Sir, you actually position it very well. There are really two parts to this. If we had known that we could have a different structure, with almost all of our money coming from foreigners, we would have been able to bring on more capital and buy more spectrum. We could have bought spectrum in Vancouver. The good news is that we're in Ontario and Quebec, the most densely populated areas of Canada. So we have 19 million people we can serve. We would have been on more spectrum if we had access to more capital.
However, more importantly, in our mind, we believe that what the government did amounts to a change in the law, which is why we've asked for a Federal Court ruling on this. All we're asking for is that the same rules be applied to us.
I don't want to make any more political gaffes in terms of the parties, but let's deal with something that we all know, whether we are from Quebec, Ontario, or B.C. This is like a hockey game, and in a game of hockey there are rules, and they say you're allowed to put five players on the ice. My colleagues agree with me: capital is the lifeblood. Capital is what allows you to grow and play the game harder. By allowing foreign capital or a higher degree of foreign capital for Globalive, you're allowing them to have six players on the ice, and you're causing Public Mobile and everybody else in the game to have only five players on the ice. That's just wrong. It's not just wrong for us, but here's why it's wrong in the long run.
Investment in this country is going to be driven by a level of certainty. Certainty is going to drive more investment. What we actually have in Canada right now is a situation where there's uncertainty. There's uncertainty because sometimes we apply the rules and sometimes we reverse the rules, and sometimes we don't apply the rules. So let's decide what the rules are and let's apply them fairly to all players. We want six players on the ice, if that's what's allowed.