I'm not going to belabour this, but I am going to seek a recommendation of this committee that we put an end to distant signal because it's hurting local television stations. In fact, an awful lot of stations are just going to become retransmission centres for large networks, and they're not going to reflect local communities at all if we don't address this issue.
Now, in part (c) you talk about “exploring mechanisms for establishing through negotiation...” . I'm going to ask you a two-part question. We had a release from the cable companies on Friday that they sent you a letter complaining about the conduct of a broadcaster with respect to their advocacy for fee-for-carriage. Is that a legitimate complaint or is it not?
Secondly, why do you think this would work at all? Why do you think they'd be able to come to a negotiated settlement? I think it's just fee-for-carriage under another name. I think we've got a system. We established a local program improvement fund. You're looking at increasing that, and now you're looking at putting a fee for carriage in place, or a fee, and this is all going to be passed on. Mr. Angus talked about Canadians. I'm concerned about Canadians and I'm concerned about the amount their bills are going to go up—because they are going to go up. You certainly can't say you're going to provide money on this side and cap it on the other side. That's certainly not a free-market way of doing things.
Why do you think this would work? And was that a legitimate concern that was written to you on Friday?