I concur with my colleague Mr. Warkentin. Typically condemnation takes place when there has been an action of moral reprehensibility. We do that in the criminal law, in our sentencing structures. It's not something we do when someone has stayed completely within the law.
The testimony is clear. From all the witnesses we've heard from, there's a general consensus that the circulars that were issued, which supposedly required monthly payments by Shaw and Vidéotron, were not legally binding. They were imposed on those parties without a legal force behind them. It's quite another issue to discuss the annual payments, because those are required by regulation. But to suggest that we're now going to condemn these two entities...because they have stayed completely within the law, they've brought an issue forward that apparently hasn't been addressed for anywhere from five to ten years, testimony showed. This problem has been percolating for a long time. You can't blame these two entities for having now been forced into the position where they have to get a little tougher to make sure that we, as a committee, and the minister understand that there was a problem.