Senator Miville-Dechêne: I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

Many things have been said about this bill over the months — before, during and after the review in committee. To some, Bill C-11 is absolutely necessary and should have been passed without amendment several months ago. To others, this is machiavellian legislation that jeopardizes the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I’d like to state from the outset what this bill does and what it doesn’t do.

[English]

First, the bill does not censor or restrict Canadians’ freedom of expression in any way. Once the bill is passed, all Canadian residents will continue to publish and consume all the cultural content they want, just as before. Whatever is available today will continue to be there. Anything you want to publish today can be published tomorrow. As such, nothing changes. With all due respect, those who denounce Bill C-11 as an evil act of censorship and infringement on our rights and freedoms are out to lunch.

What Bill C-11 does seek to do, however, is offer some support to our creators and, in particular, to Canadian creators in a minority situation. This support takes two forms: money and increased visibility. Under the bill, the major streaming platforms will have to contribute financially to Canadian culture and they will have to promote and recommend the works of our creators.

[Translation]

This bill is especially important to me as a Quebecer and particularly as a francophone because French is a minority language in a cultural ecosystem where discovery occurs first and foremost on foreign platforms where English is the dominant language.

Let’s be clear. Bill C-11 won’t provide a miracle solution. However, this bill with its rather imperfect regulatory tools constitutes a first step toward giving our creators a chance to make a name for themselves in the flood of global content.

Many unknowns remain, even after a lengthy study in committee. What specific criteria will determine what constitutes Canadian content? How will the visibility of Canadian content be measured? How can we promote Canadian content without making undue changes to the user experience? What does the word “discoverability” even mean? It is rather central to this bill, but it has yet to be defined. It will be up to the CRTC to answer these complex questions, which some people say will just open a can of worms.

Since Bill C-11 was introduced, some critics have found that the discoverability measures in particular constitute an inexcusable violation of consumer preferences and platform algorithms. I don’t see it that way. The market is not a god, and even in the internet age, it is still appropriate for countries to support their culture and defend their cultural sovereignty.

Despite the limitations of Bill C-11, I believe it is essential that Canada deploy legislative and regulatory tools to support its film, music and digital works in the context of globalization. Historically, Canada has taken the necessary steps to ensure that its cultures — particularly its minority cultures — have a voice, exist and are known and appreciated. Of course, with the evolution of technological platforms, it makes sense that our means of intervention should adapt, but the political and cultural imperative remains. Canadian culture, particularly minority and francophone culture, is not a commodity like any other.

I note, however, that Bill C-11 has shone a light on a generational conflict that we must consider. In Quebec in particular, nostalgic people praise the 65% francophone music quota on Quebec radio, which certainly allowed several generations, like mine, to get to know Quebec classics such as Robert Charlebois, Beau Dommage and Harmonium. However, younger people don’t listen to much radio or watch much TV anymore. They are on Spotify or YouTube and they value that freedom, which has increased their listening possibilities tenfold and opened new markets. These are real benefits that no one, even older people, would want to do without now.

The trade-off, however, is that young Quebecers no longer know their local artists, they listen to them less and less, so I’m worried about the sustainability of my culture.

This is a sensitive but crucial issue. We have to strike a balance between wanting to expose users to new Canadian cultural content while protecting their freedom and media consumption experience. I admit that is a major challenge.

In terms of legislation, the internet is still a new subject area that raises a number of issues. Bill C-11 is a first attempt at legislating in favour of Canadian culture, but it is certainly not the end of the line. There are bound to be mistakes and adjustments that have to be made as platforms evolve. This bill actually gives the CRTC a lot of flexibility.

As the committee wrapped up its study, some were still questioning the validity of Bill C-11, but what’s the alternative? I think the status quo isn’t viable for our creators, especially francophone creators. It is magical thinking to believe that market forces will miraculously enable Canada’s francophone creators to survive and have an impact despite being a drop in the ocean. Right now, that francophone content is being drowned out.

When singer David Bussières appeared before the committee, he neatly summed up the situation as follows:

 . . . the longer it takes, the greater the hegemonic effect of the Big Tech oligopoly in distancing audiences from local content. Our cultural identity is ultimately at stake, with all its diversity . . . and the fact that it is home to the only francophone communities in America.

