Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.
I'm going to get everyone to hold on for just two seconds. I have to consult.
Do we have agreement on all three toward the end of the meeting? I need to do that to make sure. Technically, we'd have to adjourn the meeting, but I am asking for unanimous consent to leave it as such, so we can get to our witness testimony right away.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thanks, everybody.
We will now move to our special guests of the day as we consider clause-by-clause consideration of Bill . We're still with witnesses. This will be our last day of meetings with witnesses before we start the actual clause-by-clause.
I would like to welcome very special guests, an entity that is no stranger to this committee or others, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
I would like to welcome Ian Scott, chairperson and chief executive officer; Scott Hutton, chief of consumer, research and communications; Scott Shortliffe, executive director of broadcasting. Rachelle Frenette is general counsel and deputy executive director.
Mr. Scott, I believe you requested 10 minutes, so I need to know who is starting.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting us to appear before your committee.
We welcome the opportunity to contribute to the committee’s study of Bill . We have been following with interest the debates in the House of Commons. I should warn you, however, that there are number of matters before the Commission and we may not be able to provide detailed responses to all of your questions at this time.
The CRTC is an independent regulatory agency. Our role is to implement the legislation that Parliament adopts and to ensure that the policy objectives set for the Canadian broadcasting system are achieved.
We recognize that some parliamentarians have expressed concerns that Bill proposes to give the CRTC significant latitude with regard to its implementation; some, indeed, may think it is too much latitude.
While we understand such concerns, I would note that the current Broadcasting Act, which we've been implementing since 1991, provides the CRTC with a great deal of flexibility to determine exactly how to achieve Parliament's policy objective.
That flexibility has empowered us to adapt to change and to apply different requirements to traditional television and radio services, depending on the nature of a broadcaster's service and the linguistic market in which it operates.
Our regulatory frameworks have evolved in light of changing circumstances to ensure the production and promotion of French- and English-language content by and for indigenous peoples, and content that showcases Canada's diversity.
I would like to point out that the Broadcasting Act specifies that the broadcasting system should take into account the needs and interests of Canada's diversity. It was left to the CRTC, however, as an independent regulator, to develop the necessary frameworks to achieve that policy objective, as well as others that Parliament has set out in the act.
In 2019, television broadcasters, as well as cable and satellite TV providers, contributed $2.9 billion to content creation, which included $736 million on news programming in both official languages. This was the result of requirements that the CRTC has set.
Also as a result of our regulations, the large French-language ownership groups must spend at least 75% of their Canadian programming expenditures on original French-language content. In addition, we have set benchmarks for the number of hours of news and local programming that TV stations must air each week in both official language markets, and we have licensed UNIS, which reflects and serves francophones outside of Quebec.
Radio also plays a key role in reflecting and connecting communities. In 2019, there were over 700 commercial radio stations authorized to broadcast in Canada, offering a vast diversity of content and music. These stations contributed $46 million to the development and promotion of Canadian artists.
Our regulatory frameworks have led to the licensing of APTN, the first national Indigenous broadcaster in the world, and OMNI Regional, which provides multi-ethnic programming in 20 different languages. In addition to OMNI, Canadians can subscribe to more than 110 speciality and pay channels offering programming in a variety of languages other than English and French. They can also listen to numerous Indigenous and multi-ethnic radio stations. As the definition of diversity changed, we granted a licence to OUTtv, one of the first channels dedicated to airing content for the LGBTQ2+ community.
We made these decisions because we recognized their important contributions to public policy objectives.
The Broadcasting Act is now 30 years old. Although its drafters had the foresight to make it technology neutral, they could not foresee how modern technology would change the delivery of audio and audiovisual content. The CRTC has been monitoring the evolution of the Internet since its earliest days.
We have held comprehensive proceedings under the current Act to consider the regulatory approach that should be taken regarding online audio and audiovisual content. Each time, we concluded that online content, and its distribution, was complementary to the traditional system. We therefore exempted online broadcasters from the requirement to hold a licence.
A lot has changed in recent years. As more Canadians gained access to high-speed Internet services, they also gained access to a growing number of online libraries of domestic and foreign content. That explosion of choice was to the benefit of audiences and creators. It helped bring Canadian productions and artists to national and international audiences.
