annual report on advertising activities, which you received a copy of.
Finally, the directorate manages the agency of record, a private company under contract to our department following a public tendering process awarded in June 2015. The agency of record is the only unit authorized to buy the vast majority of advertising space and air time at the lowest possible cost for the roughly one hundred government institutions subject to the Policy on Communications and Federal Identity.
Advertising activities in the Government of Canada are governed by the Treasury Board administrative framework and various rules to ensure sound management of advertising campaigns. First, departments and agencies must develop advertising projects that reflect the government's priorities and must submit them to the Privy Council, which is responsible for coordinating all advertising in the Government of Canada. The projects are then presented to cabinet, which decides which ones will be implemented and how much the overall budget will be. The cabinet also determines the maximum amount of funding for each investment and confirms the source of funding. Advertising funds can come from existing departmental resources or from the central advertising fund.
One of the basic principles of government advertising is that each department and agency is ultimately responsible for their advertising campaigns, including decisions on the type of media used. Institutions' media choice is based on a number of factors, including campaign objectives, target audience and market, campaign type, time and scope of the campaign, budget, and the cost of various media options.
You may recall that, in our 2014-15 annual report, total advertising expenditures were nearly $50 million, with 54% of these expenditures being earmarked for the purchase of television ads, followed by 28% to purchase advertising space on the Internet. Ten years earlier, in 2004-05, television ads accounted for 44% of expenditures, followed by 17% of expenditures for advertising in newspapers and dailies, and only 1% of expenditures for online ads.
We do not yet have official data for the 2015-16 fiscal year since the annual report is currently being drafted. This report will be made public no later than January 31. Provisional estimates indicate that we have total expenditures of nearly $42 million. For the period from April 1, 2016, to early October 2016, the fragmentary data on advertising purchased by the agency of record indicates a total of less than $10 million, with over 90% of expenditures having gone to the spring 2016 census campaign.
At its peak, in 2009-10, the Government of Canada spent approximately $136 million on advertising. Over the last six years, we have seen a significant decline in government advertising expenditures, averaging $80 million per fiscal year.
I would remind you that, in Budget 2016, the government announced a recurring additional reduction of $40 million per year. According to the data available, Canada is trending an expenditure of approximately $15.5 billion U.S. in advertising in 2017. The Government of Canada's planned expenditures will account for less than half of a percent of that advertising expenditure.
I'll turn now to the second function of our department, which is media purchasing. For over a decade we have been managing the electronic media monitoring program known as EMM. It provides an effective option on common services to help departments and agencies to meet their responsibilities in monitoring and analyzing the public environment. The program provides media sources to over 100 eligible departments and agencies. This assists departments and agencies with identifying and tracking current and emerging issues related to department policies, program services, or initiatives.
PSPC negotiates the purchase of major sources from content providers that have exclusive news distribution rights. The department provides access to roughly 60 Canadian news sources. This includes newspapers such as The Globe and Mail, La Voix de l'est in Granby, and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix, as well as other media products, such as news wire and transcript from television and radio.
Each year more than $6.5 million is invested in acquisitions from regional and national news sources in English and in French from various regions across Canada. More than 95% of these expenditures are earmarked for purchase of licences for print and online content produced by newspapers. This acquisition is essential for the government because it allows federal departments and agencies to use these sources legitimately and legally since they are, as you know, protected by copyright.
I would like to conclude my remarks with four short statements.
First, the choice of media for advertising campaigns is not within the purview of PSPC, but the institutions responsible for the advertising campaigns.
Second, Treasury Board's new Policy on Communications and Federal Identity, which came out in May 2016, indicates that digital media and platforms are the primary means for interacting with the public. Multiple channels are still used to meet the diverse needs of the public.
Third, Budget 2016 announced that the Canadian government's overall advertising budget in the foreseeable future would be modest and limited, far from the average spending in the 2009-15 period, which was more than $85 million annually.
Fourth and finally, PSPC will continue to work together with suppliers to purchase Canadian media sources within its budget allocation. The fast pace at which the news circulates is a technological challenge that government and industry must face. Our department will continue its efforts, working with its suppliers to maximize the delivery of sources in real time and in compliance with copyright.