During the study in committee, the senators from the Independent Senators Group, of which I am a member, got the 18 amendments that they moved adopted. Some of those were major amendments.

In my opinion, the most important amendment, which was prepared in cooperation with Senator Paula Simons, strikes to the heart of the debates on Bill C-11, namely, the scope of the exception for content generated by social media users.

The adopted amendment curbs the CRTC’s discretionary power and basically limits the bill’s application to professional music content. This further guarantees that YouTubers will not be targeted by Bill C-11, even if they generate revenue. This amendment also recognizes the fact that the world of cultural creation has changed. Individual creators have flooded social media with special content. They aren’t subsidized. They don’t have money. They manage on their own and they use their own business model. Our amendment helps to better maintain their autonomy.

I personally moved two other amendments, which were adopted. The first was in keeping with the recommendation of the Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, who was of the opinion that Bill C-11 should better respect consumers’ and creators’ right to privacy. That is a significant addition given the considerable exchange of personal information resulting from the regulations.

The other amendment is the result of my long-standing commitment to protecting children from exposure to online pornography — or what is called adult content, which is regularly consumed by millions of children around the world — which causes obvious harm. The objective of Bill C-11 is to give the CRTC the power to regulate online platforms in the same way that it can regulate traditional broadcasters. The CRTC already has the ability to regulate access to sexually explicit content in traditional broadcasting, through cable or satellite, and my amendment only transfers that ability to online content.

The amendment reads as follows:

 . . . online undertakings shall implement methods, such as age-verification methods, to prevent children from accessing programs on the Internet that are devoted to depicting, for a sexual purpose, explicit sexual activity;

This is simply a statement of principle. The regulations and consultations should be carried out before these age verifications go into effect. The objective is simple. We will apply to the internet precautions that exist in the physical world to protect children from adult content.

[English]

I will conclude with a few words about algorithms, which were discussed at length during our committee hearings. These algorithms are, in a way, the secret sauce that determines what content is recommended and put forward for a given user. I say “secret sauce,” because we know almost nothing about these formulas which are closely guarded by the platforms. These algorithms incorporate several variables and data with the goal of attracting and retaining users for as long as possible. Yet, for some, these algorithms are not only confidential but sacrosanct — any attempt to intervene in favour of Canadian content thus constitutes a form of crime against the free market.

Here is what Brock University Professor Blayne Haggart told the committee about algorithms:

Algorithms become one of those magic and scary words that intimidate people, but all they really are is a set of rules that are repeated over and over again. . . . It is a form of regulation.

These privatized discoverability regulations are not designed simply to surface the most popular content or the content that you, the viewer, or reader, are most interested in. These companies do not just tell us what content is popular; they define what popular means. They already create winners and losers and they define popular to fit their own interests, however they decide to define them.

Personally, between private and opaque discoverability rules and public and transparent discoverability norms, I prefer the latter. That being said, I have no doubt that the platforms will adapt intelligently to the new requirements, and that they will continue to offer their Canadian users the content they like and are looking for, in addition to showcasing our creators.

Of course, this is not about censoring anything, or limiting access or distribution of any content. And it’s certainly not about destroying the engaging, modern platforms that we all use every day. It is about updating our means to implement our essential cultural policy. I simply do not see why a country like Canada should accept that private, foreign platforms be the only ones to decide what priority to give to Canadian, Quebec and Indigenous culture.

Adapting our policies and laws to the evolution of technology is not easy. Acting always involves risks. It is always easier to wait or to do nothing. But in this case, as in others, I believe that inaction would be fatal, and that boldness is necessary.

[Translation]

In conclusion, I will resolutely vote in favour of Bill C-11. Thank you.

[English]

Senator Housakos: Will Senator Miville-Dechêne take a question, please?

Senator Miville-Dechêne said that algorithms, in essence, equate to regulation, and it is the furthest thing from the truth. Algorithms, as they’re being used by platforms, are a form of computation. What algorithms do is they follow our habits, and they push up — on their algorithm system — what we want to see.

Regulation is quite the contrary. Regulation is where a group of gatekeepers — a word that is popular these days — be it the CRTC or government legislators, will determine what should be prioritized. That’s very different — algorithm compared to regulation.