The Broadcasting Act, and the regulations we have implemented to achieve its policy objectives, have fostered a dynamic and diverse broadcasting system. The time has come, however, to adapt to today’s digital environment and to ensure we can continue to adapt in the future.
At the government’s request, we studied what effect this environment may have on the production, distribution and promotion of Canadian content in the coming years.
Our 2018 report found that Canadians will rely increasingly on the Internet to discover and consume music, entertainment, news and other information in the coming years.
We therefore recommended in the report that future policy approaches should focus on the production and promotion of high-quality content made by Canadians that can be discovered by audiences in Canada and abroad, ensure that all players benefitting from the Canadian broadcasting system participate in an appropriate and equitable manner, and be sufficiently nimble to enable the regulator to adapt rapidly to changes in technology and consumer demand.
We made similar recommendations to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislative Review Panel.
All of this brings us to Bill . We welcomed the tabling of the bill since, in our view, it does three very important things. One, it builds on the existing Broadcasting Act to clarify the CRTC's jurisdiction regarding online broadcasters. Two, it proposes provisions that specifically address our ability to obtain data from online broadcasters to better monitor their evolution. Three, it proposes to modernize the CRTC's enforcement powers.
Equally important, Bill proposes to foster a more inclusive broadcasting system and more diversity in content. Once the legislation, with the will of Parliament, has received royal assent and the government has issued its policy direction, we will hold public hearings to develop a new regulatory framework, and there will be an opportunity for Canadians and all interested parties to provide their input and be heard.
Our goal, as always, will be to develop as complete a public record as possible and to make evidence-based decisions in the public interest. We are proud that for over 50 years Parliament has entrusted the CRTC with the task of establishing regulatory frameworks to achieve the policy outcomes it has set out for the broadcasting system. We look forward to continuing to evolve in the 21st century and to ensuring that all players in the system, including online broadcasters, contribute in the most appropriate way.
Thank you. We'll be happy to answer your questions and to offer our expertise.
My thanks to the witnesses for joining us today to answer our questions and thereby to help us in tabling a report that is as complete as possible.
Mr. Scott, in your remarks, you said that the time has come for the CRTC and for Canada to adapt to the future by means of this new bill.
However, according to a number of witnesses who have come to meet with us, our priority should be to lighten the regulatory obligations on Canadian broadcasting companies rather than to extend them to other online undertakings. That suggestion was specifically made by Professor Geist, from the University of Ottawa, and by Stéphane Cardin, from Netflix. They both stated that too rigid a regulatory framework would lead some online services to find a way around Canadian legislation or to reduce their investments in this country.
Then, Pierre Karl Péladeau, the president and chief executive of Québecor—whom I am sure you know well—suggested lightening the administrative and financial burdens of traditional television companies in order to stimulate competition.
Can you tell us why, in your opinion, the government did not take that approach? Why is the government trying to add rules instead of trying to make things simpler in order to stimulate competition and to provide equitable service, whether traditional or digital?
That's a wonderful question. I don't think I did a very good job of answering Mr. Champoux at the beginning in response to his very first question.
To be honest, I'll say two things. First, we're a regulator, and what we do, by definition, is that we make those difficult decisions. Our job is to balance competing and sometimes conflicting parties and measures to reach an equitable, fair outcome. That's exactly what we will have to do as we balance the various pros and cons of different regulatory approaches.
In a short answer to your question, the hardest thing we will face is defining what is equitable. When you say to a traditional broadcaster—I'm making something up here—that we want in particular a focus on news or we want in particular a focus on original French-language programming, how will that compare to an OTT provider simply giving money—contributing financially, but not in terms of actually developing or distributing Canadian stories?
It will be the different lines of business, the different things they bring to the market, in how one reaches a determination about what is equitable. I'm being very candid, but that, I think, will be the biggest challenge.
Welcome back, everyone, to the second part of our witness testimony today. As someone pointed out in the interregnum, we now are embarking on our final witnesses before we commence clause-by-clause.
I want to welcome, from the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, someone who is no stranger to this committee, Catherine Edwards, executive director. With her is her special guest, the executive director of the Community Radio Fund of Canada, Alex Freedman.
As our second witness, from the Professional Music Publishers' Associations, we have Jérôme Payette, executive director as well.
Both groups get up to five minutes for introductory remarks.
