Just before I ask the expert, I think it has to be clearer that both Shaw and Vidéotron did not violate any law. It was an annual payment that they had to make. That was obvious here. So they didn't violate, and this would not take effect. If what we have said in recommendation 3, “that broadcasting distribution undertakings must make monthly, rather than annual, contributions”, had that been there, these people would have been in defiance of the law. Then it would be my understanding that subsection 32(2) would be applied. Again, what I heard was that to pull the licence from someone is a very, very drastic thing. So these penalties are there.
But my understanding, Mr. Kotto, is that they did not violate the law as it is written. If recommendation 3 did become law--and that is our recommendation--then I think subsection 32(2) then would be applicable. Am I correct? I could be wrong.