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: I completely disagree with you.

Neither you nor I have the formula for the algorithms on the platforms. You say that it’s the most popular content that’s promoted. Frankly, senator, we know nothing about that. For example, is there an agreement with an advertising company that would ask to promote a certain singer or a certain product? We don’t know.

You don’t know the algorithms. I don’t know them either. It is a private company that decides what is going to be promoted. In our culture, in our cultural policies, we have thus far given subsidies to Canadian companies. We have asked broadcasters to broadcast Canadian culture. This isn’t about censorship here, as I’ve mentioned several times. These private companies simply need to leave some room for our Canadian culture. The algorithms certainly don’t provide this freedom that you talk about, which allows only the best to be promoted.

[English]

Hon. Marty Klyne: Good for you.

Hon. Mary Coyle: Honourable senators, I rise to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Dr. Jody Kretzmann, who sadly passed away on January 1.

Best known for his work with the Asset-Based Community Development Institute, or ABCD, originally at Northwestern University and now at DePaul, and for his groundbreaking book Building Communities From the Inside Out, co-authored with John McKnight, Jody Kretzmann helped revolutionize community work from a dependency-creating and often demeaning approach that only sees problems and needs to one that instead recognizes local strengths, assets and valued experiences with local people mobilizing their own assets and building on those. Jody wrote a Harvard Law School reference for Barack Obama, whom he knew from their days of community organizing in Chicago.

At his funeral, attended by people from all over the world, Jody was described as an athlete, organizer, thinker, teacher, a welcoming friend who was a good listener, and a joyful, optimistic man who was nurturing and known for his kindness.

Jody Kretzmann made a huge impact in inner-city Chicago, and his ABCD work inspired tidal waves of impact around the world — several through Coady Institute partnerships. Karri‑Lynn Paul, an Indigenous leader with Coady’s Circle of Abundance, Indigenous Programs, said:

I am excited about using ABCD as a decolonizing method in changing how Indigenous and non-Indigenous people think about and see Indigenous communities. It provides a solid foundation on which to build on the abundance that already exists in Indigenous communities.

Lucía DiPoi, Executive Director of CLE, the Haitian Centre for Leadership and Excellence, said:

In Haiti — with decades of failed, internationally led development — the ABCD approach goes in the opposite direction — working with communities to shine a light on their resources, expertise, talents, priorities and essentially their rights and capacities to determine their own destiny. ABCD has resonated so well in Haiti because of the clear contrast with the old paradigm which only highlights everything Haiti isn’t and everything it lacks.

As I conclude this tribute to Jody, I quote advice from the man himself:

Look for capacities in unexpected places. Be surprised. Welcome everyone. Invite them in. Move slowly and quietly. Be open to what’s there and don’t be looking for something that isn’t there. . . . Toss the ball to others and assume they have the gifts to run with it. . . . Respect everyone . . . .

Jody Kretzmann, I raise, in your honour and with great affection, this glass, half-full, just exactly the way you always saw the world. Wela’lioq, thank you.

Hon. Paula Simons: Honourable senators, on Friday, Edmonton’s journalism community came together to mourn one of their own: Janice Johnston, who covered cops and courts for the CBC. She was a reporter’s reporter, the kind of tough and tender woman who put the broad in broadcaster.

For more than 30 years, Johnston covered some of the biggest crime stories in the country without fear or favour. She went toe to toe with the police, never hesitating to call them to account. At one point, they actually, outrageously, got a warrant to tap her private phone because they were so frustrated that she would not give up her sources. She was just as hard on judges — fighting publication bans because she believed the public had a right to know what went on in public courtrooms.

Along the way, she earned the respect of homicide detectives and Crown prosecutors, defence attorneys and judges, for her precise professionalism and ferocious work ethic.

One of the most important stories of her long career involved an Indigenous woman who had been the victim of a brutal, near-lethal sexual assault. The Crown prosecutor, worried the woman might not show up to testify, had her jailed. The woman was transported to and from court in shackles, right next to the man accused of raping her. Like an avenging angel, Janice worked to expose what had happened.