On behalf of PSPC, I thank you for your attention. We would be happy to answer your questions to the best of our knowledge.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you both for appearing.
One of the common threads that we have heard from a number of smaller sources, particularly smaller local news sources—and not just rural, but smaller sources within cities etc., but basically media—whether it be newspapers, radio, or TV is that they are not receiving the amount of advertising dollars they used to receive from the federal government. Increasingly the federal government is using the new media in its acquisitions, and certainly your numbers bear witness to that.
We're trying to get a handle on the primary function, as you see it, of the federal government in purchasing advertising. In the eyes of some of the people who receive that advertising, these newspapers, radio stations, and television stations I'm speaking of, they see it as a support to them, as well as being a way for us to communicate with our constituents and with the citizenry.
Is that a condition, or is it a consideration, when you are acquiring advertising?
First of all, the guidelines don't come from us. Public Works is the operational arm. The policies and any guidelines, processes, procedures come from Treasury Board Secretariat, which is responsible for administrative policy.
As the operational arm, I can walk you through the process. Our job is to in fact do just that: we work with departments to help them understand what the processes are; what laws, policies, and procedures they're supposed to follow in managing their advertising. I can't speak for their particular choices, but I can speak to the process writ large.
A department, typically, for a large campaign, would work with an advertising agency. Advertising agencies are à la fine pointe of their industry. They have proprietary research tools and other research tools. They stay on top of where to find their audience, what their media consumption habits are, what they react to, the time of day that they're on different media. They have access to all of this information.
Typically, a department would work with their advertising agency, and they would say to them—I'm just making this up—“Okay, here's my communications challenge. This is what I want to do. I need to speak to parents of small children about the importance of getting vaccinated.” They would sit down, and they would say, “Here's what we've done in the past. Here are some numbers. Here's how successful we are. Here's where we think there might be a gap.” They would work together with their ad agency, which would come back with research, so evidence, to support their recommendations for media. They would say, “Okay, according to the latest research, this is where you will find these people. Mothers of these small children are using this media, at this time of day. You might wish to do this.” They'll come back with recommendations for a plan. It will be reviewed by departmental experts, so people who are professionals in the communications field, and they might challenge this back and forth. They'll look at whether it jibes with the budget and whatever else. If it all seems to make sense, they will approve that plan.
Then it comes into my group, which does not look at it from a communications perspective; that's not our job. Our job is to look at it and see whether the plan meets policy requirements with respect to things like the federal identity program. So, “Yes, you're creative. It's clearly marked Government of Canada in the way that it should be. You're reaching out to both anglophone and francophone Canadians in an equal way”—based on population distribution and those types of things—“Now with the new policy, your advertising is non-partisan.” We look, and if it hits all of those marks, we then give it an authorization number. That then goes to the next step, which is the buying process. So that authorization number—sorry....
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Their comments may help us better understand the purchasing policies and recommendations.
That's the subject I'd like to discuss with you. You made it clear that departments know the objectives of their campaigns as well as their target audience. They are the ones who make the choices. You, on your end, make sure those choices adhere to the various requirements.
First of all, I had a look at your organizational chart. Some 15 people report to Ms. Jourdan. I didn't see your name, Mr. Saint-Pierre. Perhaps it is somewhere else on the chart.
Are the analysts in place able to make media recommendations to the department? For example, this graph clearly shows why those in the print media came to us to say they had lost half of their advertising revenue. It's right there, and it's quite clear that they lost 40% of their previous revenue.
A comparable, and even bigger, increase is noticeable in terms of Internet advertising. Television seems to be the big winner in these investments.
Do you provide a consultation function for the departments? Are you able to offer recommendations, make choices, and monitor trends? Has your team of analysts been cut over the past few years?
Thank you for making it quite clear that the government's advertising purchasing program is not a grants and contributions program to help groups that might have fallen on hard times such as the print media. Ultimately, Industry Canada or the Department of Canadian Heritage, for instance, could choose to create a budget to encourage the purchase of advertising.
