Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, thanks to everybody. I think the members of the committee will agree with me that this is probably the richest panel we've had to date as far as the various views go. We've had a tendency to see pretty much consensus to this point, and I don't think it'll exist here today.
On the question of the role of the committee, I think reference was made to the fact that we're in a very tricky place. I think it is appropriate for the committee to speak on behalf of the people who see us as their access in some ways, only to express an opinion, only to say this is what we're getting, this is what we think. I don't think that's inappropriate. We're not trying to tell the CBC how to program and do those things.
I think perhaps we would be redundant if the number of witnesses who appeared said they didn't have access in advance of the decision, and that might have meant there would be less need for us to express that interest. So I think it's important. I don't think anybody here wants to get into the very awful place that would be represented by politicians and governments telling a national broadcaster what to do, how to behave, what to think, what to show.
Everyone's passion is obvious. The idea that we have to choose seems to me to be the bigger problem. We're talking about one or the other, when I think we really would like to see a richness of all of it. When we talked to the CBC about the possibility of Radio 3, they spoke to us about the lack of availability of bandwidth to do that. I don't understand the technicalities of that, but I'd like to know if that is something worth pursuing, to your minds, so that this becomes less of a pushing aside--I think somebody used that reference--or a standing aside and letting others on to have the same access. Is that a possible resolution?
Finally, the committee has produced a report recommending significant increases to the funding for the CBC. If this is a resources issue, how would you feel about us recommending that any decision be held until we find out how the government responds? The government is due to respond on June 28. It strikes me that if in their response to that report they accept that they need to do the seven-year memorandum...at the very least, before large decisions are made within the present environment, they should wait to see what the new environment might look like.
I leave that open for members to answer.