Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to the third reading of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Bill.

After 31 years, it is undoubtedly time to update the Broadcasting Act. Media and technology in Canada have changed significantly throughout that time. But the Trudeau government’s Bill C-11 doesn’t really modernize the Broadcasting Act; it just takes an already outdated framework and transposes it onto the modern digital world where it doesn’t fit. Of course, the Trudeau government has used this opportunity to meddle in the free and democratic flow of information to Canadians online — an opportunity this government could simply never pass up.

In the last parliament, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-10: a bill seen to give the CRTC the power to regulate free expression of content on the internet. That bill died on the Order Paper when the Prime Minister called his unnecessary election in 2021.

But a near carbon copy of it was resurrected as Bill C-11 in this Parliament. I had participated in one of the Senate Transport and Communications Committee marathon three-hour clause‑by-clause meetings on this bill, and witnessed first-hand what a disaster this bill is.

The government claims that Bill C-11 will not regulate everyday use of social media, including amateur content, implying that it will not apply to individual creators. However, the government has inserted clause 4.2(2) of the bill, which allows the CRTC to make regulations regarding any program that “generates revenues” — which effectively can include those individual Canadian YouTube and TikTok creators.

At the same time, delegating the government’s regulation-making authority to the CRTC allows the Trudeau government to once again dodge accountability for its actions and decisions. If controversy arises from any of the “independent” CRTC’s regulations, the government will claim distance. Conveniently, the CRTC itself is not known for its transparency. It shares this trait with the Trudeau government.

One witness, Monica Auer, the Executive Director of the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, described the CRTC this way at the Senate committee’s pre-study on Bill C-11:

In terms of accountability and transparency, the problem with the CRTC right now is that it is not making its decisions public. Every year, it’s publishing dozens of decisions that you can’t see because there’s no hyperlink and they don’t publish. When we say that the CRTC is transparent, it is simply not. It is holding public hearings without witnesses. . . . when you talk about the transfer of ownership of half of B.C.’s radio stations through an administrative decision and no public hearing, I think I would challenge the notion that the CRTC is (a) transparent, (b) open and (c) accountable. It is not.

If the government wants to regulate Canadian user content on the internet, it should admit to this. Canadians deserve to know what the aim is here, and the government should be held accountable for that policy decision. Hiding behind vaguely worded legislation that delegates decision making to a supposedly “independent” board that holds closed-door meetings and only answers back to the minister is not transparent or accountable.

When Bill C-11 reached the Senate last June, its sponsor, Senator Dawson, didn’t even speak to it for three months. When he finally did speak, he used up all of his 45 minutes of speaking time and, therefore, other senators had minimal chance to ask him questions.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate didn’t even give a speech on the bill at second reading, again denying senators the opportunity to ask the government questions on this legislation.

All this together has to make us stop and wonder, honourable senators: Why is this Trudeau government so deathly afraid of scrutiny?

Ultimately, Bill C-11 is the Trudeau government’s method of achieving indirectly what it does not have the political will to do directly. Currently, diverse Canadian content producers are finding major success online, effectively promoting themselves directly to a global audience without gatekeepers or intermediaries.

With Bill C-11, the Trudeau government seeks to insert itself into the middle of that process and impose regulations. It’s like that old political joke: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

The government’s Canadian content regulations will have a devastating effect on the very Canadian users the government professes to be seeking to promote. There is a concern that if Canadian content is promoted to Canadian audiences, it will be considered an unfair advantage to Canadian content producers and that platforms like YouTube, for example, will then limit the international exposure of those Canadian accounts out of a desire for fairness to other users.

Similarly, other countries may implement similar content restrictions on their own domestic users in retaliation, thereby lowering potential Canadian audiences.

Another problem is for niche content producers. While the potential audience for a creator may be only a few thousand within Canada, there may be a much larger audience of potentially millions in the U.S. or worldwide. The provisions of Bill C-11 could impede niche content creators from accessing that larger global market.

For Canadian content producers that rely on foreign audiences — those offering tourism content, for example — Bill C-11 may direct content at the wrong target audience. This creates one of the biggest problems with Bill C-11: By pushing Canadian content on Canadian users rather than allowing for organic choice, a mismatch may be created for a social media user, making it more likely that they will ignore, navigate away from or downvote the content. Doing so will negatively affect the algorithm, and that Canadian creator’s video will therefore be less likely to be shown again. In this respect, creating these restrictions around Canadian content to promote Canadian work may end up having the exact opposite effect.