You said that it was up to the print media, which is facing fierce competition from new media, to show that it still has a relevant place in the market. That's precisely what we heard from members of the print media. The runaway trend seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to think that, because everyone is on social media, advertisers are turning away from the print media.
That is the claim, and I'm inclined to believe it. The figures actually back that up. Despite the fact that many people are increasingly turning to new streaming platforms and such, television is still the place where advertisers go because it seems to produce the best results. That's reassuring.
We are politicians. Doing an interview on CTV during prime time will reach a larger audience than if we were to do an interview that was broadcast on some small obscure website aimed at a very specific group of people. Therefore, television does offer that general interest appeal in terms of reaching the public.
You purchase an enormous amount of advertising. Well, not you, per se, but, rather, all the departments. That's a huge account as they say in the advertising world. As a corporate citizen, the Government of Canada should apply best practices. It is expected to be extremely savvy and to spend advertising dollars as effectively as possible. To that end, it might be advisable not to believe the hogwash claims that ad agencies make in an effort to convince clients that this type of advertising has seen its last day and that social media is the far better option.
Rumour has it that ad agencies get big kickbacks from new media. If they buy $100 worth of advertising space on CTV, they get nothing in return. If, however, they buy $100 worth of advertising space from Google or some other programmatic agency, they get a little kickback or something free in return. As a Canadian taxpayer, I would find it comforting to know that my government had an analyst overseeing all of its advertising purchases to make sure ads were taken out in the right places. It's a fair concern.
Do you think agencies would be interested in having that information? Obviously, it's in Parks Canada's best interests to take out ads in Canadian Geographic. We agree on that. Does the federal institution, however, benefit all that much from programmatic advertising on social media? Would it not be a good idea for the government to have an expert to set the record straight on the advertising value of traditional media versus social media?
You are asking why we are turning to new media and the Internet for advertising. I have prepared for that question.
As we explained earlier, the objective of an advertising campaign is to reach the target audience, while taking into account other considerations, such as budgets. As you know, budgets have been pretty tight lately.
That is why, first and foremost, we choose media that are used more by Canadians. Here are some statistics: 71% of Canadians with a Facebook account use it at least twice a week; 50% of them use it daily, and that figure goes up to 74% for younger people; 49% of people are on YouTube. The figure is slightly lower—27%—in the case of Twitter. And the list goes on.
As you said regarding television, it's really a mechanism that reaches Canadians, on the one hand. On the other hand, it's less expensive. We can do so much with very little money. You have probably heard from industry people that, when they create a good website to sell advertising, their revenue is higher than it was when advertising was printed on paper. That is because it's much cheaper on the Internet.
Another element is very important and that is the fact that results are instant. Most advertising campaigns are a drive to web.
We want people, after seeing the advertising, to go on the Internet for more information, perhaps to find registration forms for programs and services. Through the Internet, or using a mobile phone, people can instantly go on the desired website and complete the process.
I call the meeting to order. This is the second hour, and I would like to welcome our witnesses.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this committee is studying media, access of local communities to all platforms and, of course, what has been the result or impact of consolidation of certain media within Canada, and how we ensure that these local communities have access not only to Canadian news but to Canadian stories.
Basically we are coming to the end of our study, and we have heard some fairly interesting points made by various media, so we called you in here to tell us what your departments are doing and to talk about how the Competition Bureau is looking at competitiveness in Canada with regard to platforms.
Thank you very much, Mr. Brazeau and Madam Pratt from the Competition Bureau.
From the Department of Industry we have Mr. Schaan and Mr. Scott.
Each department, not each person, has a 10-minute presentation time, and then we will open it up to questions and answers.
Perhaps we can begin with the Competition Bureau.
Monsieur Brazeau, begin please.
My name is Julien Brazeau. I am the associate deputy commissioner, competition promotion branch, with the Competition bureau. I'm joined to my right by my colleague Ms. Jeanne Pratt who is the senior deputy commissioner, mergers and monopolistic practices with the Competition Bureau, and to my left by my colleagues from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Mark Schaan, director general, marketplace frameworks, as well as Adam Scott, director, telecommunications policy branch with the department.
