The Hill Times is reporting that "debate" on Bill C-11 will start later today. During the debate, take note of what components of the bill get discussed and which parts are misunderstood and/or shoved under the rug.
I like to break the bill up into 4 parts (quadrants) based on two axis: Is the policy related to copyright, or Paracopyright (technical measures, etc). The other axis is whether the policy is related to the two 1996 WIPO treaties, or not.
WIPO+Copyright: least controversial, and least discussed.
non-WIPO+Copyright: likely the 2'nd most discussed, and includes things like the expansion of fair dealings. This is also where all the "good" stuff is when it comes to the perspective of audiences of creative works and small/independent creators.
WIPO+Paracopyright: This is the part of technical measures that are "use" controls and where the protection of those use controls are tied to otherwise infringing activities. This is what people like Geist are calling for: that the TPM parts of the bill do what WIPO suggested, and no more!
non-WIPO+Paracopyright: This is the least understood, and part the government most avoids talking about. Any discussion of "access controls" or protection of "use controls" for activities not otherwise infringing copyright falls here. The government claims this is what the WIPO treaties ask for, or what our trading partners have done, all of which is false. This is also the part of the new law that will be abused the most by the holders of the keys to the "digital locks" people keep talking about. In the vast majority of real-world scenarios, the owner of the locked thing (the copyrighted content, the digital technology/devices) are not the key holders. Often the purpose of the lock is to circumvent the rights of the owner. Far from protecting the rights of owners, these provisions of the bill will enable and even legally protect abuse.
Hope this helps put some context to the non-debate we will see today.