Why is the Trudeau government insisting on limiting Canada’s creators in this way, honourable senators? Canadian content producers have actually been quite successful online. It’s like this government is trying to find answers in search of a problem that doesn’t exist.

Even for Canadian creators with well-established careers, social media platforms offer Canadian artists additional opportunities to market their works long after their initial popularity. For example, platforms like TikTok have created the opportunity for a second comeback for songs by Canadian artists that first topped the charts years ago. The Weeknd’s hit “Die For You” first became a hit in 2016 but has re-emerged in the top 10 currently, thanks to exposure on TikTok. Vancouver rock band Mother Mother found similar success in 2020 with their 2008 hit song “Hayloft” because of the app. Such opportunities can help to sustain Canadian artists in a saturated and competitive market. Most importantly, this success hasn’t come as the result of algorithmic manipulation but, rather, organically.

New and diverse Canadian entertainers and content providers are already finding great success in the democratization of the current online space. The only price of admission is access to an internet connection and an expansive imagination.

Some of the top YouTubers in Canada include such creators as Evan Fong of Toronto, of Asian descent; his channel has more than 25.8 million viewers. Lilly Singh of Punjabi descent from Scarborough was ranked third in the Forbes’ list of the world’s highest-paid YouTubers; she currently has 14.6 million viewers. Lauren Riihimaki of LaurDIY is of Finnish, Ukrainian and Japanese descent; she has over 8.42 million viewers on her channel. Shina Novalinga, a young throat singer from Nunavik living in Montreal, has more than 4.1 million followers on Tiktok. Stef Sanjati — who is trans, has Waardenberg syndrome and is partially deaf — is of Croatian and French background. She has more than half a million subscribers on YouTube.

I could go on and on. Many of Canada’s most successful online creators come from diverse communities and export their unique content around the globe without any assistance or interference from the government. What Canadian creators need, in fact, is for the government to get out of their way.

In my own hometown of Regina, we have the perfect example of a flourishing Canadian success story that might never have happened if these provisions in Bill C-11 were in place. Our own TikTok celebrity, JUNO-nominated musician and creator Hitesh Sharma, better known as Tesher, built his music career online, first as a kid from his parents’ home in Regina. He’s now an international star with his songs viewed hundreds of millions of times on TikTok. Last fall, he wrote a column about how Bill C-11 would have affected the path of his career, and I wanted to read it to you today.

Tesher wrote:

TikTok gave my music a global audience; Bill C-11 threatens that path.

There is a moment during the Junos this year that will stick with me forever.

I was performing Jalebi Baby with Simu Liu, and the crowd was singing along. About a minute into the performance, we exchanged a look, turned to the crowd, and broke into Bhangra dance. The smile on my face said it all: Pure joy.

That joy was tempered when I learned about Bill C-11, which will soon be voted on in the Senate. If passed as is, it could prevent digital-first Canadian artists from achieving that same success — and joy — I felt.

My musical journey started in my hometown of Regina circa 2008, a kid messing around on a computer mixing Bollywood songs with hip-hop tracks. I learned the music industry through trial and error because I didn’t have the money or connections that open doors. What I did have was determination and an Internet connection.

Eventually, I found TikTok. I loved the platform immediately and loved seeing people all over the world sharing, remixing and mashing up content. There are no gatekeepers on TikTok. If your content is good and engaging, it finds an audience.

Not only could I share my music with the world, but I could build a community that could engage with me and with my music. For a self-taught Indian kid from Saskatchewan, with no industry connections, TikTok was a game-changer.

While I’m Canadian, my music first got noticed outside of Canada. My first global hit Jalebi Baby includes the Indian influences of my childhood, but also hints of reggaeton, salsa, Middle Eastern drums and Eastern European synths.

I sing in Hindi, Punjabi and English. My music draws on global influences and musical traditions, so it benefited from being discovered globally.

My journey is less traditional than the typical path into the music industry, and there may have been no path for me at all without the access and freedom that come from being a digital-first creator. Those two things, access and freedom, simply weren’t available to artists like me — who don’t fit a certain mould.

