For us, I would see the biggest impact on the consumers I represent is that people just will no longer be able to afford a phone at the rates that I had earlier addressed in my opening comments.
For someone who is on a disability income, if they're paying $55 a month, that could be potentially 10% of their income. It simply wouldn't be affordable. It would be the choice between food and housing and a telephone, so they would rely on the remaining pay phones that are left out there, and they certainly wouldn't have any access to the Internet at all.
So I'd like to go back. I think that's the appropriate way to proceed until competition has really taken a firm grip and we actually see it. It's not likely, given what I've heard, that we are going to go back, but that doesn't mean those recommendations shouldn't be made if you have the evidence before you to show why they shouldn't be made. And I say that to protect consumers. Perhaps something should be done and some recommendation should be made.
There are the lifeline programs in the United States that might be interesting to look at. These programs protect low-income consumers, particularly. I would refer you to a report commissioned by Human Resources Development Canada in 2002. It is by Philippa Lawson, former counsel at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. She describes these in detail. I will provide that to the clerk.