Not at all. As I said, right now companies in the private sector are controlling the community sector, and the community sector hasn't been given any access to any of the sources of funding available to the other sectors. At the spring hearing one of the things we said was instead of creating really complicated regulations to try to force big BDUs to do something they clearly don't want to do any more, we don't care about those channels they're running. If they want to run those channels, let them do it. The point is they were collecting money from subscribers for access. If you gave us separate licences and the communities administered them, they'd be answerable to themselves, and we wouldn't get into these same complicated “lack of reports” and “lack of accountability” that the accessibility is raising.
We find that by having everything consolidated like that it's causing more trouble for the CRTC, because then they have problems trying to monitor to make it fair all the time for little operators, whereas if they'd kept the playing field level in the first place, there wouldn't be that need for all this follow-up legislation and reports to monitor it. It's a problem.
Mrs. Crombie asked about the community access media fund. Appendix 2, which you'll get next week, has the way we see it being structured and operating and budgets for individual channels and so on.