I would like to, actually, and I would like Richard to comment, since he's the point man on precisely the problem.
I would say, Mr. Abbott, we're going to have a problem with English television for a long, long time, simply because of the level of competition and the alternatives that exist in the English market. But I believe very strongly that there is a role beyond hockey and beyond the Olympics in English television, and if we can't fulfill that role the government will have to decide what to do about it.
I believe there's an unbelievably important role in terms of telling Canadian stories, doing Canadian dramas, and doing it in the hours of prime time and not as fillers in order to meet conditions of licence. Some of it is done very well by the private sector, but our job is to do quality Canadian programming, not only news and current affairs, but drama and various forms of drama. Drama, I would say, is a very broad term. In the BBC's new licence renewal, that word “drama” is dropped and is replaced with the word “entertainment”. It says the public broadcaster must do entertaining programming.
So I believe we have to do that. It's a challenge--and I don't want to really get into it today--because we are grossly underfunded, given the costs involved for production. That's one of the reasons why we're pushing some things like subscriber fees. That's why we were pushing what we have done internally to generate new funds, because all of it goes right back into programming. This is why I'd be more than willing to go through all this with you. But we do have a strategy. Whether it works or not, only time will tell. The Canadian public will vote; they'll vote with their flipper, as we say.
Richard, do you want to go into a bit of this? I think it's really important.