Thanks for the question.
It's hard to know what I would have said about it when I was eight years old. I don't know if I'm sure what I would have said in protecting some of the Canadian institutions you're referring to.
I think, though, that where we adopted more protectionist measures or measures that recognized a scarcity of either availability of, let's say, airwaves or things like that, important national policies and priorities needed to be reflected in the system when you had those limitations built in. It was unsurprising, I think, and largely appropriate to try to establish some measures to ensure that Canadians would see their country reflected in a system where there were those limitations.
What has changed in the decades since we adopted many of those policies is that, as everyone knows, we are in an era of abundance, not of scarcity. The fact is that there is in a sense too much choice, which then proliferates or disperses the potential revenues to so many players that it makes it difficult for certain individuals to succeed, at least in the way they did before. It is unquestionably transformative and represents a real challenge. I think it's also still at a really early stage, even when you look at those various headlines.
I see a lot of news that can be seen as quite discouraging, and it certainly is for many. At the same time, it suggests that what we are seeing is a lot of experimentation. We are at early days here. Coming in with new legislative solutions at a very early stage of trying to figure this out is one of the things I'm trying to caution against.