There are several things.
First of all, Jim, thank you very much for your questions. I think they're well put. But at the same time, I think there's a difference in what we're doing at a standing committee of Parliament. Sometimes, as you know, when we're providing some studies and we're pushing the envelope to the government from our own perspective, we're doing exactly that.
So tomorrow we'll have a motion. It's opposition day, and we will talk about the future of la télévision généraliste. So I think it's consistent. We're doing our job and we're saying what we think because we're focusing on those kinds of issues. So I think it's a valid point to talk about and I think the motion plus the amendment will provide that.
Secondly, the reason I'm talking about a basic level, un certain niveau, I totally agree with you that we shouldn't be there to tell the CRTC or do the job of the CRTC. But at the same time, as a government, as a Parliament, we have the capacity to define some orientation. And the purpose of the motion, which is good, is we're not talking specifically about TQS. We're talking about télévision généraliste because there's an issue there. We know for sure that TQS might be just the first of many that will suffer the same situation. We all know that since 1999 there's been a new policy for the future of.... How do you say la télévision généraliste? Conventional broadcasting. Thanks, Bill.
And we all know there's a precedent with Toronto 1, which became Sun TV. There was a situation there. Now we don't want to ask, and that's the reason I'm talking about un certain niveau. We're not saying we will have exactly the same thing and this is what you should do and define percentages and keep the same people there. By talking about a basic level we're saying conventional television includes an information service, so we need to keep a certain level.
That's why I believe the amendment is important. And when we're talking about regional sensitivity, I think there's no way we can have a regional approach without thinking about local production, because if that's not the case everything will be based out of Montreal or from the Quebec area or from Toronto, and we all know that became a problem for the regions, which don't feel their television necessarily represents their regional point of view.
That's why I think that by talking about conventional television here, we're not talking about a specific case--and I know exactly what you're talking about--but at the same time some ministers in the past said they felt they would have to take a decision. We can, after the fact, go through cabinet and decide on the situation. Remember radio satellite and all that. But I don't see any intrusion if we have a minister who tries to define the future of conventional television, because it is a major issue. And I know for a fact that after TQS you might have TVA, which will say we already have our specialized news network and we will get rid of the others. We can talk about that.
So by keeping it in a principled way and by having those levels of amendments, I truly believe that not only are we doing our job but we are respectful of exactly the point you were talking about.