With passion and heart, she covered murders and child abuse trials, police misconduct hearings and disbarment proceedings. She was a ferocious competitor and loved nothing better than getting the scoop. Very, very occasionally, I would beat her to a story. Watching her fury filled me with glee, because to beat Janice was a victory indeed. It was even more fun when we worked in tandem to fight a publication ban or unseal an exhibit because, while she was a great competitor, she was also a hilarious and inspiring comrade-in-arms.

At her memorial service, her husband Scott, a veteran city hall correspondent, talked about what it was like to live in a house where, he joked, he was always the second-best reporter. Just once in their 36-year marriage he beat her to a story about the resignation of a police chief. She called him moments after his scoop went to air, with words he could not repeat in a United Church.

Earlier, in the 1990s, she worked for CFRN, Edmonton’s CTV affiliate. But when she turned 39, the station’s new managers slowly pulled her off air, replacing her with younger faces. She quit in protest and announced that she was leaving journalism. But she couldn’t be kept away. After a few years as a media consultant, she returned to the fray at CBC, where she did some of her best and most important work — long after her hair went silver.

She’ll be so missed by Scott, their daughter Samantha and their granddaughter Cali, and missed by every Edmontonian who turned to Janice Johnston for truth in our city’s darkest moments.

Thank you, hiy hiy.

[Translation]

Hon. Amina Gerba: Colleagues, as part of Black History Month, I have decided that each week in February I will introduce people of African descent who are helping shape our country.

Today I’d like to introduce you to Habiba Nouhou.

In her mother tongue, Hausa, one of the most widely spoken languages in Africa, an uncle calls his niece, “my daughter.” My husband calls her his daughter, and I do, too.

Perhaps you are wondering why I am using my time in this distinguished place to introduce a completely anonymous, unknown person who is, moreover, a relative of mine. I will simply say that it is because I am proud of her. I am proud of Habiba’s journey. In 1996, my husband and I brought Habiba from Cameroon to give her the opportunity to study in Canada.

She lived with us, first in Montreal North, and then in Laval, while she studied at Polytechnique Montréal for her computer engineering degree and then at the Université de Montréal for a degree in mathematics.

After she graduated, she worked for a few years as a programmer-analyst at Correctional Service Canada, and then as the director of cybersecurity in one of our companies, Geram Communications Inc.

After seeing an ad on television, and with plenty of encouragement from her husband, Ursus Lardé, she decided to apply for the Canadian Armed Forces training program and was accepted in 2019. While in training, she spent time in Saint-Jean, Bagotville and Kingston.

Thanks to her unwavering faith, hard work and perseverance — one of my family’s mottoes — Habiba completed her training in electrical engineering and communications in December 2022. She was promoted to captain and is now seconded as an operations officer for the Canadian Armed Forces’ North Warning System at the DAEPMM in Gatineau.

When asked why she chose to work for the Canadian Armed Forces, she said:

Canada gave me a chance to reach my potential, and I was committed to giving back part of what I received. What could be more amazing than serving in the Canadian Armed Forces?

Esteemed colleagues, please join me in honouring the bravery and determination of my beloved daughter, Habiba Nouhou, and wishing her every success in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Thank you.

Senator Omidvar: Honourable senators, the Wagner Group is well known to all of you by reputation. It is a killing machine for hire made up of lawless mercenaries wreaking havoc in Syria, Libya, the Central African Republic, Mali and now in Ukraine — all to further, purportedly, the foreign policy objectives of President Putin.

If the government acts on this motion, the Wagner Group will not be allowed to enter Canada. Their assets will likely be frozen — they could be seized and repurposed to the victims, which could be justice of its own kind. But the first step in the process is to deem them a terrorist entity, and only the government can do that. Last night in the House of Commons, a unanimous motion with the same wording was adopted.

Let’s join our voices to theirs so that both houses of government can bring their collective voice and influence the government to do the right thing.

This group is a stain on civilization and a stain on our collective humanity. Thank you.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Hon. Tony Loffreda: Honourable senators, sometimes we all need to just “SNAP” out of it. In other words, we need to Stop Now And Plan, or SNAP.

SNAP is a proven, evidence-based, gender- and cultural-sensitive program that teaches children with behavioural problems, and their parents, how to make better choices “in the moment.” It’s an innovative program that equips and empowers youth with effective emotional regulation, self-control and problem-solving skills.