Ms. Edwards, we are going to start with you, for five minutes, please.
We also employ more than 1,000 staff members across the country; we provide media training to 20,000 volunteers; we broadcast in as many as 80 different languages, including 20 different indigenous languages; and we produce more than a million hours of local, Canadian-produced content every year.
The need for a robust community broadcasting system has never been greater. Commercial broadcasters are emptying newsrooms. We've seen this with Bell and HuffPo recently, as their business models struggled to adapt to the digital competition. The result is a lack of local representation, which serves to fundamentally undermine our democracy.
Community broadcasters have an incredibly important role in ensuring diversity and access for indigenous and minority-language communities. We offer them training and infrastructure to tell their stories. In fact, we're the training ground for the large majority of Canada's future broadcasters. Community broadcasters are the creative hubs supporting the creative Canada policy framework, ensuring we can compete internationally by providing low-risk platforms where talent, tests and new ideas get their chance to evolve.
Community radio is also where most emerging Canadian artists get played first. Ms. Ien asked the CRTC an important question about how diversity will be maintained. Unfortunately, once again, we hear the response that we should leave it to them; they're going to get it done. Therein lies the problem. It's been left to the CRTC for generations, and because of a lack of definition of our role, we have been really out of many of these conversations.
Our first ask is that we fulfill our potential by accessing more recognition within the Broadcasting Act for our not-for-profit role.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss this bill, which will be crucial to the future of our culture.
The Professional Music Publishers' Association, or PMPA, represents music publishers in Quebec and French-speaking Canada. Our members control 830 publishing houses with approximately 400,000 musical works.
As partners of songwriters and composers, music publishers support the creation of musical works, and promote and administer them. Publishers are involved in everything from paper scores to online music services to concerts, video games and audiovisual products.
I'd like to mention that our association is a member of the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or CDCE, and supports its proposed amendments to Bill .
I'm testifying at the end of the process, and many of the topics that are important to us have already been discussed with you. So I will keep that in mind as I speak.
The bill needs to be amended to meet cultural objectives, and it must be passed quickly.
Canada's broadcasting legislation has been pursuing much the same objective for nearly 100 years, namely, that citizens have access to our content to preserve our identity and culture.
To avoid global cultural standardization, we must think globally and act locally. Canada must protect the diversity of its cultural expressions, especially francophone diversity. To take our place in the world, we have to have our own identity and a flourishing culture.
In the past, Canada has taken bold steps, such as the introduction of radio quotas, and these measures have been copied around the world. I invite you to continue this tradition, whose objectives are as important as ever. We need you to work together to ensure that a bill that supports our culture is passed quickly.
We must level the playing field and not deregulate.
The current legislative and regulatory system exists because market forces can't guarantee the survival of Canadian culture, particularly francophone culture. This is largely a demographic problem, in addition to the fact that we're just north of the country that exports the most culture. This reality hasn't changed because new technologies have emerged; on the contrary, it's gotten worse.
Our cultural industries are fragile; they have emerged through a series of measures, including the Broadcasting Act. If the legislative environment is no longer favourable to us, our cultural industries could disappear or no longer reach Canadians.
The current situation is unfair to conventional broadcasters, that's true. However, regulatory relief would not allow them to recover the advertising revenues and listeners they have lost to online broadcasters. The level of regulation imposed on conventional broadcasters has nothing to do with the changing habits of Canadians.
Foreign companies must be encouraged to contribute to our culture and identity, as conventional broadcasters do. We have to level up. Not doing so would be tantamount to deregulating, which would be tragic for our culture.
We need to be visionary and not exclude social media from the act.
I listened carefully to the testimony of the and the officials who appeared before you on March 8, and I'm not at all reassured. To avoid becoming obsolete as soon as it is passed, the act must apply to all companies that broadcast professional cultural content, without exception.
YouTube is the most popular online music service in Canada, and I'm talking about YouTube, not YouTube Music, which should be distinguished. Under the current provisions of Bill C-10, Spotify and QUB musique would be regulated for the broadcast of a song, while YouTube would not be regulated for the broadcast of the same song, which would be totally unfair.
The term “user-generated content” is imprecise, and Bill C-10 attempts to define a risky uploading process. The content is important, not the process of putting it online. The act must be neutral with respect to technological processes.
