Let me begin by saying, first of all to Mr. Garneau, that in terms of the cost, speed, choice, information, etc., all you have to do is look at the ads or read the AGMs of all the big companies: they have those bases covered. Look at the ads; they have speed, choice, and so on. So I think the very companies that you suggest might benefit from foreign ownership will tell both shareholders and customers that they have the bases covered right now.
On our concern about the crossover between foreign ownership, particularly in broadcasting, I'm not going to review the entanglement we now have with telecommunications and broadcasting. I think it's self-evident. Again, all you have to do is look at the ads and see where the Internet, television, and telecommunications intersect. It's there that it's happening.
Let me give you an example that will demonstrate our concern. Say Fox News buys CTV, or has enough muscle, in terms of its investment, to start making some decisions or helping some decisions. Why wouldn't Fox News ask why they need a Canadian correspondent and a U.S. correspondent in Jerusalem? Why wouldn't they ask if they need only one correspondent there? And believe you me, that one correspondent will be American. Why do we need so many correspondents and reporters on the Hill? Why do we have...? There will be a shaping of Canadian news that is not there now, a polarization of Canadian news that is not there now but is clearly there in the American media.
More importantly, we have a very distinct point of view on both our own politics and international politics that I think in some ways we can be very proud of. It helps provide the stature we have in this world. If we start to allow foreign investment to shape that kind of coverage, we will find ourselves in serious trouble.