And I’m far from alone. Some of the most exciting voices I’ve discovered in the last couple years, Canadian artists like Jessia and Johnny Orlando, have gained global followings and signed record deals, fuelled by their ability to reach a massive audience through TikTok.

Bill C-11 threatens that low-barrier path — one based on talent and audience preference, rather than government-established quotas — by subjecting platforms like TikTok and the creators using it to outdated broadcasting and Canadian content rules.

I’m building a career and exporting Canadian content globally despite those rules, not because of them. This path is what we should all want for Canadian artists. We want them to have the freedom to showcase globally our diverse, authentic, Canadian culture.

Bill C-11 would limit that reach by requiring creators to prioritize government criteria for domestic distribution over making content optimized for global audiences.

Within a year of being produced, Jalebi Baby was streaming on multiple platforms, including Canadian radio. I collaborated with megastar Jason Derulo on the video, was nominated for breakthrough artist of the year at the Junos and then, there I was, performing live.

The nomination was a huge honour, but to hit a Bhangra dance routine on national TV during Canada’s biggest music night was unforgettable. I could never have imagined seeing someone who looked and sounded like me on stage when I was a kid.

That’s why I’m eager to protect opportunities and offer inspiration to the next generation of Canadians making music or art tutorials or comedy sketches. Aspiring creators should have the same chance I did to live their dream.

This should be what it’s all about, honourable senators — giving Canadian artists and musicians and entertainers and journalists the opportunity to share their gifts with the world. We all want that. The world needs more Canada, but we don’t achieve that by helicopter parenting Canadian talent. We don’t give Canadian content producers the opportunity to thrive by choking them with regulations. Bill C-11 not only puts our Canadian digital content producers at a distinct disadvantage, but it may put a spike through many of their careers. It may prevent young kids like Hitesh Sharma — or Tesher — from messing around with music on their computers in their homes in places like Regina across this country from ever reaching their dreams.

That is why I will be voting against Bill C-11, and I encourage you to vote against it, too. Let’s give our Canadian content producers the freedom to compete, the freedom to achieve and the freedom to excel. Let’s give the world more Canada while also giving Canadians more freedom.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, it is indeed a great pleasure to speak here on Bill C-11, the online streaming act, which updates the Broadcasting Act of 1991.

While this is my first speech in the Senate, I hope I will have the opportunity to provide something more like a maiden speech in the near future when we’re not as pressed for time. Indeed, I think we all agree here that it is time to be updating the Broadcasting Act when the technology it regulates has advanced so far in the last 32 years.

I should start by telling you that I had the good fortune to spend six years as a commissioner at the Canadian Radio‑television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, around the turn of the century — that is, the turn of the recent century, not the other one.

During this period, my job was to be working under this act, day in and day out, and I have to say that, even then, it was beginning to be out of date as the internet was just taking hold. Yet, it was a very comprehensive law with flexibility that allowed us to regulate the changing scene.

Now here’s the thing I’ve always found to be so special about the Broadcasting Act: It is uniquely Canadian.

The legislation governs a unique society: Canadian society. There is no other country that has all of our unique qualities. Other countries may share some of our broader characteristics, but we are the only country to have them all. I would say that generally speaking, the Broadcasting Act worked well all these years.

Now, just to age myself, I will note that, in fact, I did appear before the House of Commons committee that was working on the Broadcasting Act during the Mulroney government back in 1991 when I was a very young man. I’m happy to say that some of the changes we advocated back then around the definition of “the Canadian people” were indeed added to the bill at that time. Little did I know that six years later I would be at the CRTC implementing the act, not to mention speaking on the review of that act in the Senate 32 years later.

I would like to focus my comments on section 3 of the act, the unique aspects of the Canadian people that the Broadcasting Act works to enhance. Here are some of the main characteristics that are key to our society.

We have two official languages, and the commission constantly works to ensure that we have a robust broadcasting scene in both languages. While at the CRTC, I was pleased to be part of the decisions to ensure TVA became available across Canada, to ensure that the Société Radio-Canada — TV and radio — was made available in all provincial capitals and to significantly increase the number of specialty channels in French. Indeed, with the advancement of digital technology, the commission has been able to ensure more fulsome broadcasting in both languages with a large number of French channels from coast to coast to coast.