Under the wording of Bill C-10, a song or video that is posted online by industry professionals or self-produced professional artists would be exempt from the act. Contrary to what Mr. Ripley told you, distinguishing professional cultural content from amateur video is not difficult. YouTube already distinguishes professional music content from its entire repertoire using metadata.
I would like to point out that the means of broadcasting will continue to evolve, as will the business models, and that people will continue to listen to music and watch videos. The fundamental question is, will people still take in our culture? You have to make sure the answer is yes.
In conclusion, we need all of you to work together to amend and pass a new Bill C-10 that, by levelling the playing field, will establish fair obligations for all companies operating in Canada. This will allow us to avoid destroying the cultural sector, particularly the music sector. Our culture needs you.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
During our presentation, Mr. Freedman mentioned the three biggest roles that community media play.
First, they represent the communities. The public and private elements are located in areas with a population of over 100,000. Almost all the licensees are in fairly large communities, whereas we can serve communities with as few as 500 homes. So it's about giving a voice to communities in northern, indigenous or rural areas.
Second, they give a voice to minorities. Even in urban areas, there is a need for community television and radio to give a voice to official language minority communities and groups with simply different interests, such as the LGBTQ+ community, for instance.
Third, it's a platform for launching new careers and developing digital skills. Without training, you can't file a tax return online or express yourself in a digital environment as a for-profit or not-for-profit organization.
It's about these three things: they represent communities, they give a voice to minorities, and they give people digital skills.
Thank you for your important question.
The passage of an amended bill for our culture is fundamental to the future of our music. It's important to note that the music business model is somewhat different from the audiovisual sector's business model. Almost all the same songs are found on online music services. We're talking about repertoires of between 60 million and 70 million songs, which is huge. Obviously, the more a song is played, the more it pays. If it isn't played, it doesn't pay. It's a war for the artists. They want their music to be played and they want to attract audiences.
The market share for French-language music dropped drastically during the transition from the traditional sector to the online sector. I had access to unpublished data from the Quebec observatory of culture and communications showing that, in November 2019, of the 740,000 most-played tracks in Canada, 2.8% were from Quebec. Quebec represents 22% of the Canadian population. According to the Quebec association for the recording, concert and video industries, or ADISQ, only 122 tracks from Quebec were on the list of the 10,000 most-played songs on online music services. In fact, 10,000 songs amount to 50% of the total number of tracks played.
We don't have the figures, so I had to make a rough estimate. I agree that the CRTC must give us better figures. I can say that the market share of Quebec music is certainly less than 14%. In comparison, the market share of Quebec music in the physical sector is 50%. We've lost three times our market share, which is huge.
The figures from the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, confirm a three-, four- or fivefold drop in the market share for French-language music during the transition from the physical market to the online music service. This is a major issue.
Our content is certainly good and worth discovering.
There's a common misconception that most people actually select the music that they want to hear. Often, you select a specific track, and then the music continues on its own for hours.
We have figures. I can only provide the data for the United States, because we don't have any other data. According to these figures, 80% of the viewing time on YouTube is related to the recommendation engine. This comes right from the mouths of the YouTube representatives, who have said so publicly. According to the Pew Research Center, 64% of the videos recommended by YouTube's algorithm already have over one million views, and 5% of them have accumulated fewer than 50,000 views.
To be really recommended, you need one million views. Unfortunately, not many tracks by Quebec artists reach this level. It's important to understand that the recommendation tools of these platforms aren't set up for a market like ours. The platforms simply aren't motivated to take a greater interest in our market than necessary, because our market is too small.
Financial interests are also at stake when it comes to playing one type of content more than another. We have a number of reasons to believe that large companies, such as multinationals with larger repertoires and therefore greater bargaining power, negotiate preferential treatment to feature their own repertoires. This applies both to marketing in general and to algorithmic recommendation tools. These companies reportedly even pay advances.
Online music services have an interest in getting their repertoires played before ours.
The first recommendation is to have a definition. We assume they're redefining what a BDU is to take in online platforms. We suggest a definition for community broadcasting that defines it as not for profit and includes participation by community members in administration, day-to-day operations and programming. We've provided the wording for that in the brief.
There is a definitions section at the beginning of the act. That's where we'd like that. The words “community elements” and “community programs” are used twice in the act but never defined. In fact, the private and public sectors aren't defined either, but I leave that to them if they want to ask for it. A clearer definition would help.