We've been advised of a number of the issues of concern to the committee. I'll endeavour to address some of these issues in my remarks today.
I will begin by providing some context about the Competition Bureau and its mandate, then move on to our role as it relates to merger review and how we interact with the CRTC.
The Competition Bureau, as an independent law enforcement agency, ensures that Canadian consumers and businesses prosper in a competitive and innovative marketplace. Headed by the Commissioner of Competition, the bureau is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Competition Act and three labelling statutes.
The Competition Act provides the commissioner with the authority to investigate anti-competitive behaviour. The act contains both civil and criminal provisions, and covers conduct such as bid-rigging, false or misleading representations, price-fixing, and abusing a dominant market position, among other things.
The act also grants the commissioner the authority to make representations before regulatory boards, commissions or other tribunals to promote competition in various sectors.
In reviewing mergers, the bureau undertakes an exhaustive, fact-intensive review, including an evidence-based quantitative analysis. It's also important to note that each review is conducted on a case-by-case basis, and decisions are made based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence.
The bureau conducts its merger reviews in confidence. All non-public information gathered by the bureau in enforcement matters, whether it be obtained voluntarily or through the use of formal powers, is held on a confidential basis. The law requires that we do not comment publicly until certain steps have been taken, such as referring a matter to the Competition Tribunal. This is done to protect the integrity of the bureau's investigations.
In our merger reviews, we consider many different factors, including the level of economic concentration in the relevant market, the merging parties' market shares, the degree to which the parties compete with one another, and whether there are other effective competitors that could constrain the exercise of market power by the merged entity. In examining a merger, the bureau consults with a wide range of stakeholders, including consumers, competitors, suppliers, and regulators.
Our act is a general framework piece of legislation applicable to all sectors of the economy. I would stress that when reviewing mergers, the bureau's focus is on economic competition and efficiencies related issues, such as the impact of the merger on prices, or in the case of media mergers, on advertising rates and viewership. As you well know, in conducting our analysis, we are bound by the four corners of our act. The factors I just listed are contained in section 93 of the act. It is important to note that it is the combination of these factors and not the presence or absence of a single factor that is determinative in the bureau's assessment.
While the bureau's focus is primarily on price and output, we also consider non-price dimensions of a proposed merger, such as quality, choice, service, and innovation. These factors are approached again from an economic lens and are considered especially in markets in which there is significant non-price competition. The Competition Act is not intended or designed to address social or cultural issues associated with media mergers, such as diversity of voices.
At the bureau, we are aware that there are a number of broader policy issues at play, as evidenced by the Department of Canadian Heritage's review of cultural content that encompasses the CRTC and that may impact this committee's considerations.
Discussions of media concentration and its effect on diversity of voices are not unique to Canada. While regulatory frameworks do differ from country to country, there is general international consensus that antitrust merger reviews should be focused on economic effects.
As such, antitrust authorities are seldom tasked with examining socio-cultural issues in the context of their reviews. The consideration of public interest issues such as diversity of voices is often the purview of communications regulators distinct from competition authorities. Notable examples include the United Kingdom, where the Competition and Markets Authority, which is the U.K. equivalent of the Competition Bureau, is tasked with reviewing mergers, including mergers of communications entities through an economic lens. Ofcom, which is the U.K. telecommunications regulator, considers public interest issues and advises the Secretary of State whether to intervene in a given transaction.
Similarly, in the United States, the United States Department of Justice's antitrust division is responsible for merger review, whereas the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is mandated with considering broader public interest considerations, including diversity of voices, in the context of their concurrent review with media ownership transactions.
Canada is generally aligned with its foreign partners in this respect. While the bureau through its economic efficiency lens conducts a rigorous economic analysis to determine whether a proposed transaction is likely to result in a substantial lessening of competition, the CRTC, in its concurrent review of proposed broadcasting transactions, is enabled to look at broader public policy issues, including diversity of voices in their determination of whether or not to approve a transaction.
