Thank you for your question.
YouTube is a dominant actor in music listening. We have data from a recent survey—not all the data has been published, but we will soon publish it—which shows how important YouTube is in Quebeckers' music listening activities. This is a trend seen all over the world.
A bill was introduced whose main mission is to re‑establish a balance or equity in a system that has been marked by inequity for 20 years. Yet if the core of the bill has a new inequity introduced by excluding services that play a major role in the music industry, the target is missed.
We are worried about passing a bill that is unfair and would not level the playing field for all platforms that play an important role in music broadcasting. The bill would be vulnerable and objectionable. Why would we ask Spotify to support our music and not ask the same of YouTube? There is no logical reason for that, when we know that people are using both platforms in the same way.
We must simply ensure that, when the same activity takes place on different platforms, it is regulated equitably. I don't want to presume businesses are acting in bad faith, but according to my experience, even when there are rules, broadcasters are always looking to maximize their profits. If they think that, by trying to circumvent the rules, they will keep more freedom of action and a larger potential for profit, they will do whatever it takes to do that. So every time rules are tightened and criteria are established to which companies can adapt by changing a bit, there is a risk of them successfully excluding themselves from the legislation's scope, quite simply.
The legislation will help us not only set rules, but also get data to understand the impact of every service in our market. Right now, we have to conduct surveys. That's good, as it gives us a nice overview of the situation, but we should have access to the number of users—