Secondly, that doesn't tell everybody what community media does. We've had questions here today about what it does. Our suggestion is that there was a paragraph 3(1)(r) that used to refer to alternative programming services. It has been dropped in the current draft, but it almost exactly described what the community sector actually does. As low-hanging fruit, it could be just slightly adapted to do what we need.
For example, if I look at that, it already had four elements that are needed.
One, paragraph 3(1)(r) said such programming should “be innovative and be complementary to the programming provided for mass audiences”. Well, that's what we do. That's what it said before.
Two, the act used to say that alternative programming services should “cater to tastes and interests not adequately provided for by the programming provided for mass audiences, and include programming devoted to culture and the arts”. That's what we do.
Three, they should “reflect Canada’s regions and multicultural nature”. That's what we do.
Four, those services should “be made available throughout Canada” on all platforms. That's what we do.
We suggest adding to these, because “alternative media services” doesn't necessarily embody the idea of community participation. We would add a new subparagraph 3(1)(r)(iv): “be produced by and for local communities through their not-for-profit participative structure”.
As “alternative media services” didn't refer to our training role, we would add a new subparagraph 3(1)(r)(v): “support the development of Canadian creative talent”.
On the last one, somebody asked why it is not okay for for-profit community media to exist, or where the conflict is. Almost all the 30 to 40 years of audiovisual archives of our small communities that cable companies collected over time—to their credit, back in the day they worked—have all been put in dumpsters now. Many communities have no audiovisual record of their council meetings or their festivals. It's all gone. Therefore, we would add a new subparagraph 3(1)(r)(vii) to that, that the programming should “be made available for archival purposes to Library and Archives Canada”.
The loss of cable community TV archives is one of the single biggest cultural losses in Canadian history that nobody is talking about; therefore, there is a slight modification in terms of that.
Lastly, describing a role doesn't always capture what we do, so we've suggested a few other places where existing wording could be clarified so that our role is clearer.
The strongest ones you can see are in paragraphs 3(1)(o) and 3(1)(p). We've beefed up the language to make sure there's programming within the system for indigenous and disabled persons. The realistic way to make that real is to recognize that in smaller communities and for smaller, niche groups, we actually give them the resources and opportunities to develop their own content. They don't have to wait around for someone else to do it for them, and that's how they develop their voices.
We have other examples, but those are some really strong ones, to give you an idea.
I'll let Alex answer for radio.
For 10 years we've been underscoring to the CRTC and faithfully participating in CRTC hearings about community television, specifically saying that the digital transition has happened; cable companies are consolidated; they're shutting those studios and they're not covering council meetings. All that programming has gone in dumpsters, and we've been getting nowhere.
As Mr. Scott admitted, in 2016 they decided that local news was more important. We can do local news, too, but we can do it in much smaller communities—all the communities where it's not profitable.
We're afraid that there's no specificity about our role. All these reports keep coming out that don't understand our role, but that will continue. These policies will be made that just leave us out, because nobody gets our role. We think that MPs, more than anyone else, get our role, because if you live in a community where there's no public and private broadcaster, you have no way to contact your constituents. Really, we're in your hands.
Other people, frankly, have told us for 10 years that the CRTC is in a situation of regulatory capture. They've said, “The solution to your problem is political. You need to talk to MPs.” We're here begging you, because, as I said, there are 25 struggling little community TV organizations outside Quebec now. Quebec is in a special situation, with 40 in the province, because the province supports them and the CRTC, behind closed doors, has encouraged the Quebec cable companies to support them. There's nothing outside Quebec.
We just think we're going to get more of the same. We've put data that is incontrovertible in front of them, showing that the cable community system does not work.
Also, we're not saying to close the remaining stations. We're just saying recognize that the not-for-profit sector is there. We can go to small communities where cable companies can't and don't want to be anymore.
If we're going to a service contract system with the CRTC anyway, and they want to keep running their stations, recognize them for what they are. They're corporately branded, private, specialty local channels. If they have a value and there's programming, then they'll keep doing them, but we need to have the community empowered to step into the gap in all the places where there isn't cable community TV.
It's over to you, Alex.
I'll turn to you, Mr. Payette. You're very busy today.