Canada also has a well-developed, multilingual broadcasting scene, which rivals any other in the world, broadcast for the benefit of and produced by a variety of Canadian ethnocultural communities. The first multilingual broadcasting was begun by the legendary Johnny Lombardi in Toronto in the 1960s, and, gradually, programming in radio and television expanded across Canada with the CRTC licensing more multilingual services.

The most recent addition to the television scene was the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, or APTN. Certainly, its licensing in 1999 was one of the most significant hearings during my six years at the CRTC. The hearing was memorable. We heard from some great Indigenous leaders in the field. Abraham Tagalik, from Nunavut, chaired the board of what was then Television Northern Canada. The accomplished grande dame of Indigenous film, Madam Alanis Obomsawin, reminded us of our obligations, and the award-winning actor Adam Beach highlighted the significant talent that exists in Aboriginal culture.

But I remember thinking of the irony at the time that it was the First Peoples who were really the last people to get a television network. Today, 23 years later, APTN continues to grow and expand its services across the country, surpassing all expectations, while there are many other Indigenous radio and television services.

Since around 2000, the CRTC has also focused on ensuring diversity in programming by English and French broadcasters so that what all of us see and hear on mainstream radio and television reflects the Indigenous, cultural and racial diversity that makes up our country.

Now, layer on top of this uniqueness the following. Unlike many other countries, we are located beside the most dominant cultural machine in the world, the American cultural juggernaut. And unlike any other country, even those who consume a lot of Hollywood’s product, we share not only a language, but we share a culture, an accent. We share sports, like football and hockey, and we share expressions. Therefore, distinguishing Canadian music and programming from American content is harder, and Canadian viewers have less reason to be loyal to the Canadian product.

On the French side, French-language broadcasting has unique challenges. While our francophone nation lives in a sea of English-speaking North America, the silver lining is that francophone consumers are uniquely loyal to the French‑language programming produced in Quebec and the rest of Canada. The Quebec star system is vibrant, entrenched and followed widely by fans and viewers. The English Canadian industry can only wish it had the same following in Canada.

However, with the enormous popularity of American music and programs, there is a critical need for the state to help French‑language programming, whether it be the federal government, the Quebec government or any other provincial government. This is why Bill C-11 is so popular in Quebec. It brings more revenue for Canadian-made content in our traditional and online broadcasting.

Now, section 3, especially proposed subparagraph 3(1)(d)(iii) directs the CRTC to regulate and to accommodate this diversity in clear, contemporary ways.

On another matter, various comments have been made recently about the way the CRTC operates, and some of these comments I consider to be a bit gratuitous. I can tell you from my experience that I found it to be one of the most open and transparent agencies in the federal government. Yes, they are not perfect and, occasionally, they are bound by some of the confidentialities they must keep when there are commercial, competitive issues at stake. But I would say to you that it is one of the agencies that works hard to hear from a wide variety of voices and will always work to balance out the powerful corporations from ordinary Canadians.

They were also certainly open to being challenged on how they do hearings and consultations. I would suggest that they do public hearings as good or better than any other federal agency or commission.

There were some comments yesterday about what was termed as “identity politics” which had entered into the affairs of culture. I am a permanent student and teacher of Canadian history and politics, and my reading of Canadian history is that it has always been about identity. Some may call that identity politics. Much of it is positive, some negative.

From the beginning of our history, the First Peoples — Indigenous people — have always been diverse, and they were proud of their diverse identities. Indeed, they have taught us to engage in land recognition where we recognize the history of the territory of the particular peoples on whose traditional lands we find ourselves anywhere across Turtle Island, and we pay respect to them. But with the arrival of the settlers, we should be reminded that they came from England and France, and based on their identities — English versus French — they had a battle back in 1759 on the Plains of Abraham. As they say, the rest is history.

Over many years, the colonizers imposed their identities, languages and religions on this land and spent centuries trying to submerge the identity of Indigenous peoples — sometimes, as we know, using rather unfortunate means.

