The information you cited is correct, but I do chafe a little bit at your use of the word “funding”, because we give cost awards.
I want to explain very quickly that you are correct in saying that the process was different, and there was a reason for that. It was not only CMAC. There were nine, I believe, organizations that received support for intervening in that process on accessibility. The hearing was under the accessibility act, and we cannot award costs like broadcasting under the accessibility act. Bell Canada offered. It had excess funds associated with something called the deferral account. I won't go into it. It is, if you will, an outstanding obligation, and they offered us the opportunity to pay costs using it and we took that up.
Normally, those processes determine how to apportion the costs and if there are any objections to the cost awards. Bell had no objections. They were the sole supplier of funding, and so we did forgo any further process for all of those parties.