I want to have that clarified. You could put a major investment into a top-notch Canadian show that will eventually be watched in the U.S. and sold there, but it's being sold at a discount on a Friday night when you're getting less revenue. So when they tell us they're carrying the great burden of Canadian programming, they've already discounted it as compared with the American ones.
I need to ask another question before my time runs out. It refers to subsection 19.1 of the Income Tax Act. If I'm a business in Toronto or Windsor, I might want to advertise in Buffalo or Detroit. I can't do that because of the Income Tax Act. I have to put my advertising on a Canadian network. It's an obligation; it's a regulation; it's not optional. It's worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in a protected market.
Why is it that if broadcasters are in non-compliance with their licence, that's optional? There are no penalties for being in non-compliance. I'm looking at some of the records of the testimony before the CRTC, and there are clearly frustrated companies who are allowed to be massively consolidated, make commitments to show programming, then simply don't. The only tool the CRTC has is execution. You're not going to use the execution tool very often, if that's the only tool you have. Why is it that compliance with a licence for a public service should be voluntary, whereas for Joe Businessman who wants to advertise in Buffalo, there's nothing voluntary and he's stuck and has to advertise in a protected market? Is that the case?