My view is that the spirit of them is the same. As the committee is aware, in the conventional world, licences had to be renewed at a maximum of seven years.
Bill C-10 as tabled did not have a cap on the length of orders and conditions of service, and I am aware that the committee heard from stakeholders who expressed concern about that.
As Mr. Olsen highlighted, the government recognizes that there are certain very important elements that will be done through orders. If you look at the kinds of things that are listed in proposed section 9.1, we talk about presentation of Canadian programming and certain things along those lines, and it will be important that those things have an opportunity to be reviewed on a periodic basis and that stakeholders have an ability to provide input on that.
If you also look, there are more administrative things. I would point out to you, for example, the carriage of emergency messages. The spirit of the government's amendment that Ms. Dabrusin alluded to gives the CRTC some flexibility to, again, tease out the issues that stakeholders want to engage on and let those orders that are more administrative in nature not be subject to a process whereby it will be more burdensome for both the CRTC but also the stakeholder community that would be expected to engage on those processes. The spirit was to tease out those things where there is strong interest in them being reviewed but acknowledge that there are going to be orders that are more administrative in nature.
The amendment before the committee right now would subject all orders to having to be renewed every seven years, regardless of their administrative nature or not.