Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague deals with the way in which the bill changes how we look at split runs as opposed to the previous legislation.
The crux of the way the bill is different from the previous one in many respects is the changing of a definition by legislation. Indeed this is a very weak way to redefine something and ultimately very challengeable.
The bill has the effect of changing advertising from a service to a good. It is very construed and artificial. Would the member like to comment on that in an intellectual spirit?