I want to address a statement that you repeated earlier and that caught my attention. You said that content, not the way in which it's distributed, should be regulated. I find that intriguing, especially with respect to social media.
You also spoke about TikTok, which is an extremely significant way for today's youth to connect with the world of music and to shape their tastes. This influence will last for years to come.
I want to know how we can ensure discoverability on these platforms, knowing that YouTubers can't really be regulated. You can't tell them what to put on their personal channels, even if they seek to obtain hundreds of thousands of subscribers.
How do you view this situation? Do you know of any ways to regulate this so that everyone is happy?
That would be at the discretion of the chair.
I will say that in my past experience at committee, we have extended hours, sometimes many hours into evenings, to be able to deal with legislation expeditiously, so this is not some outlying type of thing. In fact, it usually doesn't require much debate; it is just agreed upon.
I have sought consent from all the parties multiple times to add extra hours to our Friday meetings so that we can get through this more quickly. I've been unable to get that, so now I've put it as a formal motion. The question is this. In a virtual world, I can't pinpoint when those hours are placed, because we have other challenges we must work around, but I would think that as parliamentarians, it's incumbent upon all of us to do the work we need to do to serve our stakeholders and get this done.
As I said, it would be at the discretion of the chair to make sure it's done appropriately, but I do not understand an argument against putting in the time we need to as parliamentarians to get this work done.
Ms. Dabrusin did indicate that this is an important bill. I don't think anyone here doubts that, but there are several important bills and we have several tasks to do as part of our duties. I have no problem with our taking the time. However, we have not reached this pass because of the work of the committee, which has been extremely flexible in agreeing to do a preliminary study. Some have said that the bill was delayed in the House of Commons by the Conservatives, but nothing was delayed, as we had already started a preliminary study in committee and agreed to tip everything over here.
It was the Liberals who shut down the House of Commons by proroguing Parliament and took five years to introduce the bill. I don't think a week or two makes any difference at this point in time in dealing with legislation that is going to be around for another 30 years. Frankly, I think it requires a lot of resources and a lot of work for parliamentarians. On our side, we're fine with adding meetings if necessary, but not with extending the length of each meeting.
As soon as the last intervenors have spoken, I would like to call for the vote, Mr. Chair, because it is now 3:45 p.m. I insist on it, because I think we've talked about it a lot already. Ms. Dabrusin has brought this up several times.
I don't see any hands up.
Seeing an end to that debate, we're going to go to a vote. Normally I would ask for dissension, but I'm assuming there is some.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Chair: There is something I would suggest. We've gone way over time, so I won't get into it too much, but suffice it to say that one of the obvious choices would be to extend the Friday from two hours to three hours, as was pointed out earlier by Madame Bessette. I would agree with her. That's one of the options that I think we can say yes to immediately. For the other options that are before us, whether they are other days or an extension of Monday, which I understand will be difficult, we'll have to report back.
The direction I need from the committee on this issue is this: Do we do this “offline”, as the expression goes, or do we want to do this in a subcommittee setting? Do you want to handle this outside of the confines of an actual subcommittee meeting? Am I clear on that?
Okay. I'll pick that up with members and with the clerk, Aimée. We'll discuss what we're looking for, but I will say at the beginning that we can extend Friday from two hours to three hours. I'm pretty sure we can do that, granted the whips are okay with that as well.
That being said, I just have one final item to bring up. As you know, as of Monday, we're looking at the Facebook issue. We're having witnesses in to talk about Facebook. I just wanted to say, first of all, thank you to Mr. Rayes, who will be taking over as chair. I will be in Newfoundland under quarantine rules, where my internet signal is not strong at all. I think it would be best for the running of the committee for Mr. Rayes to take over, and I thank him again.
One thing, however, that they may bring up during that meeting is that Facebook has provided a background document to distribute to members of the committee. However, you will not have it at that meeting because we have to send it to the Translation Bureau to be checked. Just for the record, they did send it in both languages, but, as you know, because of the motion we adopted with Monsieur Champoux, we have to send it to translation to be vetted. That won't be completed until Tuesday, the day after.
I'm looking for Aimée just to nod to make sure I'm correct in that. I am correct. Okay.
I just thought they may reference the background document, but you won't have it on Monday. You will have it on Tuesday. That is the only thing in addition that I had to bring up.