I'm not sure what those funding projects are.
As I said in the earlier piece, consistent application of magazine policy and a fairly stable environment have allowed the industry to really concentrate on investing in Canadian artists and Canadian photographers and make more and more of our content available and accessible to Canadians.
I certainly understand the issue with Newfoundland, because it's a big country and sparsely populated, and magazines are a heavy, physical product. To get them from one place to another is a major challenge, compared to that of our partners to the south, who have a big entertainment and magazine industry and can easily get into the Canadian marketplace and compete directly with us.
What's happened, in our experience, is that every ten years or so there's a major review of magazine policy and programs. It happened with the Perrin Beatty review back in the early nineties; it happened in the late nineties with Minister Copps and the relationship with the United States that was agreed to. Now we're going through another similar review, where we're updating and improving the framework for magazines and making it more relevant in today's economy.
From the point of view of consultations on the questions there, I would say there was no specific consultation on the specific cut to a part of our programming, but I wouldn't want to leave that impression from the point of view of the department's consultation around our programs, policy framework, and the priorities the sector has for the future. We've been very well consulted by the department. They've done summative evaluations, public consultations, and round table meetings across the country. We've had lots of opportunity for input to that, not on the specific question about cuts, but certainly in terms of their understanding the priorities and needs of the sector as it evolves and the needs of the sector to continue the success we've had, as new technologies like online magazines and so on become available.