In a related historical matter, let me talk about the Fathers of Confederation. Yes, it’s the fathers — no mothers. They were just men of British and French origin. Quite pointedly, there were no Indigenous people, even though there had been the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which recognized them and their land rights. Their Indigenous identity was not included in Confederation, certainly not as founders of the Canadian state.

There were also many Black people. They were loyalists who had moved here from the United States — indeed, the ancestors of former senator Don Oliver and Senator Wanda Thomas Bernard — and who had been in Canada for well over a century by then but, again, were not among the Fathers of Confederation.

Let me touch on the British North America Act. Remember that name. What kind of North America? A British one. A foundational document is all about identity. The English and the French had guarantees of Protestant and Catholic schools that were absolutely conditional to the signing of the document. Had those identities not been carved in stone in our Constitution, there would have been no Canada.

Here’s another thing. In the 1800s and early 1900s, when land was being given to English and French settlers and to those from Eastern Europe, the government was specifically taking land away from Indigenous people. The children from one group were being taken by the state and the church and subjugated to horrendous conditions.

So here we are now, and we wonder why some people are rich, and some people are poor; some people have power, and some people don’t. Outside of this chamber, there are people who ask certain groups to just stop going on about their identities, get over it and just be like the rest of us.

So I come to section 3(1)(d)(iii) and want to say that is why it is needed. This is how we’re building the great Canadian nation where we respect Canadians of all identities and origins.

I just want to touch briefly on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15(1) says we are all equal. Section 15(2) says that government programs that aim to ameliorate inequality are permitted to create equality. Indeed, the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, also falls directly under the powers of section 15(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now we see that Bill C-11 also will respect UNDRIP.

As I close, I want to say that ameliorating inequality and advancing equality of all Canadians are some of the fundamental reasons for governance, whether it be in matters of cultural, social or economic policy. Bill C-11 aims to do this. It takes us further on the path to advancing this great country. For the future, it enhances the ability for more Canadian-made content in the online media world. The world needs more Canada, and the increased revenue will allow for increased Canadian-made content in the world.

For that reason and for many others that were explained by my colleagues, I would be honoured to vote in favour of Bill C-11.

Thank you.

Would Senator Cardozo be kind enough to take a question?

Senator Cardozo, we have just over one minute left. Do you want to take a question?

Yes.

Senator Cardozo, congratulations. I think that is your maiden speech in the Senate. There’s a lot in your speech that we can dissect, but I’d like to just look at one aspect, where you talked about how popular Bill C-11 is in Quebec. I think Bill C-11 is popular in Quebec among those who are fans of cable and the traditional broadcasting model of doing business. It’s very unpopular among streamers, bloggers, Twitter users and all those young Quebecers living on these new platforms.

The reason those new platforms are so popular among francophones is because they don’t get narrowed into just a few million francophones who listen to their capacity to develop their art and culture. They get to broadcast around the world to millions and hundreds of millions of francophones.

Do you have a question?

My question is this: Why do you want to narrowcast francophone culture and have them only provide their services to a few million francophones when they have hundreds of millions around the world?

Thank you, senator, for your question. I would have felt ignored had you not asked a question of me, so I thank you very much.

Indeed, the question you raise is important. I am not using the word “narrowcasting.” I’m using the word “broadcasting.” I think what this bill does is provide more revenue for the creation of Quebec content — of Canadian content — to go across the world. I think this bill is doing exactly what you’d like to see it doing. Certainly, it will provide more revenue that comes from all Canadians for Canadian content and for Quebec content as we want more Canada to go across the world.

Honourable senators, I would like to congratulate Senator Cardozo on his excellent maiden speech. It’s nice to have that personal milestone behind you, and your speech today was a reflection of your experience not only as a historian but as a former CRTC commissioner. You bring great value to this debate, given your background. Thank you for your speech.

Colleagues, I have an amendment today, which is an attempt to improve Bill C-11 by addressing some of the shortcomings in the Broadcasting Act. For example, the CBC in Prince Edward Island is an essential service that needs to be fully funded and supported, and my amendment will assist to that end. My amendment will also both improve the broadcaster and hold the CBC accountable for cancelling, at the very beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, the CBC TV news in Prince Edward Island.