I understand that one of the interests of this committee is the bureau's understanding of the current competitive state of the media and communications market.
Briefly, the bureau does not monitor any market on a day-to-day basis. As a law enforcement agency, our focus on competition in a specific market is driven by a proposed transaction in a given sector, complaints we have received or information that has come to our attention that there may be an issue in a market.
As I previously mentioned, bureau reviews are conducted on a case-by-case basis and thus, the bureau's understanding of the competitive landscape in a given sector is limited to the time frame in which the transaction or investigation arose.
There are many other issues of concern to the committee, so I will end my remarks here. I will note that while the bureau is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the act, the lead for competition policy rests with the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development.
I'll, therefore, turn it over to my colleague, Mark Schaan.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair.
As indicated, my name is Mark Schaan, and I serve as director general of the marketplace framework policy branch in the strategic policy sector of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. While our sector broadly includes such policy areas as innovation, telecommunications, and technology as clean technology, my branch specifically analyzes the role of marketplace frameworks in meeting the department's objectives.
This includes a deep analysis of corporate governance, competition, and intellectual property in their role in facilitating an efficient marketplace and the innovation economy.
Thank you for inviting me to appear today alongside my colleagues from the Competition Bureau.
I understand that there are issues you would like to explore further following your meeting last February 23, at which Paul Halucha, our former associate assistant deputy minister, appeared before you on behalf of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
As Mr. Halucha noted at that time, competition policy as opposed to enforcement falls under the mandate of our department. However, the greater question of Canadian media, its ownership and its future, is a crosscutting matter for us. It is one that touches upon questions of innovation, economic evolution toward the digital world, consumer affairs, and the place of government and regulation in the economy more broadly.
Indeed, these overlap noticeably with the central themes of the inclusive innovation agenda that our minister initiated last June as well as those of current consultations on the digital future.
Since Mr. Halucha's appearance, our department has, in conjunction with the Department of Canadian Heritage, contracted with the Public Policy Forum to explore the role of media in the current environment, particularly its support of the democratic function and its capacity to seize digital opportunities as an industry.
This was touched on by Monsieur Bernier, the director general of cultural industries at the Department of Canadian Heritage during his appearance before your committee last month. We feel it important that an independent voice with a wealth of industry expertise have the opportunity to share its views so as to inform government policy in addition to the work of your committee. We very much look forward to its findings as well as yours.
I would also like to underscore the efforts underway as part of the inclusive innovation agenda to promote Canada as a world leader in innovative growth and the modern economy.
While recognizing the importance of the current media sector and its role, the consultations have highlighted the unique opportunities afforded by the transformations underway.
While it remains critical to understand the challenges of this disruption, we can also see the opportunities it affords Canada to be a world leader in promoting inclusive innovation and real growth.
I would be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. I understand some of those may be in the zone of access to broadband and broadband, which is why I'm joined by my colleague, Mr. Adam Scott, the director of telecommunications policy within the department. We stand ready for your questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My thanks to our witnesses for being here today. Their expertise is extremely helpful for our study.
Could we talk about broadband Internet access in Canada and the costs for that access?
According to the table presented to us earlier, for example, in Quebec, 96% of households can have access to fixed broadband. I don’t know exactly what the word “fixed” means. We see that 77% of those households are apparently connected, are apparently subscribers. I am more specifically interested in the 4% minority, the households for whom it is not possible. I am talking about the particular case of Quebec. Even the fact that it is only 4% bothers me, because they are often people in remote, isolated, rural regions. They have no access to broadband Internet.
Think of our farms in those regions, for example. They have increasingly sophisticated technologies that are very advanced. If we want them to be more and more competitive, they must have broadband Internet access.
What does the department intend to do to ensure better access, for those regions specifically?
We have a number of programs, including Broadband Canada.
No, actually, that was the 2009 to 2012 program. Please excuse my error. It is actually the Connecting Canadians program.
This is a $300-million program, which is designed to improve services all across Canada, specifically in rural areas and remote communities.