I am a strong advocate for this made-in-Canada success story, which has a major national footprint and global reach.

SNAP was developed by the Child Development Institute in 1985. For nearly 40 years, SNAP has helped thousands, thanks to its award-winning crime prevention program.

SNAP has expanded considerably in recent years and can now be found in over 200 sites across the country, more than 140 schools and over 30 youth justice centres. It has also introduced three apps designed for SNAP children, caregivers and graduates to enhance their SNAP skills.

After this successful initial expansion, SNAP is now aiming higher, bigger and further with its “2.0 version” as it hopes to reach even more kids who might be struggling. SNAP has the tools, experience and knowledge to help them get back on track and, hopefully, remain in school, stay out of trouble, avoid the criminal justice system and become better citizens.

Honourable senators, what makes SNAP so successful is its early detection, intervention and prevention approach. SNAP helps youth learn self-control, problem solving and emotional management. SNAP participants learn to calm down and reflect before reacting, and to seek out positive solutions to their problems related to anti-social and violent behaviours.

SNAP’s proven track record of success is impressive. According to recent data from Washington State, SNAP has one of the highest benefit-to-cost ratios in the “Children’s Mental Health — Disruptive Behaviour” category, with an 86% likelihood that SNAP will produce more benefits than costs.

SNAP has also enjoyed the support of Public Safety Canada, through the National Crime Prevention Centre, thanks to an investment of $10 million. More recently, PSC invested $6.3 million to bring SNAP to 100 communities between 2017 and 2021. The target was exceeded, and SNAP HQ implemented 160 new SNAP sites despite the pandemic.

Honourable senators, I hope you will join me in congratulating and thanking SNAP for the tremendous work it does with some of our most vulnerable youth in helping shape their future for the better.

I encourage you to learn more about SNAP 2.0 and its ambitious goal of increasing its footprint across the country. Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable colleagues, on Christmas Eve, I agreed to sponsor a young Iranian teacher, Mona Afsami, who has been imprisoned since October 19. I did so at the request of the Iranian community in Montreal, which is trying to draw Canadians’ attention to the brutality of the Iranian regime as it executes its opponents. This sponsorship campaign is symbolic, but it gives a face to Iran’s 14,000 political prisoners.

More than 300 European parliamentarians led the way, and about 50 Canadian parliamentarians have followed suit. Senator Ratna Omidvar and I are sponsoring Mona Afsami who has been accused of collusion against national security. She faces five years in prison for daring to protest.

The unrest began last September following the arrest of young Mahsa Amini. For not wearing her headscarf properly, she died in detention, at the hands of law enforcement.

Iranian women took to the streets without their veils to denounce the harassment and oppression they endure. This “feminist revolution” then extended to all Iranians, both men and women, mostly young, who want the end of a regime that is suffocating them. Nearly 470 protesters have allegedly died, including several dozen children. There have been at least four public executions.

The stories coming out of Iran are chilling. Prison guards reportedly severely beat young Elham Modaresi for going on a hunger strike. Her family believes her life to be in danger. Another young woman, Sepideh Qalandari, is said to have died under torture after her arrest in Tehran. Her body was handed over to her family in exchange for a promise of silence.

The torture, crackdown on demonstrations and denial of fundamental justice for detainees have been denounced throughout the world. What can we do?

Canada has very little influence over the Iranian regime as economic and diplomatic relations between the two countries are very limited, but this does not mean that we are completely powerless. The Canadian government could take inspiration from other countries and increase pressure on the Iranian regime by adding the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to the list of 73 terrorist organizations, for example.

After the violent upheavals last year, 2023 will be decisive for Iranians who dream of freedom and for those who have stood with them, including thousands of Canadians. It is time for Canada to deploy all its means to support the aspirations of our friends in Iran: women, life, freedom.

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the Senate, I will move:

That, notwithstanding any provision of the Rules, previous order or usual practice, on Wednesday, February 1, 2023, the Senate adjourn at the earlier of the completion of deliberations on Bill C-11 for that day or midnight.

Senator Manning: Thank you very much.

[English]

I don’t pretend to be an expert in all of this, senator, but I am an avid listener, and I listened to many people who came before the committee.

