Let me start, and I'm sure Ken has a bit of a point on this too. We think that diverting the funding through an indirect method to the CBC is the wrong way to approach that funding, and that the government or the committee or whoever decides to fund it should do it directly so that it's transparent across the board.
When we look at things, we see things such as there's never been an audited program from the group at the production fund; there's no auditing accountability; there's no ability for anyone to judge. My father was always big on saying that you can only judge what you can measure. You have to be able to measure something, and you have to be able to measure whether it's a success or it's not a success. Not everyone's going to say “great”, but I know other people have funds that return almost all of the money—now they maybe don't make a lot—but we don't return any of the money. If you're a producer and you get a program approved by the fund, you get a 20% kick. Well, I'd like to get a 20% kick too on everything Shaw does, but I don't. I just think there are some fundamental rules we have to get in place.
I also question the size of the board. When you have a board of 20 people, you'll have a hard time getting anything done. And what are the qualifications of that board? Have they delivered? If they haven't...as I said the other day, even I would get fired by my father.