You are absolutely right. In any sector of the economy, including agriculture, these technologies are necessary. They are also important for families, whether for education, medical services, or anything else. Basically, everything in our lives now depends on Internet service. Through the program, 280,000 people and their households will be connected. It should be complete in 2019.
This is the program in effect at the moment. The most recent budget includes another $500 million. This is for a program that is a little different and will not be focused on a minimum residential speed. Instead, we are talking about connecting communities to a service that can sustain innovation. We are starting to talk about fundamental changes.
We are talking about really big changes. What can that do to a community as opposed to just insuring to that baseline minimum?
Government action is definitely taking place. I think it's important to note that in Canada, the vast majority of the network is built and supported by the private sector. The government role has been focused on filling those niches where the economic model just doesn't make sense. It's incredibly expensive. If you're talking about a remote community, it's difficult to get the service there. If you're talking in an agricultural region, a rural area where the population density isn't high enough, it becomes incredibly difficult to support the network, based on the revenues you would collect from it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Schaan, our study on regional media clearly showed that many jobs are changing. For example, the local weeklies told us that their work used to be focused on analyzing and checking news about community events, news that they published once a week. Today, however, the weeklies have to publish information every day. So they need a huge amount of assistance.
We agree that, ideally, the Department of Industry would do well to take an interest. There are certainly adjustments to be made, as in every industry faced with competition, whether from outside or inside. Programs must be put in place to support this industry. It is particularly important because it allows communities to express themselves, to have a voice, and not to feel isolated at the end of a side road surrounded by countryside. Basically, they also need to know what is happening where they live.
However, culturally, the Internet does not just present a challenge or competition in terms of advertising, but it also has exclusive streaming providers of music, television and film. So that raises challenges in terms of access to those platforms. It is as if these new media outlets had invented a machine and that people had to get used to a new production format. But the content is not new.
Let me explain. Culture is still compatible with the technology, but our industrial system is not at all set up for it. At the moment, the system has been caught with its pants down. We were able to see during ’s consultations last Friday that there is certainly a great opportunity for our cultural industry to get access to those streaming platforms. However, there is also a huge challenge for the cultural industries, which, if they can use the global platforms, have to be part of a major international supply of content. That is the current challenge.
The CRTC has come up with figures from its analyses. I do not know whether all members of the committee are aware of them. Last week, that CRTC presented data in La Presse that showed that 61% of young people from 18 to 34 use Netflix. That is a huge penetration rate that, in industrial terms, Canada cannot achieve for all kinds of broadcasting reasons. Do you think that we can expect specific attention to this situation from Industry Canada, including monitoring and recommendations?
Before we leave, I have a question. What we have heard from witnesses over the course of this study and what we want to know as we develop a study and recommendations have not really been addressed, and I wanted to ask you some questions. They may sound very simple, but they are at the heart of what we're trying to find out.
For the Competition Bureau, you have said it is about the economics of the whole thing. That's what you look for in your objectives and your bottom line. At the same time, you're saying if it spurs innovation... We're finding that because those monopolies don't pay any taxes in Canada, such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix, etc., they have a competitive advantage over our telecom industry, that has to pay taxes. As a result, things like shomi and other broadcast media have died the death. We're finding that our own telecom competitors and broadcast competitors can't afford to compete because they have to pay these taxes and these others don't. They have full access, as industry would say, to our airwaves. They have full entry and full access, but they don't pay any taxes. They have a huge advantage.
We're looking at competition, and at the same time not just in economic outcomes. If we look at the very heart of a democracy, it requires a diversity of voices and requires local voices to inform, so that Canadians can make informed choices, and that's not happening. We're finding that is going. It's not there anymore. Journalistic integrity, independence of journalism, and diversity of voices, those things are being harmed daily in this country.
My first question is about finding that there isn't any better innovation being spurred by this competitive disadvantage that our telecom industries and broadcast industries face. Secondly, what about democracy? What about diversity of voices? Has Industry Canada looked at it from that perspective? That's an important piece to look at.
If you could each try and give me a quick and dirty answer on this, I'd be happy to hear it.