You’re a bit surprised that I came forward with this; I’m a bit surprised that we’re not talking about any threshold. To go back to Oorbee Roy, the single mom who was facing all kinds of financial issues, found a home on the internet through skateboarding videos and took herself out of poverty, she told us. She established a home for her two children — I believe it was two children, if memory serves me correctly — thanks to the opportunities she had through that process.

I don’t think for a moment that Oorbee Roy is going to become a national broadcaster. I don’t think for a moment that the CBC or CTV are going to have to worry about Oorbee Roy.

What I do worry about is people such as Oorbee Roy who found a way to take herself out of poverty through the internet. She is in great fear now; not only her, but several others came forward to our committee and expressed great fear over the fact that, through the regulatory process, now they are going to have an immense amount of — trying to create that Canadian content, what meets Canadian content, what the final decision of the CRTC is going to be on what is Canadian content, as well as that she will be driven away from that opportunity.

When I looked at Bill C-11 in the beginning, and read through it first — before any amendments were made — I believed then that the purpose of the bill was to create an environment where people such as Oorbee Roy could thrive any place in this world. I come from a community in southern Newfoundland of 300 people. Somebody could make a living in that community through this process.

What I’m concerned about is that the last thing you want in anybody’s face is too much government. I believe that, unless we put a threshold in place, we are putting a roadblock up to people like Oorbee Roy, and many others, who would have the opportunity to not only create something, but to make a living for themselves and their families.

We need to have a threshold; is it $10 million? The question mark is we started at $150 million. We went to 100, 50, 25 — now we are down to 10. Now do we go down to a $20 bill before we agree on something? No; I don’t know. The bottom line is, without any threshold, there is no limit. Oorbee Roy is going to be on the same level as a national broadcaster. To me, that doesn’t make sense.

Senator Manning: If the Senate gives me the opportunity, I have all the time in the world, Your Honour.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Senator Manning, you are out of time. Are you requesting an additional five minutes?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Fabian Manning: Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:

That Bill C-11, as amended, be not now read a third time, but that it be further amended in clause 4 (as amended by the decision of the Senate on December 14, 2022), on page 10, by adding the following after line 32:

[Translation]

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for your answer, Senator Manning. I am trying to reconcile your amendment with the fact that Senator Simons and I removed anything to do with revenue from the amendment that we proposed and that was adopted.

When one reads the amendment, it is very clear that this woman, Ms. Roy, who roller skates and supports her family with her content, will not be affected in any way by Bill C-11. This amendment already guarantees that small content creators will be protected.

I am trying to understand how your amendment would be useful. Basically, what you are saying is that there is a chance that our amendment will be rejected by the government and so yours should be adopted.

I would like to know why your amendment is more likely to be accepted by the government than ours.

[English]

Senator Manning: Of all the things I will try to do in my lifetime, especially on this side, I’m not going to try to answer for what the government is going to do. I am afraid to do that half of the time, but I will leave that for another day.

What I’m concerned about is that, as I said in my remarks, your amendment may not be adopted. Yes, with all good intentions, you and Senator Simons put it forward. Certainly, it was a good amendment at the time — but, the fact is, it may not be adopted.

I am not saying that the government would adopt my amendment. We don’t know if the government will accept any amendment. We have sent back legislation from this chamber to the government, and they have not accepted any amendments that we have put forward at any time. The bottom line is that if we have one amendment, or ten, they may not accept any. The more that we have — at least that gives them some thought to put some thought into it.

The bottom line is that we’re — “protecting” may not be the right word to use — giving those people that we have called, in our discussions, “small players in the field” — giving them an opportunity to, at least, be able to stand on their own two feet, and be able to do what they are doing without interference. I believe the whole purpose of Bill C-11 was to create an avenue to do that.

The reason I put forward the amendment is because I believe that some type of threshold is needed. If we talk about no revenues, as I said, the government may not accept that, but they might be open to accepting a threshold; I don’t know.

I can guarantee you my amendment was put forward with the best intentions to protect those that we have brought before us. In my comments, I mentioned half a dozen of those who came before us and expressed this major valid concern they all have. I’m trying to find a way to address that concern. This is my way. I hope my colleagues support my amendment.