It is because it introduces exceptions. Basically, we are telling the CRTC that Canadian resources must be used predominantly and maximally. So there is already a great deal of flexibility. For it to be predominantly Canadian, it would have to be 51%, for example, whereas the maximum is 100%. In other words, we mention to the CRTC that between 51% and 100% of workers in broadcasting undertakings must be Canadian, unless the language or format does not lend itself to it, and so on.
As a result, employment issues are never really well considered by the CRTC. I mentioned local news earlier. In addition, according to the CRTC reports, there are many undertakings that simply do not have Canadian workers. There is also minimal monitoring of jobs. How many jobs are there? In what fields do these people work? What do they do? Do they really work in broadcasting? All of this could be improved if the CRTC had a stronger responsibility.
In short, if paragraph 3(1)(f) no longer contained this conditional element, having a majority of Canadian workers would really become a key objective.