Let me respond to the characterization and I guess respectfully disagree with some of the elements of that, Mr. Garneau.
I would say that in this particular case of Globalive, reasonable minds could differ. The CRTC came to a conclusion for the purposes of the Telecommunications Act that Globalive was not Canadian controlled; we came to a different interpretation.
When we looked at the facts of the case, at the structure of the board of directors, the structure of the voting shares in the company, and, most importantly, the structure of the day-to-day management of the company, in each of those cases, you could conclude, responsibly and reasonably, that it was not foreign controlled.
So there was respectful disagreement. Sometimes that happens in public policy. It was not meant as any disrespect to the CRTC. Based on the facts of the case, we came to a different conclusion, which we think is defensible and correct.
Having said that, in answer to the second part of your question, we have been studying very closely the CRTC's submission to this committee, where they called for changes to legislation as well as content requirements. We're studying that. That all goes into the hopper.
The government has not made any decisions on how exactly to move forward on liberalization of telecom ownership and investment, so anything this committee decides will also go into the hopper.