As you will remember, at the beginning of the pandemic, there was a lack of understanding of COVID — how it was spread and how to protect yourself and your loved ones. In P.E.I., a province with the highest percentage of senior population in the country and one of the worst internet connections, the local CBC TV news program — the only locally produced TV newscast in the province — was an essential service that, on a whim, was cancelled by CBC Toronto management. This was in direct violation of the conditions of their broadcasting licence, when not only did they not give advance notice but they also failed to justify their decision at public hearings. None of this was done, even though it was required by their licence. As well, we found out after the fact that the CRTC had no way to hold CBC accountable for their decisions.

If this ever happens again, the purpose of my amendment is to impose a fine of $2 million per day on the CBC, payable to a local library in the affected community.

Colleagues, as you know, the Senate has three main priorities, one of which is representing the regions of Canada. Thus, the Senate is uniquely qualified to correct this problem by passing this amendment and ensuring that Canadians, regardless of where they live, can expect the same level of service from their national broadcaster. The importance of this amendment to Prince Edward Islanders is reflected in the fact that the other senator from Prince Edward Island, Senator Brian Francis, is seconding this amendment.

The second part of my amendment relates to CBC staff. The Broadcasting Act grants the CBC the right to pay its employees at such rate as the board of directors deems fit. As a taxpayer‑funded public broadcaster, the CBC has a greater obligation than private broadcasters to be open about how it spends money, such as pay for its senior management and on-air personnel. The CBC provides some information about what compensation it pays, but very little and only in the most general terms. Contrast this with the level of transparency provided by the British Broadcasting Corporation. For years, the BBC, like the CBC, resisted any disclosure of salaries, using similar justifications about the competitive environment in which they operate. But since 2017, the BBC has been forced to release the names and salaries of its highest paid on-air talent. Currently, they provide the employee’s name, the program they appear on and the individual’s salary to within £5,000.

By contrast, the CBC merely provides an average salary for all employees within a $50,000 range. So, for example, while we know that Nick Robinson earns between £295,000 and £300,000 to host the BBC “Today” show, we only know that five CBC presenters earn over $300,000, with an average salary of $342,000, but we have no idea as to their names, programs or gender.

This comparison to the BBC is important, and I am not the first to make it. Nine years ago, the Senate Transport and Communications Committee undertook a study of the CBC. In the course of that study, the committee looked at compensation for senior CBC personnel. For the benefit of those senators who were not here then, to say the committee was not impressed by the level of cooperation and transparency on the part of the CBC would be an understatement. When the CBC released salary estimates so low as to be unbelievable, the then chair of the Senate Transport Committee said:

Based on the document, we concluded that Peter Mansbridge makes $88,000. Everyone knows that’s not true. Don’t insult me, as a member of the Senate, as the chair of a committee, by giving me false information.

He went on:

We want a pay scale that shows how much the top earners make. We have that for most public collective agreements and publicly traded corporations. . . . It’s hard to get information from CBC about operations. If I want to find out what any given BBC employee earns, all I have to do is go on the website and the information is there.

He continued:

. . . as my colleagues have said, taxpayers know how much the President of Canada Post makes . . . .

They know what I make as a senator, what an MP or a minister makes, but we can’t get that kind of pay scale from CBC. . . .

This desire for transparency, and disappointment at the CBC’s lack of such transparency, was a view echoed by other members of the Senate Transport Committee, and was reflected in the committee’s report, which recommended that:

CBC/Radio-Canada be more transparent in its operations, specifically with regard to the disclosure of financial information, procurement and contracts, and salaries; and it must make such disclosures easily accessible to the public.

Colleagues, none of that has been done, but this amendment will correct that oversight.

I wish to emphasize that this call for transparency does not arise from simple curiosity. After the BBC was forced to publish the salaries of those earning more than £150,000, it revealed a massive gender gap. I cannot claim the same gender gap exists within the CBC, but nor can I say it does not exist. Without more information from the broadcaster, we simply cannot know.

Frankly, Canadians should know what they are paying the top‑tier employees of a publicly funded organization, if only to ensure they are being paid fairly. There were many stories from the BBC about female on-air personalities being rushed into an office and given an instant raise before the public information of salaries was released. Of course, they found out they were underpaid for a number of years.

I am seeking a level of transparency that the CBC correctly demands of other government departments and Crown organizations and which should also apply to them. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. This amendment follows the request of the Senate Transport Committee.