I'm going to answer in French.
In my introductory remarks, I merely set the table. We can definitely say that the bill is confusing, that it is unclear, as I said earlier. And here is evidence of that.
When I present this bill to my law students, they have to take two or three hours to understand what it means. It's quite something for law students not to understand a federal bill. They have to refer to the act, ask each other questions and discuss the matter amongst themselves in order to arrive at an understanding of what it might mean. They wind up thinking that a judge may explain it to them one day. There's a problem here. I could give you a number of other examples.
I've already cited the example of the definitions of "fair dealing for the purpose of... education", "lesson" and "for instruction", which are in the bill and are being added to other existing definitions.
For example, the difficulty in understanding the aim of the proposed subsection 27(2.3) constitutes evidence for a legal proceeding. I challenge all of you to explain what the proposed subsection 27(2.3) means. It is one way of prohibiting Internet service providers from providing Internet services.