Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to thank you for coming and expressing your opinion on this extremely important subject. Your views are very important to us and I want to assure you that, for my party, our country's cultural sovereignty is not negotiable. It is absolutely essential that we protect our culture here in Canada. I am very pleased that the broadcasting legislation is not on the table today or in the coming months.
I have a question for all of you. There's a hypothesis floating around a lot these days that says Canadians are not getting sufficient access--I'm talking to not just old media but primarily new media--and that Canadians are not getting sufficient access to the information they want to have. They're not getting it at the costs they would like. They're not getting the choice they would like. They're not getting the speeds they would like when we're talking about the Internet.
There's the theory brought forward that, “Well, we can solve this, because the problem is due to a lack of competition.” Following through on that reasoning, the next point that's brought up is, “Well, we can increase competition by having greater foreign investment, and we therefore should consider foreign ownership as well to bring in this outside capital.”
Of course, the whole issue came above the radar screen with the recent decision concerning Globalive, where the government reversed the CRTC's decision and decided, in fact, that Globalive satisfied Canadian requirements—and, in my opinion, effectively changed foreign ownership rules unilaterally in the process of making that decision. But the government certainly wants to look at foreign ownership. They've made it very clear in their throne speech.
What do you think of the hypothesis I've brought forward that Canadians want more, they believe competition will help, and competition requires foreign ownership? Is that a flawed solution?
I would like to hear your opinions on that.