My concern about changing Mr. Kotto's motion too much is that it was a heritage committee focus in the 38th Parliament. We asked CBC to report back to us on their plan for regional broadcast. We never really did come up with a satisfactory answer. We asked CBC to bring forward issues on domestic drama content. This committee has established a clear stake in CBC reviews, because we've been carrying them out. We were reviewing Mr. Rabinovitch's mandate; we brought him forward. So we are part of a CBC review, however it's structured.
My concern with changing this too much is that there might be wild speculation in the media. But I have no reason not to believe that wild speculation at this point because I haven't heard how this, whether it's a review or an independent task force, is going to be mandated. We have to be able to meet the people who are going to do the work, whether it's a committee or a group, and there's no reference to that. If there are three people being chosen—or five, ten, or fifteen—why are they being chosen when it has been an area of special interest to this committee and an area of this committee's expertise?
I'm wary about moving too far from Mr. Kotto's motion. At the very least, I'd say that regarding input into the terms of reference, we have input into the membership of this review team, or at least have the chance to cross-examine or meet them.