Thank you for the question, Mr. Rayes.
Unfortunately, I'm not here to give my opinion on such an issue, but rather to support the committee by providing technical explanations of its work.
There is definitely a difference between the effect of the originally proposed section 4.1, which was withdrawn by the committee, and the amendment proposed by Ms. Dabrusin. Without the proposed section 4.1, social media that meets the definition of an online business is subject to the act. The purpose of Ms. Dabrusin's amendment is to clarify the three powers of the CRTC that would apply to these online companies. Proposed section 4.1 stated that these powers would not apply to social media that only offered social media programming. Now, the three powers mentioned in Ms. Dabrusin's amendment would apply to these companies.
I think that's the difference between the exclusion that was initially stated in the proposed section 4.1 in the bill and the approach proposed here by the government.