I am sorry.
I would like to get back to the threat to culture. I have a few statements to make and I will be pausing so that you may get consecutive translation.
Canada was the first country in the world to sign the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions. That was done for fundamental reasons. You did not seem to comprehend its outcome. Canada and Quebec live next door to a cultural giant, I will even refer to it as an empire, the United States.
The vice-president of CBC/Radio Canada was even quoted as saying that Canadians were the only people in the world to prefer watching their neighbour's television. In Quebec, we have a fully functioning star system, with a significant audience, thanks to our system receiving government support, and because there are regulations and legislation. This support is sustained and lasting.
In the area of telecommunications, if you control access you can control content. Telecommunications companies such as wireless telecommunications companies are now making cultural choices by offering free applications, films and access to a host of cultural activities through their technology. Wireless telecommunications are currently governed by the Telecommunications Act. That amounts to a real problem.
The system has been working well to date. The system needs to be updated and modernized. However, it is clear that foreign ownership complicates matters. From a cultural standpoint, and even from an economic standpoint, we do not see the need to change these rules. To date we have seen no evidence here in Canada that it would work as it has in the European Union. In Europe there are ten people for every foot of fibre optic cable whereas here there is one per every thousand feet. Obviously, that is an exaggeration; those are not exact figures.
Why change this when the cultural threat to Canada and Quebec is real? What is your interest in imposing new foreign ownership rules on Canada and Quebec?