Yes. The main example of this is.... I talked about the EDI stuff and higher education earlier. There's also the Canada research chairs program, which is subject currently to a rather strict quota system that I think was a subject of controversy a year or two ago.
Actually, that quota system is the result of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal settlement. The Human Rights Tribunal settlement essentially consecrated an agreement between the government and the plaintiffs in that human rights complaint, which had as an effect to completely overturn the entire way in which the Canada research chairs are awarded. Now there's a strict quota system in place because of that, so it's not inconceivable.
My suggestion was that there are some provisions in the wording of the proposed amendment to Bill C-63 that would suggest that orders against content distributors in and of themselves are off the table, but that's a question of interpretation. It's not inconceivable in that context that there would be a possibility of an order against someone who was found to be doing more than just distributing content, to proactively adopt certain measures to, for example, prevent marginalized voices—as they are conceived—from being censored, which would maybe mean censoring other voices instead.
Those are the kinds of things I had in mind when I was writing that.