As a manager in the public service, what gets measured is what gets done, so I'm always focusing on the results story.
Some of that is occurring now in different venues. The CBC assesses itself in its annual reports on how they think Canadians view them themselves. That's a self-awareness, a self-assessment of that.
As well, the fact that we have a periodic appointment every six, seven, or eight years with the CRTC is another opportunity for that to occur. Of course, parliamentary studies such as this are another one, and we've seen that there have been a few in the recent past.
So they're there, but they may not be as systematic as they could otherwise be, and as clear. They're based on the mandate as it exists now.
My point would be that as you do the study, you will hear lots of views. Everybody has an opinion, and that's healthy and good. But it's important not just to say what the mandate ought to be, but how we'll measure whether they are meeting that mandate for Canadians.
There are tools now. The Auditor General, in her comments, suggested that maybe we could do a better job in measuring results. Certainly that's based on the current mandate. As you move forward and look at what the future holds, you'll have to come up with a whole list of indicators of success in terms of reaching the goal.