I would apply the chair of the CRTC's confidence in good faith to my colleague and say that I think I know what he's trying to get at, and I can be supportive of that. I would agree with Mr. Angus that we may have to bring more clarity to this.
I think there is language that exists in law that would speak to distinguishing between certain levels of decisions in terms of whether it's a broad public policy as against a transactional thing that happens from time to time and day to day.
What we're trying to get at are the broader issues, the ones that would profoundly affect the industry. Just the confusion between whose job it is to deal with the issue that we've had for the last couple of months really does speak to this fact. I would argue this is a broad public policy issue that we're dealing with. The CRTC stepped in because somebody was withholding funds and so they've taken it upon themselves to do this.
Now, that's a different issue, but it speaks to the same thing. I think there's a way we can find language that would capture the idea that Parliament should be engaged in those broad critical issues without necessarily being drawn into transactional things within the government.
I think there's a place that we can find support for this.